An effort to block the construction of a high-rise residential tower on the Downtown Southbank will continue after the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee declined Tuesday to block an appeal of the project.
GV-IP Jacksonville Owner LLC is appealing a decision by the Downtown Investment Authority upholding the Downtown Development Review Board’s approval of a proposed 13-story residential development along Prudential Drive.
Jacksonville-based Ventures Development Group’s project includes a three-level parking garage to be built within the tower, along with 12 public surface-level spaces for access to the Riverwalk.
Other amenities include a private courtyard and pool along with 53,000 square feet of open space along the riverfront for the public.
The DDRB voted 4-1 to approve the project June 1.
The 2.9-acre property is owned by South Shore Riverpointe Holdings LLC and sits between the Acosta Bridge and the Aetna Building.
Ventures originally was scheduled to purchase the land by Oct. 18. The closing date has been moved to Jan. 15, contingent on the result of the appeal.
GV-IP, a Chicago-based company, owns the neighboring 6.5 acres at 841 Prudential Drive, including the Aetna Building.
The appeal is based on the argument that the DDRB failed to adhere to certain design criteria rules when approving Venture’s project, with five deviations from the zoning code, specifically guidelines on required parking and building height.
Those deviations include a reduction in required parking from 559 spaces to a minimum of 337 spaces; altered landscaping along adjacent railroad tracks at the east end of the development to provide a buffer; an increase in the allowed building height from 60 feet to 190 feet; and reduced setbacks from the riverfront bulkheads in certain areas from 50 feet to 25 feet.
On Aug. 16, the DIA denied GV-IP’s initial appeal 4-1, with the lone dissenting vote coming from authority Chair Jim Bailey.
Council members voted on two issues Tuesday night, including whether GV-IP and the surrounding property owners were given due process and proper notice to weigh in on the project during the DDRB review.
“The thing that I think is pretty simple to dispose of, and what I was recommending we make a finding on right now, is due process,” said Land Use and Zoning Committee Vice Chair Lori Boyer.
“I don’t see anything in the record before us that disputes that,” she said.
The committee voted unanimously to approve that finding.
The other issue is whether the DDRB made the right choice in approving the deviations, especially one that allows the project to exceed the 60-foot height limit.
Holland & Knight attorney Daniel Bean, representing GV-IP, told council members the project is “motivated by profits,” saying Ventures has been unwilling to compromise on the building’s proposed 190-foot height or residential density despite it causing a possible hardship on neighboring properties.
“This doesn’t have to be 190 feet,” said Bean. “That’s a decision they’re making.”
Attorney Paul Harden, who represented Baptist Health during the DIA hearing, argued the building’s height would harm future office rental rates because the new structure would block views of the river and the Northbank for tenants in the Aetna Building.
Both attorneys emphasized the project’s potential impact on traffic conditions, too, saying it would increase the current congestion during peak hours.
“We believe the DDRB made the correct decision based on the applicable law and criteria,” said Steve Diebenow, the Driver, McAfee, Peek & Hawthorne attorney representing Ventures.
“Our position is there is no need to remand this at all,” he said in response Bean’s comments.
Boyer disagreed with Diebenow.
She said she believed the DDRB failed to take into consideration how the new tower would impact the river views of the existing office building, and called into question some of the experts who gave testimony at the DIA appeal in August.
The committee voted to send the appeal back to the DDRB, outlining seven items to consider before making a final decision:
DDRB needs to discuss each deviation independently, taking into consideration the actual statute outlining each deviation; evaluate any evidence presented during the appeal for competency and substantiality; review and consider the total regulation from which the deviations are requested; determine, based on the evidence, whether criteria enumerated in the zoning code have been satisfied; make findings describing the evidence relied upon with respect to each criteria for each deviation; authorize a deviation only if a positive finding has been made on criteria set forth in the Downtown district regulations; and that any consideration of the DDRB should be based on all evidence presented, including the full record on appeal and any new evidence presented.
The DDRB will have 10 business days to schedule a special meeting to re-review the appeal and make a final decision on behalf of the city.
If the DDRB is unable to meet, the DIA will hear the issue.
In either case, that decision will be the city’s final word on the appeal.
Should either side disagree with that decision, the issue could land in Circuit Court in the form of a lawsuit.