Open space in the MPD reduced from the required 40% to 20%. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Amended agreement raises the open space ratio back to 40%. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the Open Space Ratio to 40%”

Townhome minimum lot width of 18 feet. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the minimum townhome width to 20’”

Front setbacks of 15 feet (single-family) and 10 feet (townhomes). Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet for both. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the minimum front setback for buildings to 20’ for both single-family homes and townhomes”

Council tabled both items and directed the applicant and staff to discuss changes to the development agreement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: The applicant submitted an amended agreement: 130-townhome cap, open space 40%, wider lots, deeper setbacks, a new 15-foot buffer between townhomes and single-family homes, and a skate park offer. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“The applicant has provided an amended MPD agreement”

Staff remains concerned about timely construction of the skate park offered as a public benefit, and says the adequacy of the park impact fees to pay for it cannot be determined yet. Oct 6 packet p.1338

Raised Oct 6 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Open Oct 6: Raised in the Oct 6 packet; to be resolved before or at second reading. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“the adequacy of impact fee collected is undetermined at this time”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31

Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

Driveways must comply with the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:01

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not show any resolution or revised standard addressing the LDC minimum 16-foot driveway width requirement after the September 1 meeting.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant must identify and provide a significant, material public benefit—beyond previously listed items—to justify the increase of over 300 dwelling units.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:45:42

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff and the applicant are directed to sit down together and work through LDC compliance issues and the public-benefit requirement before the matter returns.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:14:06

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to comply with all LDC requirements on driveways and setbacks, stating 20-foot driveways are already standard in their builder contracts.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:09:46

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not show any revised MPD or development agreement language confirming 20-foot driveways or LDC-compliant driveways as a binding commitment after September 1.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to work with staff to resolve townhome-width and driveway LDC conflicts before the matter returns.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:10:02

Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

The applicant offered to meet with council to discuss and identify an acceptable public benefit, including potentially a park or skate park suggested by staff, and requested guidance on what council envisions.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to look into constructing or contributing to a left-turn lane at the intersection leading into the neighborhood if right-of-way is in place and the entrance aligns with it.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:11:14

Partly made Oct 6: The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff is to work with the applicant during the tabling period to resolve the identified LDC conflicts in the MPD (open space, townhome width, setbacks, driveways) and the public-benefit deficiency before second reading.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:36:25

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that the intersection at the neighborhood entrance lacks a left-turn lane, has been unsafe for over two years, and must be corrected before additional density is approved.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:01:59

Partly made Oct 6: The traffic study finds that left-turn lanes are warranted at both project entrances and recommends their construction with phased infrastructure, addressing the intersection concern in a technical sense, though no separate remediation of the existing unsafe condition is committed. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“In accordance with this guidance, ETM's proposal entails the construction of access improvements at the western project driveway as part of the infrastructure development for Seminole Trace Phase 1 and Phase 2.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that existing retention ponds and canals are already strained and additional impervious surfaces from the development could cause recurring flooding, which must be addressed before approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:02:39

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report acknowledges a Special Flood Hazard Area on site and requires compensatory storage if floodplain is impacted, but does not directly address whether existing retention ponds and canals are already strained or commit to resolving that before approval. Oct 6 packet p.1084

“if floodplain is impacted, compensatory storage will be required within the same defined floodplain's hydrologic sub basin as the placement of the fill pursuant to section 10.02.11B Land Development Code.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that two-story townhomes placed adjacent to one-story single-family homes would create direct lines of sight into residents' properties, and privacy impacts must be addressed before approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:03:31

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not address the privacy concern about two-story townhomes creating direct lines of sight into adjacent single-family properties.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that wastewater Plant 1, which serves this side of the city, is under an FDEP consent order and cannot support 327 new entitlements until the plant issues are resolved.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:06:51

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report states the proposed amendment is consistent with comprehensive plan policies on wastewater capacity and that any deficiency 'may require denial of a development order or a mitigation agreement,' but does not address the FDEP consent order on Plant 1 specifically. Oct 6 packet p.1087

“Any deficiency in treatment capacity may require denial of a development order or a mitigation agreement to address the deficiency.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that the 2022 environmental assessment on file identifies roughly 64 acres of forested wetlands and listed-species habitat, and that rearranging conservation lines on the map does not eliminate those risks.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:07:11

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report acknowledges 146.25 acres of wetlands on the site and states that any wetland impacts will require SJRWMD and FDEP permits, but does not address the resident's concern that rearranging conservation lines does not eliminate environmental risks. Oct 6 packet p.1084

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The MPD must comply with the LDC requirement of 40% open space rather than the proposed 20%.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:36

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the open space ratio from 20% to 40%, matching the LDC requirement council demanded. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Amend Section 9.2 Open Space Ratio for MPD site is increased from 20% to 40%.”

Town home minimum width must comply with LDC standards and not be set at the proposed 18 feet.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:40

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

Front building setbacks must meet the LDC minimum of 20 feet from the garage door to the front property line, not the proposed 15 feet for single family and 10 feet for townhomes.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:14

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD increases minimum front setbacks to 20 feet for both single-family and townhome units, meeting the LDC minimum. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increase minimum front setback for buildings from property line from 15' to 20' and from 10' to 20' for single-family units, and townhouse units, respectively.”

Driveways must meet the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:35

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not specifically address a change to driveway minimum width of 16 feet as a separate amendment; the issue is mentioned only in the prior staff analysis context.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant must provide a significant, material public benefit to justify the requested increase of over 300 dwelling units before council will consider approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:45:42

Partly made Oct 6: The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to accept a town home minimum width of 20 feet rather than 18 feet, in line with market standard.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:09:30

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement formally increases minimum townhome width to 20 feet, consistent with the applicant's offer at the prior meeting. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

The applicant offered to meet with council and staff to discuss and negotiate an acceptable public benefit for the community.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08

Partly made Oct 6: The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to look into addressing the dangerous unfinished left-turn lane intersection near the development if right-of-way is in place and the entrance aligns with it.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:11:14

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.3 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff and the applicant are directed to sit down together during the tabling period to resolve LDC compliance issues, identify a public benefit, and return with a revised proposal.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:14:06

Partly made Oct 6: Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff confirmed that if the FLUM amendment is approved at a future first reading, it will be transmitted to the Department of Commerce for a 30-day state review before a second reading, anticipated at the October 20 business meeting.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:23:56

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not mention the FLUM amendment transmission to the Department of Commerce or the anticipated October 20 second reading.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised concerns about retention ponds and the water table being overwhelmed by additional impervious surfaces, warning of recurring flooding, and asked this be addressed before construction proceeds.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:02:52

Partly made Oct 6: The packet notes that stormwater management with retention ponds is incorporated into the project design and must meet city requirements, but does not specifically address the flooding/water table concern raised by the resident. Oct 6 packet p.1557

“stormwater management has been incorporated into the project design, including numerous retention ponds throughout the proposed development. The stormwater management system will be required to satisfy applicable City requirements”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident submitted a written package to the clerk alleging additional discrepancies, incorrect information, and deviations from standard operating procedure in the application, and asked council to review it.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:00:45

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet makes no mention of the resident's written package alleging discrepancies or deviations from standard operating procedure submitted to the clerk.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Open space in the MPD reduced from the required 40% to 20%. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Amended agreement raises the open space ratio back to 40%. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the Open Space Ratio to 40%”

Townhome minimum lot width of 18 feet. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the minimum townhome width to 20’”

Front setbacks of 15 feet (single-family) and 10 feet (townhomes). Oct 6 packet p.1337

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet for both. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increasing the minimum front setback for buildings to 20’ for both single-family homes and townhomes”

Council tabled both items and directed the applicant and staff to discuss changes to the development agreement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: The applicant submitted an amended agreement: 130-townhome cap, open space 40%, wider lots, deeper setbacks, a new 15-foot buffer between townhomes and single-family homes, and a skate park offer. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“The applicant has provided an amended MPD agreement”

Staff remains concerned about timely construction of the skate park offered as a public benefit, and says the adequacy of the park impact fees to pay for it cannot be determined yet. Oct 6 packet p.1338

Raised Oct 6 · by staff · source: agenda packet

Open Oct 6: Raised in the Oct 6 packet; to be resolved before or at second reading. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“the adequacy of impact fee collected is undetermined at this time”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31

Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

Driveways must comply with the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:01

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not show any resolution or revised standard addressing the LDC minimum 16-foot driveway width requirement after the September 1 meeting.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant must identify and provide a significant, material public benefit—beyond previously listed items—to justify the increase of over 300 dwelling units.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:45:42

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff and the applicant are directed to sit down together and work through LDC compliance issues and the public-benefit requirement before the matter returns.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:14:06

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to comply with all LDC requirements on driveways and setbacks, stating 20-foot driveways are already standard in their builder contracts.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:09:46

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not show any revised MPD or development agreement language confirming 20-foot driveways or LDC-compliant driveways as a binding commitment after September 1.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to work with staff to resolve townhome-width and driveway LDC conflicts before the matter returns.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:10:02

Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

The applicant offered to meet with council to discuss and identify an acceptable public benefit, including potentially a park or skate park suggested by staff, and requested guidance on what council envisions.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to look into constructing or contributing to a left-turn lane at the intersection leading into the neighborhood if right-of-way is in place and the entrance aligns with it.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:11:14

Partly made Oct 6: The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff is to work with the applicant during the tabling period to resolve the identified LDC conflicts in the MPD (open space, townhome width, setbacks, driveways) and the public-benefit deficiency before second reading.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:36:25

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that the intersection at the neighborhood entrance lacks a left-turn lane, has been unsafe for over two years, and must be corrected before additional density is approved.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:01:59

Partly made Oct 6: The traffic study finds that left-turn lanes are warranted at both project entrances and recommends their construction with phased infrastructure, addressing the intersection concern in a technical sense, though no separate remediation of the existing unsafe condition is committed. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“In accordance with this guidance, ETM's proposal entails the construction of access improvements at the western project driveway as part of the infrastructure development for Seminole Trace Phase 1 and Phase 2.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that existing retention ponds and canals are already strained and additional impervious surfaces from the development could cause recurring flooding, which must be addressed before approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:02:39

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report acknowledges a Special Flood Hazard Area on site and requires compensatory storage if floodplain is impacted, but does not directly address whether existing retention ponds and canals are already strained or commit to resolving that before approval. Oct 6 packet p.1084

“if floodplain is impacted, compensatory storage will be required within the same defined floodplain's hydrologic sub basin as the placement of the fill pursuant to section 10.02.11B Land Development Code.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that two-story townhomes placed adjacent to one-story single-family homes would create direct lines of sight into residents' properties, and privacy impacts must be addressed before approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:03:31

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not address the privacy concern about two-story townhomes creating direct lines of sight into adjacent single-family properties.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that wastewater Plant 1, which serves this side of the city, is under an FDEP consent order and cannot support 327 new entitlements until the plant issues are resolved.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:06:51

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report states the proposed amendment is consistent with comprehensive plan policies on wastewater capacity and that any deficiency 'may require denial of a development order or a mitigation agreement,' but does not address the FDEP consent order on Plant 1 specifically. Oct 6 packet p.1087

“Any deficiency in treatment capacity may require denial of a development order or a mitigation agreement to address the deficiency.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised that the 2022 environmental assessment on file identifies roughly 64 acres of forested wetlands and listed-species habitat, and that rearranging conservation lines on the map does not eliminate those risks.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:07:11

Partly made Oct 6: The staff report acknowledges 146.25 acres of wetlands on the site and states that any wetland impacts will require SJRWMD and FDEP permits, but does not address the resident's concern that rearranging conservation lines does not eliminate environmental risks. Oct 6 packet p.1084

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The MPD must comply with the LDC requirement of 40% open space rather than the proposed 20%.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:36

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the open space ratio from 20% to 40%, matching the LDC requirement council demanded. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Amend Section 9.2 Open Space Ratio for MPD site is increased from 20% to 40%.”

Town home minimum width must comply with LDC standards and not be set at the proposed 18 feet.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:40

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

Front building setbacks must meet the LDC minimum of 20 feet from the garage door to the front property line, not the proposed 15 feet for single family and 10 feet for townhomes.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:14

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD increases minimum front setbacks to 20 feet for both single-family and townhome units, meeting the LDC minimum. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“increase minimum front setback for buildings from property line from 15' to 20' and from 10' to 20' for single-family units, and townhouse units, respectively.”

Driveways must meet the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:35

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not specifically address a change to driveway minimum width of 16 feet as a separate amendment; the issue is mentioned only in the prior staff analysis context.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant must provide a significant, material public benefit to justify the requested increase of over 300 dwelling units before council will consider approval.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:45:42

Partly made Oct 6: The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. Oct 6 packet p.1338

“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to accept a town home minimum width of 20 feet rather than 18 feet, in line with market standard.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:09:30

Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement formally increases minimum townhome width to 20 feet, consistent with the applicant's offer at the prior meeting. Oct 6 packet p.1337

“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”

The applicant offered to meet with council and staff to discuss and negotiate an acceptable public benefit for the community.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08

Partly made Oct 6: The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. Oct 6 packet p.1336

“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

The applicant offered to look into addressing the dangerous unfinished left-turn lane intersection near the development if right-of-way is in place and the entrance aligns with it.

Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:11:14

Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.3 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. Oct 6 packet p.1202

“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff and the applicant are directed to sit down together during the tabling period to resolve LDC compliance issues, identify a public benefit, and return with a revised proposal.

Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:14:06

Partly made Oct 6: Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. Oct 6 packet p.1337

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

Staff confirmed that if the FLUM amendment is approved at a future first reading, it will be transmitted to the Department of Commerce for a 30-day state review before a second reading, anticipated at the October 20 business meeting.

Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:23:56

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not mention the FLUM amendment transmission to the Department of Commerce or the anticipated October 20 second reading.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident raised concerns about retention ponds and the water table being overwhelmed by additional impervious surfaces, warning of recurring flooding, and asked this be addressed before construction proceeds.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:02:52

Partly made Oct 6: The packet notes that stormwater management with retention ponds is incorporated into the project design and must meet city requirements, but does not specifically address the flooding/water table concern raised by the resident. Oct 6 packet p.1557

“stormwater management has been incorporated into the project design, including numerous retention ponds throughout the proposed development. The stormwater management system will be required to satisfy applicable City requirements”

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.

A resident submitted a written package to the clerk alleging additional discrepancies, incorrect information, and deviations from standard operating procedure in the application, and asked council to review it.

Raised Sep 1 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 05:00:45

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet makes no mention of the resident's written package alleging discrepancies or deviations from standard operating procedure submitted to the clerk.

Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.