Council approves rezoning for five single-family lots on Stockton Street after parking mitigation condition

Jacksonville City Council voted 6-0 to approve PUD rezoning ordinance 2024-0539, allowing a developer to reconfigure a 0.23-acre parcel along Stockton Street in the Riverside‑Avondale historic overlay into five single‑family residential lots. The council attached a condition directing the applicant to "minimize the impact on parking to the extent practicable" during construction.

The rezoning replaces a prior 2009 PUD that allowed multifamily and commercial uses on the site and would reduce the site’s theoretical trip generation (staff and the applicant contrasted roughly 800 daily trips for a three‑story commercial development with about 50 daily trips from five houses). Planning staff recommended approval, finding the new PUD consistent with the city’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Riverside‑Avondale overlay, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval after hearing opposition testimony at its August hearing.

Neighbors and local business owners gave extended public comment opposing the proposal, citing worries about parking, flooding and pedestrian safety. Thomas Licato, who identified himself as a resident of the nearby John Gory condominium, said the proposed 30‑foot‑tall row homes would “change the nature of the historic district” and exacerbate parking and traffic problems on Stockton. Garth (Ernest) Cooper, owner of a nearby bicycle shop, told the committee the block already has limited parking and asked the city to consider preserving the parcel as green space. Zach Barnett, owner of Bold Bean Coffee, said increased impervious surface could worsen local flooding. Scott Crowley of Focus Physical Therapy said his practice serves many older patients and described crossings where water already pools and visibility and safety are concerns.

The applicant, Greg Matovina, and his representatives told the committee the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that the site plan shows detached single‑family dwellings that would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Matovina also said the current development rights for the parcel allowed commercial uses with no required parking, and that the proposed PUD would maintain the existing parking approach: on‑street parking in vehicle use areas (VUA) of the right of way.

Council members pressed the applicant about mitigation during construction. Councilman Miller reported what he said were 35 parking spaces currently serving the businesses across Stockton, and said “20 spaces… will be taken offline for a year or more for the construction,” leaving only about 15 regular spaces during work. Several council members asked whether the developer could stage construction to remove only some spaces at a time, provide valet or other temporary parking relief, or otherwise coordinate to protect nearby businesses and the physical‑therapy patients who rely on proximate parking. The applicant said he could not commit to a fixed number of spaces to be taken out of service at any time, but offered to “minimize to the extent practical the impact on the parking during the construction timeframe,” and said the sequencing could be coordinated so not all spaces would be taken out simultaneously when possible.

Council members debated whether the PUD could be conditioned to require on‑site parking for the future homes; planning staff told the committee that the existing PUD language and the Riverside‑Avondale overlay allow deviations from parking standards and that the current entitlement also did not require additional on‑site parking. Some council members said they favored the rezoning as a down‑zoning relative to the existing commercial entitlement, noting that commercial redevelopment could generate far more trips, while others urged stronger, enforceable mitigation for businesses. The committee adopted a compromise amendment — a condition that the developer minimize parking impacts "to the extent practicable" during construction — offered as language the applicant accepted, and then approved the rezoning as amended.

The council’s action was unanimous (6 yeas, 0 nays). The ordinance as amended requires subsequent compliance with site plan, historic review and civil plan review (including drainage) during permitting. Planning staff advised that drainage and flood‑control measures will be reviewed at civil plan stage and that the site is not in a mapped flood zone, but that civil review must ensure the development does not increase runoff onto neighboring properties.

Votes at the meeting, public comment and technical staff materials indicate the primary outstanding issues for implementation are (1) construction sequencing and parking mitigation while utility work and roadway restoration occur, (2) civil plan drainage review to control runoff, and (3) review by the Historic Preservation Commission for the design of each proposed dwelling. Council members and the applicant agreed to continue discussions about construction sequencing and coordination with JEA and Public Works before and during construction.

For neighbors, the central unresolved concerns were practical: how many on‑street spaces would be lost at any given time, how long construction would disrupt the businesses on Stockton, and whether the increase in impervious surfaces would affect existing drainage problems at the nearby crosswalks and intersections. The developer and planning staff said those operational details will be handled during the civil and permitting stages.

The council’s approval moves the project to the site‑plan and permitting phases; any change to the PUD or to the condition agreed by the developer would require a future council action.