Staff presented a technical site plan tier one with landscape betterment plan for a proposed 2,425 square foot Chipotle restaurant at the northeast corner of Palm Coast Parkway and Belair Parkway, replacing a gas station vacant since approximately 2011.
The betterment plan includes preservation of six mature oak trees, a small pedestrian park with a fountain and benches at the southwest corner, and transplanted sabal palms, exceeding the required landscape area.
One member of the public noted access concerns, which the applicant addressed by explaining the access points are controlled by the larger plaza.
The board approved the application after confirming no ex-parte communications.
Staff presented a proposed ordinance creating LDC Section 4.22 to regulate mobile food dispensing vehicles (food trucks), allowing them as a principal use in COM 2, COM 3, ID1, and MPD zones and as an accessory use in a broader range of non-residential zones, as well as on city-owned park and recreation sites.
The ordinance was drafted following a City Council workshop on October 28, 2024, input from approximately 65 registered food truck vendors, and a two-hour stakeholder meeting.
Several food truck operators spoke in public comment supporting the ordinance while raising concerns about a 6-hour time limit for private catered events, noise restrictions more limiting than those for bars and restaurants, and permit fees.
The board voted to recommend approval to city council with two amendments: removing the 6-hour time limit and aligning the noise/amplified sound standard with that applicable to bars and restaurants.
Speaker expressed concern that food trucks face less regulatory and financial burden than brick-and-mortar restaurants (liability insurance, fire inspections) and that the county health department may not be sufficiently staffed to inspect an increased number of food truck vendors.
Speaker, a food truck operator with a city license since 2017, spoke in support of the ordinance, stating that food trucks are already highly regulated and inspected by the state, self-contained for waste, and that local food truck operators should be considered first for any food truck park.
Speaker also noted having coordinated food truck operations at city events for nine years.
Speaker, co-owner of a family and veteran-owned food truck, expressed support for the ordinance and interest in partnering with the city, noted that food truck operators carry required liability and vehicle insurance and food service manager licenses, and cited successful food truck parks in Jacksonville and Orlando as models.
Speaker, a 16-year food truck operator and 31-year Palm Coast resident, objected to the city's existing commercial vehicle ordinance preventing trailer storage in residential driveways, argued the city has inhibited small businesses by not providing permitted locations to operate, questioned the 6-hour time limit for private events, requested the word 'rogue' in the presentation be changed to 'unauthorized' or 'unpermitted,' and asked about the absence of a fee schedule in the ordinance.
Speaker, owner of a business with both a brick-and-mortar and a food trailer, expressed concern about not receiving the city email notification about the ordinance, raised the issue of local food trucks potentially being displaced at city parks by trucks from Orlando, Daytona, or Jacksonville, and stated the trailer is used primarily for community fundraising including for the Boy Scouts and RTC.
Speaker stated she operates her food truck eight hours a day, five days a week, in response to the board's question about typical operating hours.
Speaker stated her food truck operates between three and twelve hours depending on the event.
Speaker stated her food truck operates eight to twelve hours including setup and breakdown.
Speaker stated the food truck operation runs eight to twelve hours start to finish.
Speaker stated her coffee and espresso food truck typically operates about eight hours.
Staff presented an application by CPNHD Residential Lots LLC (an ICI Homes subsidiary) to amend the existing Easthampton MPD development agreement to increase residential entitlements from 58 to 71 dwelling units and reduce minimum lot sizes from 8,250 sq ft to 5,500 sq ft (interior) and 6,600 sq ft (perimeter), with corresponding reductions in side setbacks.
The amendment would also require modifying the underlying 2012 settlement agreement.
Staff presented no formal recommendation because the MPD approval is subject to that settlement agreement being amended by city council.
Approximately twelve members of the public from the Cypress Knolls East section spoke against the amendment, citing concerns about drainage, infrastructure capacity at Wastewater Treatment Facility No.
1, traffic on the single-access East Hampton Boulevard, lot size incompatibility with the existing neighborhood character, school capacity impacts, and the introduction of a lift station.
The applicant's representatives emphasized the project is infill development, meets all LDC criteria, has a smaller developmental footprint than the approved 58-unit concept plan, and that construction cost increases since 2012 make the original entitlement economically unworkable.
Board members raised concerns including the absence of the currently approved development order plans, the reduction in wetland acreage shown in the proposed concept plan versus the original, missing storm water ponds, and the adequacy of the single-access layout.
The board voted 6-0 to recommend denial to city council.
Speaker, a four-year resident living across from the subject property, argued the amendment is financially motivated, expressed concern that additional impervious surface from 13 more homes will worsen existing stormwater flooding on his street, questioned the applicant's claim that smaller lots would not reduce home values by comparing to similar lot sizes in Grand Reserve where homes sell under $300,000, and noted the lift station was not in the original concept plan.
Speaker, identifying as an avid runner, opposed the reduced lot sizes and smaller setbacks, raised fire safety concerns about closely packed homes on a single-access road, referenced his background as a volunteer firefighter, and argued the issues of utility capacity and emergency access should be resolved before approving additional units.
Speaker argued the city's infrastructure — roads, utilities, and services — is already overburdened by growth and that no new projects should be approved until roads are widened and infrastructure catches up, citing traffic on Royal Palm, Town Center Boulevard, and Old Kings Road.
Speaker asked when growth would stop, noted he lives near Grand Reserve and East Hampton, objected to 13 additional homes being added, and complained about the volume of development and traffic throughout Palm Coast.
Speaker, a resident of Eric Drive who attended both the 2010 and the November 2025 neighborhood meetings, provided historical context that the settlement was reached because the original owner threatened to build apartments, and the neighborhood agreed to single-family homes only if lot sizes matched existing neighborhood standards.
Speaker questioned the accuracy of the applicant's figures and stated the real reason for the amendment is that the project cannot be made profitable without adding the 13 homes.
Speaker, a four-year resident, asked whether the 58-home development would proceed regardless of the board's decision on the amendment, expressed concern about traffic from 116 to 142 additional vehicles on a single-access road, noted roads in the East section have not been repaved despite increased traffic, and asked why development continues when schools are already at capacity.
Speaker, husband of the prior speaker and a resident of Eric Drive, confirmed the neighborhood has a single difficult exit and noted he was told the exit situation would be improved, which has not happened in four years.
Speaker also raised concern about hurricane resilience of stick-built homes given his background as a longtime property insurance adjuster.
Speaker, an Eagle Harbor Trail resident who moved to the East section from the C section specifically for its neighborhood character and larger lots, argued the smaller lot sizes would be disruptive to the Cypress Knolls area's image and feel, and stated 13 additional homes on tiny lots is not warranted for the East section.
Speaker, a pedestrian and cyclist, argued that East Hampton is already unsafe to walk or bike on and that adding more traffic from new homes will make it a disaster, and advocated for a moratorium on development until infrastructure catches up.
Speaker, an Ebtide Drive resident who built her home in 2002 and whose property backs up to the subject site, stated the applicant told her at the neighborhood meeting that the development is not economically viable without the density increase, argued this means ICI's need for profit would reduce surrounding home values, and noted that under the amended plan she would have two homes behind her instead of one, requesting the board honor the original settlement and recommend denial.
Speaker, a Palm Harbor resident, noted the amendment represents a 22% increase in units and argued that without a workforce housing density bonus ordinance, the city is missing an opportunity to require affordable units in exchange for the density increase.
Speaker called on the board to recommend that city council direct staff to prepare a voluntary workforce housing density bonus ordinance.
Speaker, a resident since 2000 who built on the corner of Egan and Egret, argued that when parties enter a binding agreement they should honor it, and stated the board should hold the applicant to the original 58-home commitment rather than allowing the amendment.
Speaker, an Egan Drive resident, opposed the reduced 5,500 square foot lot size as approximately half the size of standard neighborhood lots, questioned the applicability of the Plantation Bay comparison because that community has amenities this one would not, expressed concern about drainage, and stated the city already made concessions through the land swap to enable the 58 lots.
Speaker, an 11-year Egret Trail resident in Cypress Knolls East, stated he chose the East section specifically for the continuity of housing type with lots of approximately 10,000 square feet, argued that 5,500 square foot lots with 5-foot setbacks would change the culture and value of the neighborhood and that smaller houses on those lots would not be comparable to surrounding homes, and that drainage issues would be worsened by 13 more homes.
Speaker, from Arab Drive, stated neighbors have expressed the neighborhood will be destroyed if the additional 13 homes are approved, acknowledged the 58-home base is unavoidable, and argued the infrastructure is not up to par and the pace of growth needs to slow down, citing US1 development and cookie-cutter 1,200 square foot homes as examples.
Speaker asked how long the Chipotle site had been vacant and expressed preference for an Arby's over a Chipotle, while also questioning whether the project would improve vehicle ingress and egress from Belair Parkway and Palm Coast Parkway.