Jacksonville Beach approves first reading of rezoning for 102 Sixth Avenue North for mixed‑use redevelopment

Jacksonville Beach City Council on June 2 approved on first reading an ordinance to rezone the property at 102 Sixth Avenue North from Central Business District (CBD) to Redevelopment District (RD), permitting a proposed mixed‑use redevelopment that could rise to the 59‑foot vested height granted under a prior settlement.

The rezoning matter is the first step in a quasi‑judicial process required under Florida law. Planning Director Heather Ireland told the council the application was accompanied by staff and Planning Commission recommendations finding the project consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. "The settlement itself is written very strangely as far as each property's individual requirements," Ireland said, describing how different properties received unique provisions when the city’s oceanfront height rules were revised.

The developer, Corner Lot Development Group, represented by attorney Michael Sitner and principal Billy Zeitz, presented conceptual plans showing a 59‑foot building with ground‑floor commercial frontage on First Street and Sixth Avenue North, structured parking with a centralized garage accessed from Second Street, and either for‑sale condominiums or hotel rooms above. "Our intention has been from the onset to work directly with the staff and with the code to ensure that our project was not only compatible with the Central Business District," Zeitz said. He told council the design emphasizes pedestrian corridors, shaded walkways and internalized parking to reduce on‑street demand.

Members of the public offered both support and concern during the public hearing. Longtime resident Roger Whiting said taller buildings historically had setbacks that kept upper floors off sidewalks and warned that a full‑lot build‑out could cast shadows onto pedestrian ways. "This is a percent lot coverage, meaning it's gonna be to the sidewalks all the way around," Whiting said, adding concern about continuous shadowing. Thad Mosley, a nearby property owner, urged approval, saying the development would "bring people and businesses to Jacksonville Beach." Architect and resident Gary Paytel praised the proposal’s compatibility with the 2007 vision plan for the corridor and suggested improving an adjacent alley.

Council discussion focused on setbacks, shadows, parking and use restrictions. Ireland noted that under the settlement and the proposed RD zoning the property could legally have zero setbacks on some frontages and that the city and CRA have encouraged shaded promenades in the downtown area. She also said the project will be required to pay into the city’s mobility fee fund for offsite transportation improvements; the exact fee is calculated later in the building‑permit process. Council members pressed the applicant on parking operations; the developer said the garage will provide significantly more parking than code requires and that some parking will be available to the public and commercial tenants. Zeitz agreed the developer would signpost parking and consider employee parking provisions to limit employee use of public spaces.

Council asked staff and the applicant to add explicit language to the RD ordinance narrative to clarify prohibited uses (council requested bars, lounges, nightclubs and taverns be listed as prohibited) and to include a condition addressing employee parking and the alleyway utilities and options. Planning staff and the applicant indicated those provisions could be added before second reading. The council scheduled a second reading for June 16 and directed staff to provide the revised ordinance language to council several days before that meeting for review.

On the roll call vote for first reading the council recorded: Council member Horn — yes; Council member Jansen — yes; Council member Sutton — yes; Council member Wagner — yes; Council member Wouters — no; Council member Golding — yes; Mayor Christine H. Hoffman — yes. The motion to approve the ordinance on first reading carried 6–1.

If approved at second reading, the RD zoning would allow the developer to proceed with final site and building plans and subsequent permitting. The applicant noted the RD application intentionally allows flexibility between condominiums and hotel rooms while the final market decision is made; council members asked that specific conditions be added to the ordinance language and included in the record before final action.