It's a little skinnier. Are you ready? Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Today is Wednesday, August 19th, 2026. It is 5:30 p.m. We will call the to order the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board. Please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of America stands nationy and justice for all. >> Thank you, Irene. Roll call, please, to determine a quorum. >> Vice Chair Albano, >> present. >> Chair Shank, >> Board member Hilton, >> here. >> Board member Stansel, >> Board member Gross and Decker are excused. >> Board member Deina >> Chairwoman, we have a quorum. >> Thank you. We move to the next item on the agenda, the approval of our meeting minutes. Did everyone receive the minutes? >> Yes. >> Are there any corrections? Don't see any. >> Do we have a motion to approve the >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. Thank you, Irene. Roll call, please. >> yes. >> Motion carries 4 to zero. >> Thank you. We'll move to the next item on the agenda, the public hearing section. Um, proposed amendments to the Unified Land Development Code. Mr. W. Good evening, Madame Chair and agency members. This is the uh final presentation to PLDRB relating to the uh proposed amendments to the LDC. Uh all the chapters have been presented to you. Uh the last time that we went through that was the wrap up um meeting in uh June 17. And now Mr. Jose uh Papa going to present uh information relating to since then we have additional comments and then how we have basically uh reflect that in the changes. So >> thank you. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Papa. >> Good evening madam chair members of the board. Jose Papa for the community development department. As Mr. Noen mentioned um we're going to be presenting to you some additional um comments and updates to the proposed uh update to the land development code that we've received since the wrap-up workshop and the bulk of these really comes from um when city council had a workshop on June 9th and the results of that were unavailable to present to you at the June 17th wrap-up. So, and since then we also received some comments from some stakeholders which we will present as part of uh the brief summary that that we we're going to present in in table form. So, um at at city council regarding chapter 2 which is our um process and and application section uh for one thing that council wanted was to limit the extensions of development orders to one. So what is proposed here is that the language will now go from um having to renew it every 12 months to renew it one one time for 24 months provided that that development has a valid certificate of concurrency. Um the other one would be for a zoning request whether approved or denied. Um, an applicant may only request for a zoning change every 24 months or [snorts] once every two years for particular property. Um, change from council regarding uh the bonding like for prop projects within an MPD. Uh, council proposes that instead of the word may that city council shall include MPD requirements for bonds. So the only change there is from May to Shell. U a big topic of discussion at the council meeting was regarding data centers. So this is what the staff has proposed in the meantime as we uh propose for additional amendments that would create performance standards and a tiered structure for permitting should uh for for data centers. one it's reg data centers will be regulated such that it is not a permitted use in the city. However um if one is proposed it would have to go through u the special exception process and would require approval by a super majority of city council members to be a permitted use. [snorts] And uh further on as a footnote to where it could be permitted, it would be limited to either an industrial one or industrial 2 district and subject to meeting the industrial use performance standards of section 41402. But again, the big thing here is that it is not a list that it's not a use that's regularly permitted within the city, but would require a public hearing through the special exception process prior with approval by supermajority of city council. Um, the other one is that the city council would like to enhance u within the land development code penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal. uh what staff, you know, that that's going to take a little more time, a little more effort, research, and uh and preparing an ordinance that would have the right fair penalties and fines. And so what staff's proposing here is that we'll prepare an ordinance after adoption of this land development code update to address that specifically based on city council comments. So, of course, the planning board will see that amendment. And the same thing with with data center. We're looking to create a definition for what data centers are. And um and again that's based on comments from council that we need to take a tiered approach maybe to data centers. And so [clears throat] again that will also take some research and analysis as to how to appropriately tier data centers. And um so as a large part of a larger package of additional amendments um data centers will be a topic of a specific ordinance um as directed by city council from the stakeholders. There there were just some comments regarding some uh proposed amendments that needed clarification. Uh one when we talked about collector roads um we talked about there should be no connections to collector roads but uh what is intended is that there should be no residential driveway connections to collector roads. Of course if you have a you know another a road that leads to a subdivision that could connect to a collector road. If you have the driveway to a um a shopping center of course that could connect to a collector road. The intent here is that you will not have a single family home sitting on a collector road. And the other one here is just to match um the land development code with St. John's River River waters man river water management district rules. And that's regarding the the validity of wetland delineations. Uh the LDC proposed a three-year uh time frame for the validity of wetland delineations, but St. John's River Water Management District allows for five years. And so we're just going to match what the Water Management District also allows. Uh one amendment had to do with the double silt fencing at wetlands, and that's when wetlands are adjacent to conservation areas. And then what what was proposed is that they do a double silt fence, one one row of a fence to um right at the at the wetland line, another 3 ft away from it. So again, it's only in those specific circumstances where you're protecting an area that's designated as conservation or preservation or is within a conservation easement or is a highquality wetland as proposed by um VCard. As an alternative, we can propose we can instead install a reinforced silt fence, which would have the same um effect as doing a a double double silt fence. [snorts] And so that's an option that was provided within that land development code amendment. And uh this this last one was just a task to clarify what what was intended by the two-foot freeboard requirement in a special flood hazard area. And again that that pertains to hab habitable space and and only and so you know um single family home or an apartment building that's uh within that's near a special flood hazard area you would have that additional twoft freeboard above the base flood elevation and that's the clarification that's provided at this point as Miss Ben mentioned you've we've reviewed all the other amendments that's proposed for this update of the land development code. And so with those additional items that are included within the package, staff's recommending that the planning and land development regulation board recommend that city council approve the proposed amendments. Just for next steps, we will again go through a city council wrap-up workshop on September 8th at their workshop. Uh first reading for the amendments will be September 15 and adoption on October 6th. And I'd be happy to entertain any questions at this time. >> Thank you. Return to the planning board. Are there any questions? >> Yeah, I've got a question. Going back to the beginning, uh want to change it from 12 months to 24 months, but I didn't see any reasoning or or uh uh explanation as to why they wanted to do that. Can you explain that? >> Sure. Yeah. I mean, I can only guess that uh you know, everyone is entitled to due process. They uh land owner can always apply to change uh the zoning on their property. >> Was there a problem with 12 months? >> Um no, other than maybe uh you know, for something that's >> Well, whose idea was it to change it? >> That's at city council's direction. >> Um if I may. Yeah. C currently you are allowed to have up to three extension each. I'm sorry. Yeah, let me clarif Let me I'm sorry. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Was I answering the wrong question because you said 24 months? I was thinking of the zoning change or is it for the development order? >> Either one. >> Either one. Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So the the request, you know, right now with the development order, you're once you're approved, you're entitled to uh three extensions, but every year you come in. Um council wanted to limit that to once. And and as a sort, I guess as a compromise between once or three times, we're going to do it once, [snorts] but essentially do it instead of for 12 months, for 24 months. And there's nothing magic about 12 months or 24 months. >> Well, just question is why? >> Yeah. >> Because somebody just feels like changing it. >> No, but >> I mean what's the logic? But the logic is that it you don't want um an approvement of a development order to sit there for unused essentially for >> three >> for three essentially four years because uh so you know um regulations change you might change the land development code and so finding that happy medium between four years sitting on an old >> sitting there three it sits there two. >> Yes sir. or four years instead of sitting there for four years, it sits there for >> I still don't see the the the reason for it. >> Sometimes there is no uh >> I mean like you know what was the explanation of the city council to want to change it that you know it's a puzzlement. >> I I don't read minds. >> Well, yeah, but they said it. >> But didn't they give a reason for it? [clears throat] >> Maybe u I wasn't at that public I wasn't at the workshop. So Okay. if if there was >> all right. >> I am my recollection is that it was part of the uh issue relating to uh payment of impact fees. So basically the uh current regulation is that you can have the impact fees basically updated for at least four years. And then part of that is that they don't want it to extend it too far out that if when we do then update then we basically they going to have to pay you know they they will be able to pay on the the old fees versus the uh new fees. So they want to limit that time frame. So potentially right now you get um a deal you get 12 months and then you got three additional extension of each your 12 months. So that would take you like four years out just to start a project. So they want to limit that. So >> thank you for that explanation. >> Much better explanation. >> I'm finished. >> I'd like to expand on that then. So I understand you correctly. If somebody gets a a development order today, those impacties are locked in for the duration of that cycle. >> No, they they are not locked in. uh the development uh order allows them to do the next step which is basically development permit. So they can move to toward the development permit and if they want to move to the development permit they would have to basically pay utility uh connection fees before they can move to a building permit. So that that's the step and then you don't pay that until basically building permit uh approval. So the impact fees really don't have any impions because the longer they drag it out eventually project >> they we used to have basically impact fees that can be updated every year every October we use the uh index in order to do that. Now statute basically uh limits that uh you know requirement. We can't really update that every year. We have to update it every four years now. So that's one of the the issue. >> Mr. Per, can you go over a couple of slides? I I have a question similar to Mr. Stansel about the the two-foot freeboard and the double uh silk fence. What is what was the driver for that? Is this an issue that we've seen? >> Sure. Um, regarding the the double silt fence, typically what our storm water department has seen is that when you're in those sensitive areas and uh your silt fence fails, there there's a challenge in that because it's a conservation area or environmentally sensitive, they're not allowed to bring big machinery in there. Everything will have to be hand dug to restore it. And so with a double silt fence, you hope to get that extra protection that it doesn't blow out. It cuts cuts expense for potential for develop and the same thing with uh and the reinforced is it I think uh it it's reinforced so the let the chance there's less failure to to that. >> Thank you. >> Yes sir. And regard and regarding I'm sorry the the free board instead of what what FEMA requires is a one foot freeboard we do two feet because we get additional points with our community rating system. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Do any you have a question? >> Yeah, for uh regarding the the data centers, I just was curious if you said it'd have to go through the special exception process. Will the criteria for the special exception change? It probably should, right? at at this time it it's not uh there's been no proposed changes from from the special exception criteria but I think as we develop that additional ordinance where we again by more holistically look at uh data centers and regulating it uh in a tiered basis and and having performance standards probably those criteria will change. I think the the immediate impact of this is that essentially what we what we've done is that if you want to do a data center, you're going to have to go through a public hearing process. It gets vetted in public. That's the short. >> So the quick is there a super majority required? No. >> Pardon? >> That's what they put. >> Yes, sir. It it does it does require supermajority. >> Yeah. So, um part of the discussion with um city council is that we proposed in the uh amendments to uh prohibit that use data center and in order to get the prohibited use be approved, it it has to go through the process uh through basically a special exception and that will go to PLDB for recommendation and then it will go to city council and city council would have to have a majority approval. So that is the current proposal because um part of the amendment to the LDC, we didn't envision to basically revamp the uh LDC. We basically want to update the LDC to reflect the policies of the comprehensive plan. And so we went back to city council and and uh basically asked council that we will come back after the adoption of the LDC. We will uh provide an ordinance that spells it thoroughly out uh of how to handle data center because part of the um things with data center is that um um state has a definition for the large data center or super d uh data center basically is at uh consumption of electric use of 50 megawatt a day. So, but there are other data centers that use a lot less of a electrical uh consumption and uh they also use basically uh water conservation recycling the uh the water usage and um and uh basically practically no noise uh at all uh because they don't have generator for example. So, so those are the things that I think it will help to provide some um discussion and guidance to uh city council for for decision making so that we possibly have tier approach to the data center that we can you know uh increase our commercial tax base by allowing certain smaller you know uh similar use that doesn't have a an impact uh to the um the community. So we will have that discussion when we bring it back uh in the future to city council for for discussion. >> So with the prohibited use then the minimum square footage doesn't matter. It's absolutely prohibited only in industrial one and two and will require a special exception. >> That's correct. Yes, ma'am. So what about um we're kind of too late for the current data center data center that's going into town center to do anything about that? >> Yeah, the the data center in town center is through an MPD. So uh it has no effect uh on the you know the LDC doesn't have any effect on that because it's been approved already. So >> I'd like to see in the ordinance for these data centers would be explore the option of closing Yes, I think uh there are at least two other type of similar use as a data center but they do basically closed loop uh for for water consumption and uh they're basically uh electric use is probably about 12 megawatts. is is large but is not enough to where it basically affects the community. And part of that right now is regulated under statute 384 that you know uh the the funding for that does not come out from the local governments I mean the local residents in order to shoulder that uh that infrastructure. Yeah, that >> right. I I think that would be like very large data center like 500,000 square feet or a million square feet in order to to qualify for that. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Seeing none, we will open public comment. If there are any any members of the public that would like to speak on this item of the agenda, please approach and state your name and address for the record. >> Janie Dwarte, a couple of things. The I was just at the data center near there actually between the multifamily dwelling and the data center and you can literally stand there and take a picture. multif family dwelling data center. You can drive the speed limit and count multif family dwelling. Eight seconds later, you're at the data center. This does affect the families around. There's a lot we don't know about these data centers. And we shouldn't be just throwing them in. And I've been told or I've read somewhere that these data centers or Palm Coast is considered a campus for data centers. like they're gonna dot Palm Coast with data centers everywhere. And you're confirming with the word data centers as plural today. And that's concerning because it's confirming that this is going to be a uh a campus for data centers and they're not healthy from what I understand. They're not safe and there's not enough research to approve any more data centers. This one that we already have that's growing up behind our under our noses is literally eight seconds away from multif family dwellings going the 35 mph speed limit. It's not safe. We need to just ban these things here in Palm Coast. Thank you. Are there any additional members of the public that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, we close public comment. We return to the board. Are there any additional questions or comments from the board? Seeing none, do we have a motion regarding this item? I'll make a motion that we uh planning board recommends approval uh to the proposed amendments to the land development code. >> Second, >> Irene, roll call, please. Board member Hilton, >> Motion carries four to zero. >> Thank you. We'll now move to the next item on the agenda. Red Mill Point MPD application number 6212. Mr. W. >> Yes. Uh madam chair the um this project bas has been approved for 216 multifamily units. Uh they are coming in uh essentially to change that to an MPD to develop 200 the same number of units 216 uh units of town houses. Um so um we going to propose to have the sequencing the order of presentation slightly different from uh other uh podb presentation. We're going to ask the applicant to start the presentation then thereafter then the staff will uh wrap up the presentation before you make a decision. >> Okay. Thank you. Will the applicant for application number 6212 please approach please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. Uh board members Michael Shimeto for the applicant. Uh this is a new process, so if we miss some things, forgive us in advance. Um but we'll give it a shot. Um you all have the uh package in front of you. It's quite voluminous, but I think the important thing to remind everybody is that this is a project uh located off Red Mill Drive that's uh been approved by the planning board and by city council already uh and it went through the subdivision process where actual permits were issued by the city of Palm Coast And as it was said before, this project and you you'll see in a moment is the virtually the exact same project that a development order uh exists today in which you know we started we began to clear the land and the applicant the owner uh put it on pause to address this issue. So, it's very important that everybody on the board and in the public when we had a neighborhood meeting, we focused on it that presently there's a development order to construct 216 uh units that are rental. It was a rental community. And so here is the project on the left in black and white that was approved and it's presently a permit issued for it development order. And the project that is in the PUD is the one that's colored. So you can see that it is virtually identical. There are some minor changes to the the grouping of buildings but essentially all in the exact same place. All the wetland impacts are exactly the same which are zero. The storm water system is exactly the same. The road configuration is exactly the same. The entrance is exactly the same. And so what we're asking is to just reaffirm this project in this resoning under the PUB. And so here is the townhouse design. It is essentially the same product uh that it was under the prior development order. The amenity center is virtually the same as it was approved in the prior development order, but at the request of staff and as part of the PED process, uh there is, you know, necessity under PED to show public benefit. So, we work with your staff and provided an amenity on the main drive for dog park so that the community can have a place to to congregate. Um this one right here is important. So here is a chart in front of you that talk about what was previously approved and is presently uh permitted and it talks about the exact same thing 216 units 216 the same count we went from a multif family rental community to fe simple townhouse. Essentially the difference is under the townhouse product uh owners don't own just the airspace if they did own it. But remember this was a rental community. This is the townhouse product which everybody owns the land that their unit sits on and they have what they call a shared roof agreement under it's managed by an HOA rather than a commercial developer that manages a rental community. Uh the amenities are exactly the same other than um We added the dog park which is a public benefit and the dimensional standards are virtually the same too. So again nothing really has changed between what is permitted and approved now than what we're asking for. So the question is why did we do it? Um the answer is simply this. We wanted to bring to the city a forale unit rather than a four rent unit. We didn't think any longer that a force rent unit in this area was the in the best interest of our client as well as in the best interest of the community. And so we converted it to a fee simple ownership fee simple ownership where every unit will be owned by the owners. It'll be financed by typical financing structures by bank loans and that type of stuff. And it will be managed by the owners, the people who reside there and own those units. So they have a vested interest in maintaining at a different level than maybe a rental community. Um, and we did it through a PUB because to be very clear and simple, under your land development code, a townhouse must be a minimum of 25 ft. Uh, and the rental communities. So we work with staff. The interior units are still the same as what's approved. 20 ft in width and the side units are go up to 25 ft in some circumstances. We provided multiple car garages uh that are an improvement to what was approved for single car garages. And other than that, that is essentially what the project is and why we're here. Again, it needed to go through zoning in order to accommodate these different dimensional standards so that we could convert it from a rental community to a community that is single family residential owned and managed by the owners. So, we're here to answer any questions that you have. Um, again, there's nothing different than what was approved and has been approved. It's actually started construction some time ago. the process in which you evaluate resonings. You know that been through it many times the different standards that you have to go through. You'll see in your staff report that uh all of them have been satisfied. Why? Because the prior project was consistent with your land development code and your comprehensive plan. So nothing has changed. Be happy to answer any questions that you have. But again was important to us when we had the neighborhood meeting that people there understood that this isn't a new project. This is just sort of modifying the ownership structure from the rental community to a few. So, we have our owner here that might answer any questions that you may have that are specific to the project. We're here to listen to staff and answer any questions that they may have. And if you have any questions of me now, I'll be happy to answer them. You want to wait till later. Um, the pleasure is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. Chimento. I think we'll defer to staff's presentation. All right, one quick moment. All right. Uh Michael Hansen uh with community development uh here for staff for the Redm Mill Point master plan development reszoning application. Uh, for those of you that may not be aware, uh, Redmill Point is, uh, located off of, uh, Redmill Drive. It's, as you can see on that aerial map there, it's just slightly to the northwest of where Rimfire Elementary School is. Uh, existing, uh, land use is mixed use, which supports the MPD zoning district. It also supports the current uh, MFR1 zoning district that you see on the map. uh as uh Mr. Shimento went through some of the background as far are some of the previous development order approvals regarding the master site plan the technical site plan with and showed you reference for that development order for AR 4996. I don't want to beat the bush or anything. uh that development order was extended uh through as you heard during the land development code presentation the the extension uh provisions that the city has. So it was extended so that it was still current uh when the applicant submitted this application. I'm going to skip over to the criteria here. But actually this one here gives a little bit more insight to what Mr. Shantaa was talking about as far as some deviations from the land development code on the particular project. Uh so minimum lot size for the interior town houses you're looking at 1,800 ft² where those uh exterior ones uh end up at 2550. So the 1,800 ft² is a slight reduction of the LDC is 2500 uh square foot minimum lot size for townhouse but the the exterior is slightly increased over that. Um, and that's to be consistent al ultimately with the plan. As Mr. Shimean said, a lot of these MPDs uh come in with uh townhouse units with 18 foot widths or or sometimes so this one is 20 foot width. Uh, also there's some slight deviations to minimum front uh and rear setbacks. Uh this particular property uh is has built-in buffers for landscaping purposes as it went through the multif family aspect. So as a single family to single family residential unit, we don't actually require landscape buffers between single family to single family. So town houses would be considered single family. The only deviation of that is for master plan developments where the deviation exceeds 25% of what the adjacent land use is as far as when you're looking at lot sizes and such. Otherwise, they've kept the landscape buffers that they had with the multifamily product that Mr. Shanto mentioned. Uh, also the property is, you know, there's some substantial wet areas here that act as natural buffers and provide vegetative screening as well from some of the existing properties. As far as some of the criteria, uh, as you're aware, uh, LDC section 2.0505, um, Mr. Shimeanto, uh, u paraphrased it fairly well. Um, as the project met all the criteria for the approval of multifamily, uh, project, uh, this project isn't increasing any kind of density. So, it it's not in conflict with what was already previously approved by city council uh, through public hearing process. it it doesn't create any kind of un uh unnecessary unreasonable uh threat to the general health or welfare of the inhabitants based on the previous findings. Uh as the project goes through it will have to continue to comply with all applicable uh laws uh and regulations for any third party regulatory bodies as well. Uh the criteria for master plan development is slightly different as you're well aware. uh you have uh criteria subdivisions A through K. Uh as in the staff report uh staff's finding ultimately is that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It meets the general intent of the land development code. Um it's there's not much more degree of departure from the proposed development that was already previously approved as far as the character of the surrounding area density on it. and that ultimately it is able to uh provide for uh the developmental phases. So in the uh MPD development agree development agreement that's attached with the staff report the the project was previously planned to be three phases that's still in the development agreement. So their their designs are that those phasing can stand on their own. So as Mr. Shimento mentioned the amenity center, that dog park uh that is currently in the uh draft development agreement. There's language in it that would require that all coming online with the infrastructure to support all phase one. So that when residents uh essentially move in uh during that phase one, they'll be able to utilize the amenities and the the surrounding members of the public will be able to utilize that public publicly accessible dog park based on the current draft of the MPD. Um there is adequate uh availability uh as far as uh uh concurrency monitor facilities potable water sanitary sewer uh based on the the previous approval. This proposed resoning hasn't increase any kind of demand on any kind of concurrency monitor facilities. I know uh our uh rep from the school board's here right now but they just slightly tweaked their student generation uh model. So it's their their numbers are slightly different between single family and multifamily. U but I imagine this is probably similarly in the ballpark as the the unit count hasn't changed any but I I'll defer to our expert uh regarding schools for in regards to school concurrency. Uh last as far as public participation uh the applicant did host their neighborhood meeting uh was July 20 or July 14th. Sorry, I misspoke. There about 25 members of the public that attended that neighborhood meeting. Uh they met all the requirements for legal ad posting and placard posting. And I apologize with the application uh agenda packet. We did receive that one email inquiry uh regarding process following the neighborhood meeting that I had fully intended to get included with the application. Uh it was printed out ahead of time. So you all should have a physical copy of that email inquiry uh that we did receive. Uh it was essentially just process related how to be able to pull up files and and just some inquiries regarding when the meeting is going to be scheduled and that kind of thing. Uh staff does have a recommendation for approval regarding the master plan development uh resoning application as we found it consistent with comprehensive plan and recommends the planning board uh do the same and recommend approval of the city council. as far as far as next steps uh on this particular one because if it's approved by city council uh does have to go through two reads. So they're currently scheduled uh tenatively for October 6th and 20th uh currently and then if approved for the MPD as then they'll be single family the developer will be required to go through a platting process for preliminary and final plats prior to be able to continue their construction on the project. I am available for any questions you may have. Are there any questions regarding this agenda item? Okay. Thank you. We will open it up to members of the public. There are any members of the p public that would like to speak regarding this agenda item, please approach and state your name and address for the record. Jeannie Dorte. Uh, as I was saying earlier, I was near the data center and by the multifamily dwelling and I was really disturbed. I actually went in there and parked in there and took a little bit of a walk and I was disturbed about how things were built. The uh doors to the the garages were not fitting the spaces. The paint was just thrown on there and you can see the trim of the old paint and the wood was warping already. This is a brand new facility that doesn't even have all its repres. >> Mr. Dwarte, are you referring to the item on the agenda? >> I'm sorry. >> We're We're not We've passed the data center. >> No, no, this was about the multif family dwelling >> for on Redm Mill because you referenced the data center. >> I referenced near there. I'm just concerned about the same type of poorly built uh multif family dwellings and I understand that some of them are trying to go four stories tall. These three stories that I'm already seeing are very poorly built and I want to try to avoid that happening in the future. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any additional members of the public that would like to speak regarding this agenda item? Please state your name and address for 66. >> Will you bring the microphone so we can hear? Thank you. >> Sonia Bach. I live at 66 Redmill Drive. >> A few of the little things that are a few of the things that I'm concerned about is number one, they said they did a study on traffic and that it passed that was done. I don't have my papers with me, but I think it was done in 24. Um my request or suggestion is that they would do a current one because one of my biggest concerns here is that we put in 216 more um homes. You multiply that by at least two cars a piece, that is um 432 vehicles. And the street is very busy. There are no sidewalks. We live less they live less than a mile from the school. So they're walking to school. Um I'm very concerned for the for the children for their safety. um it's the traffic is getting higher through there and stuff. It is it's not safe. It's and and if they really did a study during school pres getting to school in the morning and leaving um to see the congestion and how hard it is for not only the residents to get in and out, let alone adding so much more traffic, but for the students and the buses and stuff too. That's a that's a major concern I have for our neighborhood for our children because a number of them walk to school. even those who are carpulled and dropped off, it's a challenge because of where they're left at. We do have one crossing guard right there across the across the street from the school. But like I said, this is going to increase it much more. And I'm very very concerned about the children and their safety. Um so again, like I said, if we could have another more current traffic study done during times of children going to school and coming, you know, leave releasing from school, I think that that would be very pertinent. Um because it is a safety thing. It is it is um I'm going to refer back to the G that was on the thing here. Um it's just I I'm very pertinent about that because I believe that that's a that's a big deal. I mean, these are future kids. These are future uh taxpayers and stuff like that. We want them to be safe. We want them to be able to go to and from school safely. Um I know myself, I've had my grandchildren, too, who I've walked to school before there, too. And like I said, there are no sidewalks. I'm not asking for sidewalks, so that would be a blessing. But I'm just I just really, you know, these kids are walking on the streets, so the traffic gets two ways through there. It gets very congested and stuff. Um, another another concern I wanted to bring up too was um the water drainage. That's we have enough issues with pep tanks in our neighborhood here. I've been here just about 20 years and we do have a lot of issues with that and stuff like that. I know this is set off and it's a little different and stuff like that, but it's still a very concerning problem that I have for um our drainage systems and stuff with the impact of so many more residents and stuff with our pep tech tanks going off like they do. I just had somebody at my house um this last week from the city updating my updating stuff on there. speak on this agenda item? See, >> good evening. >> Good evening. >> It's Cassandra Ford. I live at 58. Um, >> could you speak in >> a little bit closer to the mic microphone? Thank you. >> Testing. >> Yeah, that's better. >> Um, it just kind of blows my mind with them wanting to build 200. Excuse me, ma'am. If you don't mind, please restate your name and address. We weren't able to capture it. >> Cassandra Ford, 58 Regency Drive. >> It blows my mind that to come in and put 216 units in an area where you have one way in pretty much and one way out. to have that many people that's going to occupy area like that and you don't have enough road rate. There's just there is not enough road way for that many more extra people in that area. That's the first thing. The school zone, you can barely get in in and out in the morning. You can barely get in and out in the afternoons. It's a lot of confusion. um the people that live almost directly in front of the school, the neighbors, I mean the the the homeowners are putting stakes in the yard, which I don't think they understand so much for into um property is the cities anyway. So you putting stakes down doesn't really stop anybody from driving. The next thing is like she spoke about the pep tanks. We built in 2014 and I think my pep tank the motors have been changed already four times because of the water. You have a lot of water built up and you call in and it takes them a while to come to you know repair it or whatever it is and then you without your water. Uh the next thing is this the children walking in the neighborhood. We already have had a fluctuated large amount of duplexes being built and it's just like the neighborhood is for single family homes. When we retired after 32 years of military, we thought we were building our home. We didn't know we was building coming into an area with duplexes and people in and out. And then you got other things go on when people don't take pride in the area and the people in that area. I've been there since 2014. I think we take pride there. So I I just don't and I'm being told that another road is not going to go from Red Mill out to US1. So what are we going to do with the traffic? What are we going to do with more people with the school on one end and the park on the other end? And I I just I just don't even I can't fathom this in that small area. If you going to put another road opening maybe, but the the um the water the the flooding with the co spilling up and we already have floods when it's excessive rain or hurricanes or whatever. Thank you. Seeing no one approach, we'll close public comment and we will return to the board and to staff. >> Um, Madame Chair, if I I have three follow-ups based on comments if it fits. Uh, >> uh, there was a comment regarding uh, build quality. All these units will have to meet Florida building code as adopted by the state. Uh, there was a comment regarding traffic. This application did submit a TIA uh traffic impact analysis with the previous multifamily submitt with this application for the MPD. Uh they were required to revise and uh do a new one for the project that was reviewed by our transportation engineering and uh Mr. Wyn up there on the dis uh regarding this MPD application when they come in for platting as well and they'll have to include that material with their applications as well. Uh [snorts] projects like this are reviewed by our our technical review team. All our I think it's 190 combined years of experience in our respective fields ensuring that projects are meet building code. Uh traffic engineering regarding the storm water. Uh the projects required to have on-site storm water management which was previously approved with the multifamily project. That's going to be looked at again by our storm water engineering team during the platting process where they have to sign off on it once again. U and that's all I had for uh uh just follow. >> Thank you. Mr. W, did you have any >> Yeah, I just want to provide additional comments relating to the pro uh traffic. They did provide uh traffic uh recently in January of this year, an update for this development and uh part of the city adoption, the level of service adoption is adopted. All of our roads as uh adopted level of service D. And then the current um level of service on all the roads within the vicinity are basically at level of service C which is basically um no issues uh with at all relating to meeting uh O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L uh level of service D. So uh we looked at that twice basically uh for the 216 units. So and then like Mr. Hansen said that um storm water will be basically will have to be designed based on uh in complying with our regulations. Are there any comments or questions? >> Yes. Uh Mr. Hansen, when was this originally approved for the multi 216 multif family? >> Uh bear with me. I'm just pulling up here for background in history. You should be able to see uh city council approved a master site plan for 216 units with AR487 or 4871 uh January 4th of 2022. The applicant then followed up with the technical site plan application with a approved master site plan with application 4996 uh and they received development order on that on May 23rd of 2023. >> Okay. Thank you. My I just have a comment because some of the concerns seem to uh would have been uh brought up then when they were putting 216 homes in there. Uh they don't pertain now because we're not changing the number of homes. We're not changing the number of vehicles that's going to be there. It's just changing it from rental to ownership. So, it's really the people that live there should be happy they're not going to have a bunch bunch of renters. They should have owners that will take care of their property. Uh, that's all I've got to say. >> And clarification on that, sir. The development order, uh, because they they applied for this during that process while it was still active, they could technically submit for a site development permit and construct the multifamily product at 216 units if the application's denied. Yeah, I agree. comments from the planning board? I have a question for the applicant. Has a market study been done to determine that it should be um single family town homes versus multifamily that there's a need for more rentals or less rentals in that area and more um purchases? Uh I don't believe so that we've done a formal market study. It's just as we evaluate what's on the market and rentals in the community. >> So >> what was the price point going the rental amount going to be if it had m if it remains as a multif family? >> U will will you please approach and state your name and address for the record? Chuck Thompson. Uh, my address is 1515 Arlington Street in Orlando. So, I'm a little far far away from here, but uh, uh, I represent the owners and the development of the property. So, it's my job to take them through the approval and also build the build the units when we get that approvals and stuff like that. You know, manage the engineers, etc. But I do know uh your question uh originally excuse [clears throat] me, I saw it um a couple of days ago, as a matter of fact, I didn't know it till then. I think the they were looking for an average rental of around 2,200 to 2400 per unit. uh the reason we went to uh uh actually for Cmp fe simple is that uh we felt that was a better better you know we felt the city would like it better uh that that would be a much nicer unit and uh like we said people are going to you know that buy that unit these are going to be luxury town houses. If you look at the plan, you'll see every one of these, 90% of these are either looking over the lake or looking over a wetland. They're basically uh um almost a they're premium unit almost in every one of them. Uh our lakes will have uh um we're going to put in uh um not sprinklers, but uh uh >> fountains. >> Yep. just to to help out the water quality and everything like that before it goes out too. So, uh and these are basically, you know, we're trying to do a upper end uh townhouse unit. Now, the price will still be under 300,000. So, just to let you know, >> that was my next question. >> That's what we're That's what we're That's what we're working on. >> So, at 299. Well, [laughter] I would hope that there would be like 249 to 299 because you're going to have uh you know different units. You're going to have a a two-bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit and twocar garages in some onecar garages in others. So, it'll, you know, it'll be a little different there. >> So, do you does your um developer company do you have your own mortgage company as well? >> Excuse me. >> Do you have your own mortgage company as well? That would be >> no >> financing. No. >> Um is there any consideration to the 216 units having any set aside for our essential service our essential workers? >> Uh we have not we have not addressed that at all at least at this point. We're trying to, you know, right now we're into these my owners are into approvals and they want to build a nice little townhouse community because that's one thing they do very well and uh and we've already and they sell them very well. That's on that. So, that's what we're uh what I know that we're looking to do. So, >> have you built any other town homes in this community? Uh I believe Wright Holmes has but I've only been working for him for the last six months and my expertise is all in the uh basically in approvals construction and that that uh uh that code. I think there was a you know there's a little history of Bright Homes on there and and they do have a project I believe in uh here in Palm Coast or very near here. So now exactly which one that is I do not know. >> Finished. It's completed. >> Thank you for answering my questions. Are there any questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Thanks. There aren't any other questions. I return to the planning board for a recommendation for a motion. [snorts] >> I'll recommend that the planning and land development regulation board determine the proposed master plan development application 6212 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the city >> We have a second. >> One second. Irene. Roll call, please. >> Board member Hilton. >> Board member Stansel. >> Vice Chair Albano. >> Yeah. Uh, excuse me. Yes. >> Chair Shank. We will now move to the next item on the agenda which is a zoning map amendment for 331 plus or minor acres acre area to be referred to as seinal trace from single family residential SFR1 and preservation to master plan development MPD with a development agreement. Um we will >> can I ask I just want to ask a question on the first agenda item. Then >> on the first agenda item. >> Yes. I just have a quick question. >> There was a lot of other stuff in the on the agenda item for the land development code. Was that some of that tabled or is that later on in the presentation? I don't think I slept through it. So there's signage, there's talk about single family residence changes, industrial building changes. There's a lot of red ink um in in part of that. Yes, those are all part of it. And uh we we've gone over all those changes previous in in previous uh workshops leading up to the wrap-up and then and then this one. >> But they were just workshops. So >> Oh, yes. But I'm but uh what you approved tonight would be for the entire package. >> But we didn't talk about the entire >> No, no, we we >> I had serious issues with a lot of the red ink, especially when it comes to architecture and industrial. So we we heard about freeboard and double silt fence and that makes up a small percentage of all of the other red ink. the the strategy was that the we we provided you with the changes through through the workshops leading all up to to a final wrap-up workshop >> if if there were issues they they should have been discussed at the time that uh those uh items >> unfortunately I wasn't at those work I wasn't able to [clears throat] attend the workshops okay I I just wanted to know >> how however we do have the the city council public hearing um yes sir and and you can provide like any other resident of of of the the city provide written comments and uh and and we would attach those as part of a city council's >> Okay. Thank you. We will return now to item um agenda item number five and we we will Mr. W. >> Yes. This is the um uh seminal trace used to be called also known as cascades. So the future land use map amendment is to increase the maximum number of residential units from 416 to 743 dwelling units. Uh basically they gone from residential and conservation to um redesate residential and conservation. So um Mr. Jose Papa will present that. But before that, we would like to uh offer um the uh applicant an opportunity to present it first. >> Would the applicant please approach with state your name and address for the record? >> Certainly, Michael uh Shimento. Uh for the applicant, just procedurally, there's two applications here. One is for the comprehensive plan amendment and then there's one for resoning, which is master plan community agreement. Can you speak into the mic, Mr. Chico? >> I get I get blamed for that quite a bit. Sorry. Um there's two applications. One's for the comprehensive plan amendment and one is for the resoning to a uh community planned agreement. So I'll just take both of them at the same time. Uh sometimes you want to hear them separately, sometimes you want to hear the presentations together and then you'll vote on them separately. So I'll just assume that we'll put all of them together and talk uh about them as you need. Okay. So, um the prior owner or actually the existing owner um had put forth a a reszoning to the project when they came into the city and there was a limiting policy of 416 units on the 331 acres. Uh new entity who uh has taken over that project. Uh you're familiar with the Coulter Group. Uh they've done some projects here. They've done projects in Valuchia and Flaggler County. They're presently doing it. uh they have uh done seminal trace one I think it's called on the north side of citation boulevard and they worked with the city to extend citation boulevard through um to I guess it's beltier so they are uh the applicant uh the prior owner or the actual owner is sort of because it's it's their property so um Coulter would like to uh amend uh the entitlements on that uh to bring it to 22 units per acre or the 743 units over the 331 acres. [clears throat] Uh the project is partially designed and partially constructed to date. Uh if this is approved, they will continue to commence and build a um $45 million amenity center which they are partnering with a development to the north. All of this property uh is part of a community development district in which the community development district maintains uh the roads and the storm water and then there's an HOA uh layered over top of that that will maintain all the uh landscape amenities and entry features. So um what's before you today is in the comprehensive plan amendment is to amend the limiting policy from 416 to 734. And then in the PUB agreement, uh it lays out the the design criteria for the balance of the project uh before you. And so it'll be a combination of single family and town homes on a few of the parcels. In addition to that, as part of the PUB agreement, uh the developer Coulter uh will has agreed to already to work with the city to upsize uh the utility lines, basically water and sewer uh in that region uh to not only accommodate their project, but the upsizing uh agreement that we have is to improve water quality, water pressure and the sewer loop system in that area. they have agreed to uh there's a spine road that runs through uh the project uh that will remain open uh to the public in the event of emergency access because uh to get to Citation Boulevard. And in addition to that, uh they've also uh agreed to um rather than sell well sites um to the city of Flagger Beach, they've agreed to uh convey um two more well sites to the city of Flagger Beach for their their need on their infrastructure. So those are sort of the community benefits. Uh we're here to answer any questions you have, but it's a real simple uh agenda request, trying to keep it simple. Uh, and all we're doing is um continuing on with the development and Coulter would like to take over and and finish the project as a master plan community. So, I'll answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chime, when you're approaching, please try to speak louder into the mic because the people in the back cannot hear you. Okay. >> Okay. Well, staff will make their presentation and then if Mr. Chime needs to come back with and you'll have an opportunity to come for public comment >> and we'll be able to address those items, I assure you. Okay. >> Thank you, staff. Mr. Papa, please. >> Sure. Uh, good evening again, Madam Chair and members of the board. Jose Papa for the community development department. Uh, given the background again, we're looking at a 331 plus or minus acre parcel located about half mile north of US1. uh depending on your orientation to the north or the west side of uh Seminal Woods Boulevard. So the proposed amendment is as mentioned before is to go from 416 to a cap of 743 dwelling units and rearranging some of the the residential and conservation areas within the subject area. There is a companion zoning map amendment that takes the zoning from single family residential one and preservation to a master plan development with a development agreement. And these are the the maps. the the map to the left pro provides you with the current future land use map. Again, with it note that uh there's a cap of 416 dwelling units and what's proposed on the right is um the proposed map that providing a cap of 743 units and as you can see the the constant conservation areas that runs down the middle of the parcel has been increased. Um there there's reduction of uh conservation to the eastern portion of the property and also the small conservation area um about to the central part of the the development that's um being removed. And this is your current zoning. Again, the do the within the red outline area, the dark green is your preservation area. The rest of it is a SFR1 or single family residential one. And under the master plan development proposed zoning, the whole uh the entire parcel will be designated as master plan development and of course that comes with a development agreement. Uh the applicant did host a neighborhood meeting last week and uh the [clears throat] excuse me and so we'll provide you with the analysis for the future land use map amendment and under this analysis we will consider the maximum development potential is proposed by the applicant in the companion zoning map amendment to master plan development. The tables will provide a net change between the existing and the proposed development. Uh the gross impact from the proposed development is also provided. So again, what we'll see is that uh there's going to be an additional um number of units that that will increase the number of uh the number of dwelling units by 327. And if you look at that in terms of population where you have two and a half persons per dwelling unit, that that's an additional 818 persons. Looking at its impact on public uh facilities going from 416 to 743 dwelling units, you're looking at uh an increase of about 317 trips in the PM peak hour. And the demand on water and sewer, you see an increase of about 77,000 gallons in water demand, 67,000 gallons in sewer demand, uh 7,000 additional pounds per day of garbage. There will be an additional demand of 6 and a half acres for parks due to the increase in population. And uh in terms of net impact on our schools, there will be an additional 62 students uh produced as a result of uh going from 3 416 to 743. For environmental impact, you look at the topography and soil conditions uh at and most of these were provided in the initi when when this came in for a flu amendment about three years ago. So there's no indicators of unique topograph topographical relief or soils that would be affected by the amendment. The flume amendment will have no impact on the 100-year flood plane and any adverse impacts will be part of plan approval. within the vegetative communities they they'll be subject to US Army Corps of Engineers and Water Management District regulations. The flu amendment will not change the need to comply with those regulations as required by land development code there. Um if if they're once they're ready to go vertical that there there will be a requirement to provide a study on any protected species on on the on the property from a qualified environmental protection professional and that study is valid for one year for the property. Um, and for groundwater resource protection, the property is not within an aquifer recharge area, but it does have multiple well sites throughout the subject property, and there are no impacts at this time on on on historical resources. So, it's consistency with the comprehensive plan policies. uh you have a post amendment within a development that's already served by utilities uh staff rec there is recognition that the additional units will require analysis for capacity water sewer schools transportation during site plan or during the plat process. It is that time that the the measure for concurrency is tested. That is that there must be adequate capacity for water and sewer, schools, transportation in order to serve this property. and the conservation and and one thing is that uh with a proposed revamp of the the conservation and and and residential areas, you you have a a more contiguous uh conservation areas running through the center of the property. Based on that, the staff is recommending that the planning and land development regulation board find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend that city council approve the proposed amendment. The the the schedule for this is that we have first reading on September 1st after which the the comp plan amendment will be transmitted to Florida Commerce which is the state land planning agency and come comes back to city council for a second reading on October 20th. And at this point I can move on to the zoning map amendment or if uh yes the board Yes. Thank you. So as previous previously stated the map on the left shows you the current zoning for the property of the SFR1 and preservation turn the dark green areas and change that to a designation of master plan development. This is the conceptual master plan which is required as part of uh master plan development development agreement. And as you can see here, um, as a subset, the yellow really represents the de the developable areas within the 331 acres with track six as shown here, which is about a 59 acre parcel being uh set aside for conservation within the conceptual master plan. Looking at the criteria for the different from the land development code for the proposed amendment. Um as stated in the MPD agreement, it's the owner's ownus agrees to construct at a minimum on-site improvements in addition to payment of all impact fees. Those improvements include parking areas, the utilities, the master storm water system, the sidewalks, lighting, recreational facilities to serve the the the comm the the proposed community and the perimeter buffer landscaping. And this is how is this typical of other MPD agreements. It's a consistency with a comprehensive plan. Uh the proposed future land use map allows the MPD resoning. It does provide for a mix of residential areas along with a preservation area and provides for the availability of a public infrastructure proximate to properties. So, it's consistent with those policies in our comprehensive plan. The proposed development must not impose a significant financial liability or hardship for this city. Uh water and sewer lines are available nearby but will need to be extended to the site by the developer. Uh in order to move forward with development of the additional units, there must be adequate water capacity and central sewer service capacity. And again, those will be measured if approved at the time that they come in for a technical site plan or a plat uh approval. The impact of this additional demand will be further reviewed and analyzed as part of the tech technical review process. As I mentioned, that's a technical site plan or plat uh review process. And again, there must be added capacity to serve that development. Any deficiency in the treatment capacity may result in the denial of the development order or the development of mitigation agreement to address the deficiency. Does it provide does it create an unreasonable hazard nuisance or constitute a threat to the general health, welfare, safety of the city's inhabitants? The proposed resoning to master plan development is compatible with the neighboring property since the allowed uses whether it's single family detached or attached units as called for in the MPD agreement are similar to the what's permitted development in the surrounding area and the must the development must still comply with all other applicable local state federal law statutes ordinances regulations or codes. So the subject property will still be required to comply with uh the city's land development code compre comprehensive plan and other local state and federal agencies regulations throughout the development process. Any approval granted here tonight does not negate uh the requirements of other agencies or what's still required in the land development code for a master plan development. Um we have additional criteria that we must review in section 20904 and one is that is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and that was and the criteria was previously addressed as part of the companion comprehensive plan It's consistency with the general intent of the LDC. The MPD is generally consistent with different standards of the LDC such as when it comes to parking requirements, lighting, landscaping and architecture. But staff notes the following items of concern. One is that the reduction of open space requirement from 40% to 20%. The minimum town home width of 18 ft can be problematic due to the LDC requirement of requiring a 25% landscape planting area in front of the home's building facade. Additionally, the land development code requires a minimum width of 16 ft for driveways, two sidebyside parking spaces in front of the garage. And so with an 18t wide lot, this is we have staff has found this to be problematic in in in previous cases. Additionally, the front building set back to the property line of 15 ft and 10 ft 10 ft for single family and town home respectively. These are uh problematic issu also in in the the staff's findings because these cons these dimensions are inconsistent with the requirement in the land development code for driveways to be a minimum of 20 ft from the garage from the garage door to the property line. So and additionally the driveways again as previously stated must have a minimum width of 16 ft. its degree of departure from development or post-development surrounding areas and its compatibility with the within the development and relationship with surrounding areas. The the development's character and density intensity are consistent with those found in the surrounding areas. To the north and south are single family residential units. To the west are preservation open space areas. uh to the east are vacant lands, but which does include an approximately 120 acre site that is currently under review by Flaggler County for a flu and zoning map amendment and that would be to go to a mixeduse high intensity with a zoning map amendment planned unit development. Are there adequate provisions for uh public facilities? Um again, they would still be required to meet the level of service standards. uh any deficiency deficiencies may be addressed through a potentially a proportionate share payment or These agreements may be between the developer and the city and in the case of school facilities will include the school district and other items listed above flood control and so soil conservation are to be addressed in accordance with permitting agency regulations and the land development code. the feasibility and compatibility of development phase phases to stand as independent developments. The MPD does not pro provide a for a phasing plan. The subject area already includes a 386 lot subdivision that is pending approval for its final plat. Additionally, the owner of that parcel has applied for a preliminary plat for the remaining 30 units that's currently uh permitted within the existing uh future land use map designation of 416 total units. If uh if if approved with flume and the MPD, the remaining units may be developed in multiple phases per the MPD. Those each phase will need to include infrastructure to support to support the proposed uses and those would be the water and wastewater service, drainage, roads and pedestrian facilities and the provision of infrastructure per MPD is to be concurrent with the construction of each phase and must be complete prior to issuance of building permits. The availability and adequacy of primary streets and thorough affairs to support traffic to be generated within the proposed development. Infrastructure must be available to support the proposed development concurrent with its impacts. The review of the traffic impacts by staff uh reveals that there will not cause any any road segment to fall below the adopted level of service. And a review of site access and tropic operations will be conducted during a site plan or plat process and may result in the need to provide operational improvements. There are already turn lanes there. So that could include extending the turn lanes and if necessary intersection improvements or traffic control which could take in the form of uh traffic signals or roundabouts and the benefits that of a proposed development to the general public to justify requested departure from the standard development requirements inherent in the master plan development classification. uh the MPB MPD does provide an opportunity to to offer uh a variety of another type of dwelling unit that's the town homes over and above what's allowed now of single family homes per the LDC and the MPD uh zoning should the MPD zoning should provide a recognizable material benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community where such benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved without application of the master plan development zoning of approval and the propo provide for the long-term protection of natural resources and natural features of significant quantity or quality. So based on those I think these were recited by uh um the applicant in their initial presentation. The applicant provides the following as public benefits tied to the MPD u zoning application. the the upsizing of of the pipes um which will come as in the form of a utility credit agreement as stated in in their um in their application. Now this infrastructure does expand the city city's utility system and facilitates orderly development within this area but I believe that this uh agreement although staff has not seen it since it is in the form of a utility credit agreement will likely give provide u credit credit to the developer for for a development over and above what is required of of their property. uh providing for an integrated mixed residential community. Again, it does provide for that uh again the opportunity to provide for uh attached uh single family units. That's the that's town homes in addition to single family unit. But those are those are merely options at this point. So that there there is no u requirement within the MPD that they construct town homes other than it's an option to to provide that and emergency access. Uh the development does provide public emergency access connection between what is uh seminal woods and citation boulevard improving emergency access and connectivity for the surrounding area. Um and you know that in in case of an emergency because it is a gated uh we we we understand that the openings to these subdivisions will be gated. So there will not always be available to for the public to to cross from from citation to seinal. But uh during an emergency those gates could be lifted and and uh provide for emergency access. And finally uh the well sites it it is at the request of the of Flaggler Beach from the owner that to convey two well sites to the city that's city of Flagler Beach no cost uh and as stated in a application letter to the city otherwise owner will sell the two sites to the city again Flagler Beach amount greater than million dollars. Um staff proposes that the applicant um after review of the provided um statements on the public benefit should provide a material benefit that serves the immediate residents of of the subject property as well as the general population of of the city of Palm Coast. It's a conformity and compatibility with of development with any other adopted development plan of the city of Palm Coast. There are no specific development plans for this area of the city. Uh the analysis was conducted for consistency with the comprehensive plan which is uh previously provided its impact upon the environment or natural resources. uh as per as seen in the conceptual plan. Uh the MPD does propose to protect a large swath of wetlands and other sens sensitive areas approximately 59 acres that bisect the subject property. It is it is important to note that the subdivision within the subject parcel uh the Cascades which is that 386 subdivision does include other areas of open space, wetland and preservation upland buffer areas. then they're not going to be impacted by the proposed zoning map. So although they are shown as residential, they are by platt already protected by uh by by the plat because they're designated for as stated there open space wetland uh preservation upland buffer areas and its impact on the economy of any affected area. I think the only thing that we can provide here is that during its uh construction of those homes that and and prep the preparation of the land for for with for infrastructure that there will be temporary construction jobs during its construction. We find that the requested zoning amendment mainly meets the criteria of sections LDC sections 20505 and 20904. However, there are development standards in the MPD that create a conflict with orderly development of the property. At this time, planning staff recommends the planning and land development resoning application number 6418 does not meet the criteria for approval of an MPD as established in the land development code section 30304 and recommend that city council deny the proposed zoning map amendment. Uh, should the PLDRB want to recommend approval, staff proposing the following changes to the MPD agreement? uh required a minimum open space to remain at 40% of the subject property's gross area consistent with LDC sections 303031 I1 uh require minimum town home lot width of 20 ft require a minimum front building setback of 20 ft and provide an additional material benefit that serves the immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of the city of Palm Coast. We previously provided with uh the meeting schedule for for the for the flume amendment which which will be uh simultaneous with uh this zoning map amendment and that concludes staff presentation. >> Thank you. We return to the planning board. This is a quasi judicial proceeding. So at this time we would like for you to um state if you have been participating in any exparte con communication. If not just say no. >> No. >> Okay. At this time we will open for public comment. If there are any members of the public that would like to comment on any of these two items, please approach and state your name and address for the record. You will have three minutes to make your presentation. My name is Sean [snorts] Heber. I live in Seminal Woods uh or Grand Landing, sorry. My concern is is they want to go from 400 homes to 700 homes with an additional project to be built right next door to. Does Palm Coast really need that more homes in that area? Traffic is already bad on Seminal Woods. I don't see the need for that many more homes back there. Greedy. I think it's just ridiculous to build that many back. >> Hello. My name is Sue Duffner. I live at 133 Nighthawk Lane in Grand Landings. Um, I just have a simple question to ask. This property from when I moved here, it was supposed to be this high number and they had a big turnout of the local people that live in S section, U section, etc. that it got voted down and it went down to this 400 number. So now, two years later or whatever it is, I'm sitting back here listening to go back up to 800 residential homes. I guess with what's going on with a different developer, um, putting this urban city now right next to single family homes, got the zoning changed to build this big shopping area right on Seinal Woods. I guess my question to everybody is you're our neighbors here. When does when is enough enough or when does the people that moved here that set their roots down here, I don't care if you're here 20 years or you're here two years. If this is where you choose to come and live, when is enough enough to say we're not going to keep doing this? The woods are disappearing. The animals have no place to go. They're coming into our complexes now. So when Seminal Trace gets built and this urban city gets built, it's going to be the same thing. There's no place for wildlife to go except into the communities where we live. And it's already started in Grand Landings. We have animals that should not be in our complexes. So all I'm hearing is over and over since I'm living here now, this swath is gone, that swath is gone. When does it stop? You've got Seinal Woods 100 to Route One. It's a beautiful street. Why are we turning it into a Palm Coast Parkway? Is this what you would want in your backyard or next door to your homes? I I guess that's my confusion since I've been living here and I love it here. I think that Palm Coast is a very special town, but how many more? We've got thousands of homes being built between Citation, all those communities. Now, what's going to be built on Seminal Woods traffic? Yes, traffic's already started. I'm not sure what traffic analysis they're doing, but we live here and we know certain times of the day. You're not getting onto Route 100 going in either direction. We've got tons of grocery stores. We don't need another grocery store on Seminal Wood to be another Target shopping plaza. When does this group of people listen? Do the residents ever have any say in what's going on in our own communities? Hi, I'm Kyle Meyer. I'm at 102 Wood Thresh Lane. Um, first of all, I I've only been here under three years, but I agree with Sue that I've seen such change just on my own street. And I'm not against change. I know progress has to happen, but I think it has to be smart growth. I think you do need to start listening to residents because everywhere I go, I hear that people are very concerned about all this development. Um, my biggest concern with this development is that this is a I guess I'll call it a boomerang. Um, I wasn't here uh during the first um iteration of this, but I had some notes that on November 7th of 2023 is when this first came before the city council and uh Teresa Pontiieri um urged to go. They were originally put out for 850 units and there was such push back from residents over 200 people were apparently in this room. Unfortunately, this room tonight is not packed because a lot of people didn't even get notification. Um, apparently it's been changed from anybody living within 300 ft to 500. And also the signs on the road are you can't read them. That's a that's a story for another day. Um, but anyway, Miss Pontier was able to get or with with the uh council, they passed it on a 3 to one vote. It was a clear legislative cap and that was a two-reading statutory obligation. On November 17th, so 10 days later, uh Mr. Shimento filed a motion for reharing based on something called an administrative clerical error, which um I don't have the time to go into it right now, but you guys probably have all that information yourselves. um what they're is build back in a hook piece to add these extra units and that hook piece was originally in the master plan. I think that their objective was not to correct the boundary line but to circumvent the vote and get that land back. That's my own opinion. I think that in doing this now they came forward to build 850. The council approved it for single family homes based on residents concerns. It is a purely residential area. You drive down there, you'll see people walking dogs and riding bikes. And so they knocked it from 850 to 416. It was approved by the council. And now here we are again. We're back. and now they want 750. So, they're shaving a little bit off. So, I just am really concerned that it's all just smoke and mirrors and we're back to square one. I do very much appreciate you guys listening because it I really uh am happy with the questions you are asking. I would ask for you to retable this for residents to have more information. Thank you so much. public that would like to comment on this item >> 26 seat and valley path new resident to Palm Coast but not unfamiliar Palm Coast been coming through Palm Coast and Ben my whole life. Had family in Banell. Uh my problem is I don't think the city is capable of handling all this development on Seminal Woods Parkway or Seminal Woods uh road. The road's not big enough. Uh there I don't know what they're doing with the traffic studies, but I've only lived in Seminal Woods for a short time now and there's a lot of accidents on some of the woods. Um the infrastructure, you don't have enough water or sewer to supply what you're planning to do. If you think you do, that's fine. I it's going to happen regardless. Um you need to take a look on how old your water pipes in the ground are, how old your sewer pipes are in the ground, not the new ones that are being put in, but the ones that have been there for years and years. As the road needs to be widened, whose responsibility is that? It needs three more lanes easily, two in each direction and a center turn lane. Then you need to put some traffic lights out there. The fatalities are going to get worse. Your speed limit is 55 and that's just recommended speed limit, not what people drive. Kids are going across on their bicycles. People trying to get across to walk their dogs. No one's paying attention. Everybody's trying to jump out in front of the next car that's coming that's traveling 75 miles an hour down the turn around the curve. The first bend coming from 102 uh US1. So there's a lot of issues that you all have to address before allowing this build that's going to eventually happen. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is in the cities. I've been a part of cities down south for many, many years. Uh, it is what it is. There's none, unfortunately, there's no stopping it. Hopefully, you guys can just slow it down enough to make the residents feel safe in their own community that they chose to live in. We moved up here three years ago. My wife got a job with Flagger Schools at a date county public schools. Thought it was going to be a great great uh change in life and it has been so far. But what I see coming, Palm Coast ain't ready for. I've witnessed it my whole life growing up in Miami. So if you guys take a look, anything down south, it's coming. It's coming fast. You don't have enough schools for the kids that are going to be here. Your schools are overflowing now. You've got the one development here, the Remire development. The other development is going to be in between this one and the Grand Landing. Y'all have a lot of homework to do before just signing off on whatever it is you guys want to sign off on, but the the safety of your residents should be your top priority and the kids in the neighborhood should be your top priority. If it means tableabling it for another year, whatever it is, lowering the numbers, lowering things down, I mean, you're looking at over 3,000 cars, probably 4,000 cars once this other one. And it's Yeah, it's easy to do things at night, you know. It is what it is. Y'all have a great evening. agenda item? Seeing no one approached, we will close public comment at this time and we will return to the planning board. Are there any questions or >> Yes, I have uh comments. >> Yes, sir. >> Um little history lesson. Back in November 23, there was a big meeting and the original plot was for 416 homes and they came in wanting to do 850 uh Semino Woods residents. It's all scattered lot homes and they didn't want four-story apartment buildings looking down upon them across the road. So they flocked here and uh petitioned the council to stick to the 416. Okay. And they def they voted that way. Well, then there was a thing with the hook thing like the lady said. Uh and so Mayor Alfen uh petitioned to uh have it reheard in December for January. Well, in January we flooded this place. I was here. Uh, and they it was it was a it was a four to nothing vote to keep it at 416 because they they didn't they didn't uh they didn't want the 850 uh multif family homes looking down on across the street from our homes. I live there. Uh now this is like 2 and 1/2 years later, 3 years later, and it's the same thing trying to sneak it in. This is just, you know, I this is the way I see it cuz I I I know this this this case, you know, uh and I just think it's kind of sneaky Pete to try to do the same thing two and a half years later. And you know, it's wrong. It's just wrong. >> Thank you, Mr. Abano. I'll disagree with my colleagueu's uh comment on that. I don't think anybody is trying to sneak anything through. Uh, additionally, I'd like maybe staff to address some of the misinformation that was provided by the public comment. Um, you know, what people don't realize is in the state of Florida, it's a property owners right. Also, this is not new land. This is land that's been platted in 1970. So, it's not like somebody decided, oh, we're going to build new land. So, all this was could have been handled with due diligence before you moved here. We heard earlier about, oh, all these duplexes. There hasn't been a new duplex platted in Palm Coast since 1970. So maybe the staff can approach some of this and and explain to the public how things work in the state, how things work in the city regarding property owners rights. Um, and then the last comment is our board is a recommendation board. Our our decision has no bearing whatsoever to the city council. We just make a recommendation that this pro this project uh meets the requirements or it doesn't meet the requirement. The city council decides amongst themselves whether or not to approve the the project. So I urge everybody from tonight's meeting and get all your neighbors to show up to the city council. Lastly, there's a lot of people that like to complain. Not saying these people that are, but there's a lot of people I read all the comments. They all want to sit and they want to just belly ache about all of the problems. Yet, there was only three applicants for seven seats to replace us. So, if you have a problem with what we're doing, I suggest you sign up. I think uh early September, they're going to be picking additional members for the planning board. I urge people to uh step up to the table. I've been here six years, so it's time for somebody to take my seat. comments or questions from the planning board staff? Are there any comments that you would like to address at this time from the public? >> Uh other than maybe to the direction of the planning board member uh just to address some of um the process that we have to undergo with with any future land use map or zoning map amendment. And when earlier today, earlier this evening, when when we went over the land development code amendments, one thing you saw was that um if if you're approved or denied, once you file a zoning uh map application and a judgment is rendered to approve or deny, you cannot come back to that particular application for two years, but you can come back. And I think that is a big tenant of um property rights in in in the state of Florida and actually throughout the country and that you're entitled to due process as [snorts] a land owner. Um the the range that can you know as to what you can apply for can vary and barring any time limits that might be in the land development You as a land owner will always have that authority to apply for a change in in your zoning or your land use map designation or if it you already have the appropriate zoning to apply for a project to develop it. And I think that uh what what we have here is is exactly that. We just have a we have a land owner who who is exercising their right to be heard in a public forum with within the process established in our land development code and within state statutes as to how to change their land use map designation and their their zoning map designation. Um, and what they ask for is that that's at their discretion. I mean, they could have come in and said no cap on on on development, meaning that what they would be entitled to would be potentially um development of up to 12 dwelling units per acre as as our residential uh land use designation would would allow. and but part of their application does indicate a cap of 743. And there are many examples. We we we when whenever we process a land use map amendment, typically it will come with a cap only because it was never it's not the applicant's intent to to develop that number of units. And typically what they come in with is what they um uh have made a a I'm guessing an educated um analysis of what the land could potentially hold in terms of development. So and and that that's where uh this process comes in and us as reviewers of the application you know we have we have the land development code uh criteria and the comprehensive plan with its different policies that we have to um review and analyze and render a judgment or decision on. >> Thank you. So I do have um a couple of questions. Has an environmental phase one report been provided to staff? >> We have a prelim preliminary environmental site assessment because uh again this application came in uh well not this application but a similar application came in three years ago, right? Which led to the platting of of the Cascades subdivision that's there now 386. So yes that's been >> so that was three years ago when okay so an updated one has not been provided with this application >> typically conditions don't change to the extent within that three years especially within um as as they've uh cleared and platted um typically phase one you you look for you know are there dump sites uh illegal dumping that's happened and and those things have have not occurred. >> So with the community development district and the HOA, if you increase the units, then those fees could potentially impact the people that are currently a part of the cascades. Correct. >> I can't um I I don't know enough about how CDDs and HOAs work. Um I imagine >> because of the increased infrastructure needs >> the increased infra infrastructure needs and that if it's the CDD that's going to be required to pay it then obviously every uh owner within that CDD will will pay a certain portion of it as to whether it increases or decreases. Um maybe that's an applicant question. Um the you mentioned that the two wells will be conveyed to the city of Flaggler Beach and a value was assessed at $1 million for those two wells. Was there some type of an appraisal or something provided to the city to determine that value? >> What I've provided you is the quote from uh submitted by the applicant. Um you you you may u >> but no no official report just a quote >> we didn't not as part of the application. Okay. Um, it was also mentioned that a utility credit is currently in place for the upsizing of the infrastructure. So, if they were granted the additional units, will those credits still be applicable because they're going to be placing additional burden on the infrastructure? the the credits would come if they were to upsize the pipes beyond what's required for their development level, right? Uh if if they're only required to put in a 12-in pipe for X number of units and if the city requests that they go to 18 in, that difference is typically what would be uh recovered by the developer from the city. Um, under the flood planes, it states in the analysis that a portion of the subject property is located within zone A and the finding is the proposed flume change could potentially negatively impact the function of the special flood hazard area. However, if flood plane is impacted, compensatory storage will be required within the same defined flood plane flood planes hydra hydraologic subbasin as the placement of the field pursuant to section 10.02.11b land development code. So with that finding, how could this potentially um impact the neighboring residences? the the potential flood hazard area are at the western fringe of of the subject property. uh it's mainly it it touches the edges of of uh and so with that the the the bulk of the property is outside of the special flood hazard areas and and from the way that uh we saw how Cascades was platted the the developer I believe for the most part avoided any uh providing any lots. Are you able to bring that up on the map for the so that the public can see specifically what area that is referring to? >> If if if I can just uh point it out mainly uh where the special flood hazard areas are. It's it was mainly through again the western edges of of um what's been platted now as the Cascades subdivision and mainly along here too. So it it touches [snorts] but it's not it's not here and it's not here. I'm I'm not able to see your Oh, [laughter] >> yeah. I apologize. I am so sorry. I don't know what I was think. Yeah. I don't >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Yeah. So, um mainly the the special flood hazard areas again are at the edges of the western boundaries of [snorts] of of this development. And the way that the the Cascades was platted, it it avoided for the most part any impact on on the the special flood hazard area. And what I was saying is that your special flood hazard area is not through here and it's not through here where you would have the the bulk of of any development would occur. Seeing none, we have two items that we're going to be voting on and that is the recommendation on the zoning amendment and the future land use map amendment. The first of which will be the future land use map amendment. Mr. Papa, will you please place your recommendation on the screen again? >> Yes, ma'am. And um remembering what Mr. Papa mentioned earlier when he was reviewing the land development code that if it is a denial that there's a twoyear period. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I believe that only refers to the >> the zoning the zoning amendment. >> Yes ma'am. the future land use a um map >> and I I apologize just and assuming that that gets approved approved by city council because it is only a proposed text amendment at this time. So do we have a motion? >> Yeah. Do we have a application number or no? >> This is >> this is 6419. >> 649. Yes. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Um, regarding application 6419, um, the planning and, uh, regulation board uh, finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the the city council approve the pro proposed amendment. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> yes. Board member Stansel, >> no. Motion is defeated. >> Okay, Jose, will you please place the next recommendation on the on the screen for the zoning? Okay. Do we have a motion for the zoning amendment? I'll make a motion that the planning and land development regulation board find the proposed resoning application number 6418 does not meet the criteria for approval of MPD as established in the land development code and recommend denial to city council for the resoning. Do we have a second? >> Denial motion is carried four to zero. >> Thank you. We will now move to the next item on the agenda. Um members, discussion and staff issues. Thank you all for attending the planning and land development regulation board. As Mr. Bono stated, however, we do encourage you to consider serving the community, serving the city as a member of the planning and land development regulation board. If you visit the city's website that you will see that there are several opportunities where you can serve the community and learn more about the actual process and because I know sometimes it's frustrating and expectations of the planning board, but as Mr. Albano stated that we make recommendations. Doesn't mean that it's always going to be upheld with the city council. So, it's we have to be more attentive in our elections process and paying attention to the stance that people take. And we again thank you all for attending and we hope to see some of you apply for planning board. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Members, discussion and staff issues. Mr. W. >> Yeah. Just want to let the uh uh agency know that um uh we have several um >> if if you could please exit quietly. We're we're not quite done yet. Thank >> We have several candidates for the PODB um that will city council will appoint on uh September 15. And then right after that the next day September 16 we would have the workshop uh primarily is just to uh educate uh through the process how they can you know the new members can conduct uh as part of the podb just to let you know. >> Thank you planning board members any comments? I think I just this is my last meeting on this board, I think. So, just want to thank staff for all the support and learned way more about planning and than I ever thought I could even learn or be interested in. But it's uh it's good stuff. It's been uh an exciting journey. >> Yeah. And right and thank you for everyone that you know I've served with. I think uh stuff doesn't always go our way and it's been a little bit frustrating at times, but it's still I think I can walk away saying we we left it better than we found it. So >> that's right. >> We're going to miss you. >> Absolutely. Thank you for your service and hope. >> Yes. As you transition on, we wish you much great success and take all of this experience wherever life takes you. >> Thank you, Mr. Hen. Unless sorry >> I think I think Irene >> I just want to ask um Mr. Win are we going to mention the business meeting we added for September >> the 22nd? >> Yes. Yes. Since we uh were um thinking that the uh new members basically been appointed on the 15 and then the next day they have to take actions consideration. So we uh reschedu that for September 22nd as the uh the um regular meeting. That's correct. And then after that then we will resume the uh same uh third Wednesday of the month. >> Thank you. Irene, will you please send us a calendar invite so we can update our Thank you. And we had a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? >> All in favor? I >> All right. Everyone have a wonderful evening. Thank you for your service. sleeping. She sleeping. Need my right turn.