Sewage sludge sold as organic compost (at stores like Lowe's, Home Depot, and Ace Hardware) and spread on crops, pastures, and parks; speaker cited a cyclosporiasis outbreak in 47 states with over 22,700 cases and linked it to human fecal contamination of produce via land application of treated sludge regulated under 40 CFR Part 503.
Speaker called on council to pass local ordinances prohibiting toilet-to-tap water reuse, black water mixing in aquifers, and use of waste solids in irrigation sources.
Code enforcement rebranding to 'community compliance' — speaker stated he had previously asked whether the rebranding would result in the same reactive-only approach or whether the department would reform to be proactive and equal across the community, and had not received an answer.
Request to postpone all development presentations and votes on tonight's agenda due to disputed authority of appointed council members in District 3 and District 4 seats.
Speaker alleged David Sullivan continues voting despite an August 18 election seating Ray Stevens in District 3, and that the District 4 appointee has served past two regularly scheduled elections without an election being held for the seat.
Speaker also noted a special business meeting was called the day after the primary election and that several major developments are clustered on tonight's agenda.
Water and sewer rate increases totaling more than 30% over a few years to fund capital improvements and address a state consent order on the aging wastewater plant; speaker argued rapid growth outpaced infrastructure, that a 2022 town center DRRI amendment allowed conversion of nearly 91,000 sq ft of retail into 550 dwelling units administratively, that impact fees haven't kept pace with infrastructure needs, and that the city's land development code contains a gap allowing significant land use changes without council vote or public hearing.
Speaker also called for HOA-wide notification of developments affecting common areas.
Sewer caps not being waterproof and allowing rainwater intrusion into the sewer system during rain events, causing backups; speaker referenced a prior conversation with city staff about sealing seams with high-temperature caulk as a temporary fix.
Speaker also raised a complaint that Vice Mayor Pontieri issued a trespass warning after the speaker made a U-turn on a residential street.
East Flagler Mosquito Control District operations — speaker explained the district's 18 traps must meet minimum mosquito counts set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection before spraying is permitted; current drought conditions have kept trap counts below thresholds in many areas, which is why spraying has been limited or absent in some sections.
Resolution approving the Flagler Landings technical site plan (Tier 3, Application #6587) for a 186,276 sq ft Walmart supercenter on 38.81 acres on the south side of SR-100, west of BJ's.
Staff and applicant presented on site design, parking (890 spaces provided vs.
751 required), architectural standards, landscaping, and a possible private package wastewater plant as backup.
Council discussion focused on parking ratios for future out-parcels, traffic circulation, and FDOT corridor improvements.
Planning board had unanimously recommended approval.
Approved unanimously with staff conditions.
Resolution approving a proportionate share and impact fee credit agreement with Flagler Pines Properties for improvements to SR-100.
The applicant's share is $4.1 million (48% of the $9 million total cost to maintain level of service), with a road impact fee credit of $2.69 million.
The agreement covers the full buildout of Flagler Landings including out-parcels.
Corridor improvements at McCormick Road/SR-100 (signal modification, U-turn provision, additional turn lane at BJ's) are required at site development permit issuance.
Walmart's impact fee alone ($4.6 million) will exceed and satisfy the proportionate share obligation.
Approved unanimously.
Resolution approving the nuisance abatement final assessment roll at $102,520 to be transmitted to the Flagler County Tax Collector.
No substantive discussion; no public comment.
Approved unanimously.
Resolution approving the FY2026-27 non-ad valorem assessment roll for the Old Kings Road Special Assessment District to be transmitted to the Flagler County Tax Collector.
Two parcels were removed from the initial roll due to full payment of transportation impact fees, reducing the total from $313,926.51 to $36,583.34 (as stated by staff).
No public comment.
Approved unanimously.
Public comment on G.1 and G.2 (Flagler Landings): asked what portions of the development would still need to come back for future approval (fuel station, out-parcels) and whether anything being approved tonight would limit council's options when those future phases return.
Public comment on G.1 and G.2 (Flagler Landings): argued the proportionate share agreement is a paper transaction that leaves SR-100 over capacity and the city short of cash for six-laning; contended Florida law does not require approval of a development order that drops adopted level of service; cited Walmart's projected 9,400 daily trips and the full center's nearly 19,300 daily trips; argued splitting the gas station into a later application 'hides' traffic; and raised unresolved environmental permits, wetland impacts, and wastewater capacity at Plant 1 (under consent order) as disqualifying issues.
Also cited a purportedly better location on Old Kings Road commercial frontage.
Public comment on G.1 and G.2 (Flagler Landings): raised questions about what happens to road improvement funds if this project is delayed or does not proceed (referencing the Old Kings Road four-lane section built for a prior Walmart that never opened); asked whether improvements made before the project opens would disqualify them from the proportionate share calculation; asked whether the 70% impervious surface maximum includes the out-parcels; and asked whether the St.
Johns River Water Management District environmental resource permit has been issued.
Resolution approving piggybacking the OMNIA Partners contract with NEOGOV for Learn and Perform training and evaluation modules, consolidating training functions from Vector Solutions into NEOGOV.
Staff explained first-year savings of $18,000 with costs escalating over three years to a total of approximately $161,000.
Two public speakers asked about cost structure and savings figures; staff answered.
Approved unanimously.
Resolution approving the 19th annual FIND grant agreement for $5,000 for the Palm Coast Waterway Cleanup scheduled for September 19, 2026.
FIND Commissioner Stapleford attended and presented a ceremonial check.
Parks staff described the event.
No public comment.
Approved unanimously.
Public comment on H.1 (NEOGOV contract): questions about whether the $126,000 figure is per year or for the full three-year contract, whether the contract is required by any government entity or discretionary, and whether residents would see a tangible benefit.
Public comment on H.1 (NEOGOV contract): clarified the three-year escalating cost structure — Year 1: $31,000, Year 2: $57,000, Year 3: $67,000, total $161,000 — and questioned how the stated $18,000 savings figure is calculated given the cost more than doubles from year one to year three.
Ordinance on first reading for the Lakeview Estates comprehensive plan amendment (Application #5576), redesignating 20 acres of Track 9 from Green Belt to Mixed Use with a site-specific limiting policy capping density, intensity (trips), and building height at 35 ft.
Planning board recommended approval 5-1 conditioned on the limiting policy.
Tabled to September 15 by a 4-1 vote (Norris no) along with I.2, pending resolution of arsenic soil testing, view protection zone language, conservation of remaining lands, and other issues.
Ordinance on first reading for the Lakeview Estates MPD amendment (Application #5575), proposing to move 39 remaining residential entitlements to Track 3 as estate lots with RV garages, convey Track 8 (~15 acres) to the city as a park, allow commercial uses on Track 9, provide emergency access from US1, and modify view protection zones (Track 9 reduced from 150 ft to 100 ft).
Planning board voted 6-0 to recommend denial citing conflict with LDC golf course community standards.
Tabled to September 15 along with I.1, 4-1.
Ordinance on first reading for a FLUM amendment for 331.1+/- acres (Seminole Trace) to increase maximum dwelling units from 416 to 743 and redesignate conservation areas.
Planning board recommended denial.
Council discussion identified no meaningful public benefit, LDC non-compliance concerns, and history of repeated similar requests being denied.
Tabled for three months unanimously.
Ordinance on first reading for a zoning map amendment rezoning 331+/- acres (Seminole Trace) from SFR-1 and Preservation to MPD with a development agreement allowing single-family and townhome product on Tracks 3-5, with Track 6 as conservation.
Staff flagged LDC conflicts including open space reduction from 40% to 20%, townhome width of 18 ft, front setbacks, and driveway dimensions.
Planning board recommended denial.
Tabled for three months with I.3.
Public comment on I.1 and I.2 (Lakeview Estates): speaker stated the city approached the property owner about donating a park approximately two years ago, and that this initiated the MPD amendment process rather than the applicant initiating it.
Expressed concern about open-ended language such as 'enhanced' buffers and asked for bonding or CO-withholding mechanisms to ensure promised improvements (particularly vegetative buffers and the park) are actually completed.
Public comment on I.1 and I.2 (Lakeview Estates): objected that the 2021 MPD drew a line protecting the Track 3 viewshed and that neighbors bought and built on that promise; cited LDC sections 3.03.04 J1 and J2 as requiring protection of former golf course views; noted the planning board unanimously recommended denial; argued the park donation on Track 8 does not offset a code violation on Track 3; raised the adequacy of the neighborhood meeting record (sign-in sheet and written Q&A not fully in packet); and cited traffic safety concerns on Lake View Boulevard.
Public comment on I.1 and I.2 (Lakeview Estates): L section resident speaking in opposition, thanked Vice Mayor Pontieri for raising soil arsenic testing question; noted decisions in Palm Coast tend to get renegotiated years later; stated he lives on London Drive and will be directly affected; objected to a council member's characterization of planning board opposition as a 'knee-jerk reaction'; requested that the item be tabled and a better-organized neighborhood meeting be held.
Public comment on I.1 and I.2 (Lakeview Estates): raised the need to involve the stormwater department to evaluate whether the proposed stormwater retention areas on Tracks 6 and 7 can actually connect to the drainage system and provide usable retention capacity before accepting them as public benefit.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): Grand Landings resident correcting the record that Grand Landings has only four phases — there is no Phase 5 or 6 — so the proposed emergency connectivity through 'Grand Landings Phase 5 and 6' is inaccurate.
Speaker also expressed concern about the pace and scale of development in Seminole Woods and the impacts on green space, wildlife, and water.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): Seminole Woods resident arguing the 416-unit limit has been in place since 2005 and has been upheld multiple times; described traffic backup on Seminole Woods Boulevard including at the Sesame Street/Seminole Woods intersection with no right turn lane; noted the Cascades application was voted down twice (November 2023 and January 2024); argued this is the same request returning with a different council; and urged the board to uphold prior decisions.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): questioned why the application is being heard for a fourth attempt after the 416-unit limit was upheld; expressed concern about townhomes being incompatible with surrounding single-family homes on a two-lane section of Seminole Woods Boulevard; noted the planning board voted unanimously to recommend denial; and thanked Vice Mayor Pontieri for opposing the project historically.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): S section resident expressing support for neighbors in Seminole Woods; noted this is the applicant's fourth revision attempt; cited the planning board's unanimous 5-0 denial recommendation on August 19; raised concerns about LDC non-compliance (open space reduced from 40% to 20%, townhome width, front setbacks), lack of material public benefit, concurrency issues with peak hour trips on near-failing road segments, wastewater plant consent order, and wetland/habitat impacts.
Submitted additional written analysis to the clerk.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): Cascades/Seminole Trace area resident describing a dangerous incomplete intersection (missing left turn lane) where the speaker was struck by a vehicle while turning into their neighborhood; argued additional density should not be approved before fixing existing safety failures.
Also raised concerns about retention pond overflow capacity, flooding risk from increased impervious surfaces, and privacy impacts of proposed two-story townhomes adjacent to single-story homes.
Public comment on I.3 and I.4 (Seminole Trace): argued this is the same project that has been decided multiple times with the 416-unit cap upheld; cited the August 19 planning board unanimous denial; noted LDC non-compliance issues flagged by staff (open space from 40% to 20%, 18-ft townhome width when 20 ft is needed, 10-15 ft front setbacks when 20 ft is required); argued the proposed public benefits (Citation Boulevard connection, Flagler Beach well sites) do not offset 326 extra homes; and raised wastewater plant consent order and wetland concerns.
Background · Item I.1 · Sep 1, 2026
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 and I.2 · this meeting
Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.4 and I.5 · first reading — 3-1 (Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes; Norris no) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second readings of the FLUM and MPD amendments (Oct 20 Business Meeting). Oct 6 packet p.2518
Deep soil boring of at least 18 inches, with arsenic remediation language, before the park land (Tract 8) is conveyed.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading, subject to the applicant's consent; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.View protection zone on Tract 9 to stay at 150 feet rather than the proposed 100 feet.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.Tract 3 view protection zone to read as a minimum 50-foot buffer along the whole boundary with existing homes, not to be cleared.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.Sources: the Sep 1, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →
Background · Item I.2 · Sep 1, 2026
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 and I.2 · this meeting
Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.4 and I.5 · first reading — 3-1 (Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes; Norris no) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second readings of the FLUM and MPD amendments (Oct 20 Business Meeting). Oct 6 packet p.2518
Deep soil boring of at least 18 inches, with arsenic remediation language, before the park land (Tract 8) is conveyed.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading, subject to the applicant's consent; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.View protection zone on Tract 9 to stay at 150 feet rather than the proposed 100 feet.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.Tract 3 view protection zone to read as a minimum 50-foot buffer along the whole boundary with existing homes, not to be cleared.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: our meeting summary, generated from the captions
Pending Sep 15: Condition attached at first reading; check the second-reading packet.
From our caption-based meeting summary; check the video. Not yet checked against the video.Sources: the Sep 1, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →
Heard before · Item I.3 · Sep 1, 2026
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Recommended denial of the rezoning (MPD); the FLUM staff report's recommendation line was left unfilled. Oct 6 packet p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · this meeting Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 and H.4 · first reading
Dec 1, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second readings of the FLUM and MPD ordinances at the Dec 1 Business Meeting (6 p.m.). The same calendar lists the Nov 3 general election and, on Nov 17, the oath of office for newly elected council members. Oct 6 packet p.2518
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%”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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’”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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”
The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages shown are from the earlier September 1, 2026 hearing materials; no pages show a revised MPD standard or LDC compliance resolution for the 18-foot townhome width requirement after that meeting.
Not yet checked against the video.Driveways must comply with the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet shows the same three public benefits listed at the earlier meeting; staff notes a deficiency but no new material public benefit beyond those items is shown as having been provided or agreed upon. Oct 6 packet p.1047
“Staff proposes that applicant provide a material benefit that serves the immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of the City of Palm Coast.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not include any documentation showing that staff and the applicant sat down together after September 1 to work through LDC compliance issues and the public-benefit requirement.
Not yet checked against the video.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.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not reflect any post-September 1 meeting between the applicant and staff to resolve townhome-width and driveway LDC conflicts.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet shows only the same three previously listed public benefits and staff's note that a material benefit is still needed; no new benefit from a council meeting with the applicant is documented. Oct 6 packet p.1047
“Staff proposes that applicant provide a material benefit that serves the immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of the City of Palm Coast.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not contain any post-September 1 staff memorandum or summary showing that staff worked with the applicant to resolve the identified LDC conflicts and public-benefit deficiency before second reading.
Not yet checked against the video.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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.
Not yet checked against the video.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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not yet checked against the video.The MPD must comply with the LDC requirement of 40% open space rather than the proposed 20%.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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%.”Not yet checked against the video.
Town home minimum width must comply with LDC standards and not be set at the proposed 18 feet.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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'”Not yet checked against the video.
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 council · 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.”Not yet checked against the video.
Driveways must meet the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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.
Not yet checked against the video.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”Not yet checked against the video.
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'”Not yet checked against the video.
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”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not address the applicant's offer to look into the dangerous unfinished left-turn lane intersection near the development.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not yet checked against the video.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.
Not yet checked against the video.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”Not yet checked against the video.
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.
Not yet checked against the video.Promised Eastbound left-turn lanes are to be constructed at both the western and eastern project driveways on Seminole Woods Parkway as part of phased infrastructure development. Oct 6 packet p.1202
Promised A concurrency test will occur during the site plan/platting phase to ensure adequate infrastructure capacity, including wastewater treatment, to accommodate the proposed development. Oct 6 packet p.1088
Promised Staff requires the applicant to provide a material public benefit that serves immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of Palm Coast before the MPD is approved. Oct 6 packet p.1047
Promised The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner. Oct 6 packet p.1337
Promised The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park. Oct 6 packet p.1337
Promised Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process. Oct 6 packet p.1399
Promised The owner will convey two well sites to the City of Flagler Beach within one year after approval of the development agreement. Oct 6 packet p.1399
Sources: the Sep 1, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →
Heard before · Item I.4 · Sep 1, 2026
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Recommended denial of the rezoning (MPD); the FLUM staff report's recommendation line was left unfilled. Oct 6 packet p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · this meeting Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 and H.4 · first reading
Dec 1, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second readings of the FLUM and MPD ordinances at the Dec 1 Business Meeting (6 p.m.). The same calendar lists the Nov 3 general election and, on Nov 17, the oath of office for newly elected council members. Oct 6 packet p.2518
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%”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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’”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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”One of staff's stated reasons for recommending denial.
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”
The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages shown are from the earlier September 1, 2026 hearing materials; no pages show a revised MPD standard or LDC compliance resolution for the 18-foot townhome width requirement after that meeting.
Not yet checked against the video.Driveways must comply with the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet shows the same three public benefits listed at the earlier meeting; staff notes a deficiency but no new material public benefit beyond those items is shown as having been provided or agreed upon. Oct 6 packet p.1047
“Staff proposes that applicant provide a material benefit that serves the immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of the City of Palm Coast.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not include any documentation showing that staff and the applicant sat down together after September 1 to work through LDC compliance issues and the public-benefit requirement.
Not yet checked against the video.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.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not reflect any post-September 1 meeting between the applicant and staff to resolve townhome-width and driveway LDC conflicts.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet shows only the same three previously listed public benefits and staff's note that a material benefit is still needed; no new benefit from a council meeting with the applicant is documented. Oct 6 packet p.1047
“Staff proposes that applicant provide a material benefit that serves the immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of the City of Palm Coast.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not contain any post-September 1 staff memorandum or summary showing that staff worked with the applicant to resolve the identified LDC conflicts and public-benefit deficiency before second reading.
Not yet checked against the video.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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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.
Not yet checked against the video.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.”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not yet checked against the video.The MPD must comply with the LDC requirement of 40% open space rather than the proposed 20%.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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%.”Not yet checked against the video.
Town home minimum width must comply with LDC standards and not be set at the proposed 18 feet.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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'”Not yet checked against the video.
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 council · 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.”Not yet checked against the video.
Driveways must meet the LDC minimum width of 16 feet to accommodate two side-by-side parking spaces.
Raised Sep 1 · by council · 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.
Not yet checked against the video.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”Not yet checked against the video.
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'”Not yet checked against the video.
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”Not yet checked against the video.
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
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not address the applicant's offer to look into the dangerous unfinished left-turn lane intersection near the development.
Not yet checked against the video.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
Not yet checked against the video.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.
Not yet checked against the video.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”Not yet checked against the video.
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.
Not yet checked against the video.Promised Eastbound left-turn lanes are to be constructed at both the western and eastern project driveways on Seminole Woods Parkway as part of phased infrastructure development. Oct 6 packet p.1202
Promised A concurrency test will occur during the site plan/platting phase to ensure adequate infrastructure capacity, including wastewater treatment, to accommodate the proposed development. Oct 6 packet p.1088
Promised Staff requires the applicant to provide a material public benefit that serves immediate residents of the subject property as well as the general population of Palm Coast before the MPD is approved. Oct 6 packet p.1047
Promised The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner. Oct 6 packet p.1337
Promised The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park. Oct 6 packet p.1337
Promised Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process. Oct 6 packet p.1399
Promised The owner will convey two well sites to the City of Flagler Beach within one year after approval of the development agreement. Oct 6 packet p.1399
Sources: the Sep 1, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →