The Palm Coast City Council is being asked to formally proclaim October 2026 as Disability Employment Awareness Month, in alignment with the national observance held each October.
The proclamation recognizes the contributions of people with disabilities to the workforce and community, and specifically acknowledges Flagler Schools for its role in providing job placement assistance, training, support services, and job coaching to Floridians with disabilities.
Council action consists of adopting the proclamation and encouraging residents, businesses, and organizations to support inclusive employment opportunities throughout the city.
Fire Chief Kyle Berryhill is asking the Palm Coast City Council to formally proclaim October 4–10, 2026, as Fire Prevention Week, a nationally recognized observance in which the Palm Coast Fire Department educates residents of all ages about fire safety.
This year's campaign focuses on the growing risk of lithium-ion battery fires, with the theme 'Charge into Fire Safety: Safe Charging Is a Superpower,' emphasizing proper charging habits for everyday devices such as smartphones, e-bikes, and laptops.
Council is simply being asked to adopt the proclamation.
The Palm Coast City Council is being asked to formally proclaim October 5–9, 2026, as Customer Service Week in recognition of the City's Customer Service Division and its staff.
The proclamation highlights the division's longstanding record of service, noting that its representatives handle more than 130,000 resident inquiries each year.
Council action is a ceremonial vote to adopt and sign the proclamation.
The Palm Coast Mayor and City Council are being asked to formally proclaim November 2026 as Shirley Chisholm Month, honoring the late congresswoman and presidential candidate who lived in Palm Coast from 1991 until her death in 2005.
Chisholm is recognized as the first Black U.S.
Congresswoman and for her 1972 bid for the U.S. presidency, as well as her advocacy for women, children, minority education, and employment opportunities.
The proclamation is an internal city initiative presented by the Mayor and City Council, with no financial component attached.
The Palm Coast City Council is being asked to approve the official minutes from two prior meetings: the September 15, 2026 Business Meeting and the September 23, 2026 Final Budget Hearing.
The September 15 meeting covered a range of actions including board appointments to the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board and Code Enforcement Board, first readings of several ordinances (including amendments to the Unified Land Development Code, a prohibition on transferring the Fire Rescue Department, a prohibition on direct potable reuse, and the Lakeview Estates comprehensive plan and MPD amendments), and approval of several consent agenda resolutions.
The September 23 meeting included the presentation of the final proposed Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget and a convening of the SR 100 Corridor CRA Board, though the minutes for that meeting appear to be cut off in the packet.
Palm Coast staff is asking the City Council to approve piggybacking an existing Sourcewell Minnesota cooperative contract with New Line Skateparks FL, Inc., so the city can purchase skatepark, bike park, pump track, and BMX track equipment and services on an as-needed basis without conducting its own competitive solicitation.
The underlying Sourcewell contract (#090425-NLS) runs through October 20, 2029, and includes options for renewal.
Council is being asked to adopt the resolution and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement, with authority to approve future amendments under $100,000 independently.
Palm Coast's Public Works Fleet Division is asking the City Council to approve piggybacking an existing National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) master agreement with Boulevard Tire Center to purchase tires, tubes, and related services for the City's vehicle and equipment fleet on an as-needed basis.
The vendor, legally known as Earl W.
Colvard, Inc. dba Boulevard Tire Center, is based in Lady Lake, Florida, and already signed the engagement letter on September 3, 2026.
Council is being asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract and any future amendments under $100,000, with the current agreement running through March 31, 2027 and carrying three additional one-year renewal options.
The Palm Coast City Council is being asked to approve a Master Price Agreement with Alpha General Services, Inc., a Sebring, Florida company, for the purchase of miscellaneous repair parts for the city's PEP (pressure/pump) sewer system on an as-needed basis.
The Wastewater Collection Division requires these specific components to maintain consistency with existing PEP tank and pump assembly packages, and the purchase was sole-sourced to Alpha General Services after a 15-business-day public notice period drew no competing vendors.
Council is asked to adopt the resolution authorizing the agreement, with the City Manager permitted to approve future amendments under $100,000 without additional council action.
The Palm Coast City Council is being asked to approve a resolution authorizing a professional engineering services work order with McKim & Creed, Inc. to design and oversee the conversion of two aging wastewater eductor lift stations — AU-5 on Courtney Place and AO-3 on Cooper Lane — to modern submersible pump stations.
Both facilities have reached the end of their useful service life, and continued investment in the existing eductor systems is no longer considered cost-effective.
The not-to-exceed work order totals $206,220 and covers full engineering services from design through permitting, bidding, construction administration, and project certification with FDEP.
Oare Associates, LLC is asking Palm Coast City Council to approve a Fourth Amendment to the Magnolia Trace Master Planned Development-Development Agreement, a roughly 1,018-acre community near the intersection of US-1 and Belle Terre Boulevard that has been planned since 2005 as a continuing-care retirement community.
The amendment would reduce the maximum number of residential units from 754 to 624, restructure several development tracts, expand the MPD boundary by about 4.41 acres, and change Zonal Geranium Trail from a permanent access point to emergency-access only while adding a new emergency access to Zaun Trail.
The Planning and Land Development Regulation Board voted 6-1 to recommend approval on September 22, 2026, and also recommended adding a historic marker for the Gore Lake Mound archaeological site; Council is now conducting its first of two readings.
Red Mill Pointe LLC, represented by attorney Michael D.
Chiumento III of Chiumento Law, is asking the Palm Coast City Council to rezone a roughly 35-acre parcel at 76 Red Mill Drive from Multifamily Residential (MFR-1) to Master Planned Development (MPD) so the site can be built out as 216 fee-simple, owner-occupied townhouses rather than the 216 rental multifamily units previously approved.
The rezoning would be accompanied by a Development Agreement that locks in the same unit count while adjusting several dimensional standards — including reduced lot widths, lot sizes, and setbacks — and requires an amenity center and a publicly accessible dog park to be completed before or concurrent with the first residential Certificate of Occupancy.
The Planning and Land Development Regulation Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval at its August 19, 2026 meeting, and City Council is now being asked to act on the first reading of the ordinance, with a second reading scheduled for October 20, 2026.
The City of Palm Coast is considering a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment and companion rezoning for the roughly 331-acre Seminole Trace Planning Area (formerly known as Cascades), located about half a mile north of the US-1 and Seminole Woods Boulevard intersection.
The applicants — Byrndog PCP, LLC and KL Seminole Trace, LLC — are requesting an increase in the maximum number of permitted dwelling units from 416 to 743, a rearrangement of the conservation and residential areas within the site, and a rezoning from Single Family Residential-1 and Preservation to Master Planned Development with a Development Agreement.
Staff's analysis found that the increased development would not push any public service or infrastructure below adopted Level of Service standards, though several concerns were flagged, including a proposed reduction in open space requirements and setback dimensions that appear inconsistent with the city's driveway standards.
City Council is being asked to hold a public hearing and decide whether to approve or deny both amendments, with a second reading scheduled for October 20.
The Palm Coast City Council is holding a first reading public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would rezone approximately 331 acres known as Seminole Trace — located about 3 miles south of State Road 100 on the west side of Seminole Woods Boulevard — from Single Family Residential-1 and Preservation to Master Planned Development (MPD) with a Development Agreement.
The applicants, BYRNDOG PCP, LLC and KL SEMINOLE TRACE LLC, are seeking to allow up to 743 total dwelling units, including a cap of 130 townhomes, on the site.
This item returns to council after being tabled at the September 1 meeting, during which council directed the applicant and staff to renegotiate the MPD agreement; the applicant has since revised the agreement to address several prior staff objections — including restoring the open space ratio to 40% and increasing setbacks — but staff continues to flag unresolved concerns about the financial terms and timing of a proposed skate park that would be conveyed to the City as a public benefit.
The Palm Coast City Attorney is presenting a proposed ordinance that would significantly expand the city's existing Land Development Code provisions on cultural and historic resources protection.
The ordinance creates a new Historic Preservation Board of five members and two alternates, appoints a Historic Preservation Officer through the City Manager, and adds new definitions, survey requirements, and regulatory procedures covering plan review, development projects, and land disturbances.
Council is being asked to adopt the ordinance on first reading, with a second reading scheduled for October 20, 2026, and may choose to accept or reject recommendations made by the Planning & Land Development Regulation Board.
Palm Coast City Council is holding a second and final reading on Ordinance 2026-XX, a broad update to the city's Unified Land Development Code (LDC) spanning Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
The update is driven by the need to implement the goals and policies of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in May 2025, and has been developed over many months through public workshops with the Beautification and Environmental Advisory Committee, the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board, and public input via the Social Pinpoint platform.
The Planning and Land Development Regulation Board recommended approval after a public hearing in August 2026, and Council first read the ordinance on September 15, 2026; if adopted tonight, it takes effect immediately.
Staff also noted that three related items — performance standards for data centers, penalties for unpermitted tree removal, and a study on 'parcelization' to avoid LDC review — will be brought forward as separate future ordinances.
City Attorney Marcus Duffy is presenting an ordinance for final adoption that would make it unlawful for Palm Coast to sell, transfer, or long-term lease its Fire Rescue Department — or any substantial operational component of it — to any other government entity or private company without first securing both a supermajority vote of the City Council and approval by a majority of voters in a citywide referendum.
City Council directed the City Attorney to draft the measure and reviewed it at a September 8 workshop and a September 15 business meeting without changes; it passed first reading on September 15 and is now before the council for second reading and final adoption.
The ordinance carves out exceptions for routine equipment disposal, mutual and automatic aid agreements, and interlocal agreements for training or shared dispatch that do not transfer ownership or operational control of the department.
City Attorney Marcus Duffy is presenting an ordinance for final adoption that would formally prohibit Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) — the practice of introducing advanced-treated recycled water directly into a drinking water distribution system without an environmental buffer — within Palm Coast's municipal utility system.
City Council directed Duffy to draft the ordinance and has reviewed it at both a September 8 workshop and a September 15 business meeting with no changes made either time.
Council is now asked to adopt the ordinance on second reading, which would amend the city's utilities code to add a definition of DPR and explicitly bar the city utility from constructing, operating, or funding any DPR infrastructure, while leaving non-potable reclaimed water uses such as landscape irrigation unaffected.
The SR 100 Corridor Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Agency is being asked to recommend an amendment to its 2004 Master Redevelopment Plan that would authorize the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds to support the City of Palm Coast's planned acquisition of 22 parcels — totaling approximately 258 acres — within the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact.
The amendment adds a new map (Map 12A) identifying the parcels, updates the Capital Improvement Program table to include the acquisition cost, and clarifies that TIF revenues may be used to repay a line of credit and any interfund advance from the General Fund incurred to finance the purchase.
The CRA Agency's recommendation will then be forwarded to City Council, which takes final action on the plan amendment.
The City of Palm Coast is being asked to adopt a resolution amending its State Road 100 Corridor Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Plan for the third time since its 2004 adoption, this time to authorize the acquisition of 22 parcels totaling approximately 258 acres within the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
The amendment adds a new map (Map 12A) identifying the specific parcels targeted for purchase and updates the Capital Improvement Program to fund the acquisition using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues, including repayment of a Line of Credit and interest.
The parcels are currently owned by two entities — Florida Landmark and Palm Coast Holdings — and span a range of DRI land-use designations including Urban Core, Town Residential, Town Business, and Perimeter Commercial.
The City of Palm Coast's Utility/Wastewater division is asking the City Council to approve a Master Price Agreement with Merrell Brothers, Inc., of Kokomo, Indiana, for hauling and processing wastewater residuals (biosolids) from both of the city's wastewater treatment facilities into Class AA material suitable for beneficial reuse.
The contract was awarded through a competitive Invitation to Bid process (ITB-UT-26-57) in which two responsive bids were received and Merrell Brothers submitted the lowest and highest-scoring bid.
Council is being asked to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement at a unit rate of $138.28 per ton, covering up to 15,000 tons annually, with projected first-year spending of $1,300,000 across the two facilities.
Palm Coast City Council is being asked to approve a resolution authorizing roughly $41.4 million in total project expenses for the next phase of the city's Maintenance Operations Center (MOC), a facility that will consolidate Public Works, Utility, and Stormwater & Engineering operations into a single site.
The largest component is a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract amendment of $37,050,539 with Gilbane Building Company for Phase 1C, which covers construction of the fleet maintenance building and wash buildings, with a targeted substantial completion date of September 12, 2028.
Also included is a $474,885.11 change order with Pond & Company for construction administration services, plus a roughly $3.875 million bucket covering permits, wetland mitigation, city-purchased furniture and IT equipment, and a project contingency — with any unspent balance authorized for early Phase 2 work such as design documents and a new entrance drive to Matanzas Woods Parkway.
Heard before · Item H.1 · Oct 6, 2026
Sep 22, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Planning board recommended approval. p.193
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.1 · this meeting
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second reading (Oct 20 Business Meeting). p.2518
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →
Heard before · Item H.2 · Oct 6, 2026
Jan 4, 2022 · City Council · approved — Master Site Plan (AR# 4871) approved, conceptually allowing 216 multifamily units. p.762
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Planning board voted 4-0 to recommend approval. p.764
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.2 · this meeting
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar: second reading (Oct 20 Business Meeting). p.2518
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →
Back after being tabled · Item H.3 · Oct 6, 2026
Raises the maximum number of homes allowed in the 331-acre Seminole Trace planning area, formerly known as Cascades, from 416 to 743, and rearranges its conservation and residential areas. p.1010
It has a companion rezoning (H.4) from Single Family Residential-1 and Preservation to a Master Planned Development with a development agreement. p.1010
Staff compared the current maximum development potential (416 units) with the proposed maximum (743). For the 327 added units, the packet projects a maximum potential net increase of 818 residents, at 2.5 persons per home. p.1081
“the proposed amendment results in a potential increase of 327 dwelling units and 818 persons (2.5 persons/dwelling unit)”
The same analysis projects 317 additional PM peak-hour trips, 77,663 gallons a day of drinking water, and 67,035 gallons a day of wastewater, as maximum potential net increases. p.1021
Staff writes that the increases will not cause any public service or infrastructure to fall below the adopted level of service, and that capacity is reviewed again at the site plan and plat stage. p.1011
“The increases will not cause any of the public services and infrastructure to fall below the adopted Level of Service.”
For the rezoning (H.4), the packet says the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board held a hearing on Aug 19 and recommended denial. p.1339
“RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT”
For the land-use map change (H.3), the staff report still carries a template line that was not filled in. p.1011
“RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE/DENY THE PROPOSED FLUM AMENDMENT. STAFF WILL PROVIDE THE OUTCO”
Both recommendations predate the changes the applicant made after Sept 1 (below). p.1336
The developer would convey a 3-acre site to the city at no cost for a city-owned and maintained skate park. p.1336
The city would be co-applicant for wetland permits and pay for wetland impacts; the conceptual site plan shows about 0.56 acre of impacts on the site, and possibly 1.39 acres more for a shared entrance road. p.1337
The developer would grade the site, extend utilities and size a lift station at its own cost, and receive park impact-fee credits equal to its actual cost for clearing, grubbing and grading, plus credits for 50% of a shared entrance road. p.1337
The city would set aside park impact fees collected from the development to build the skate park, and is otherwise responsible for its design, permitting and construction. p.1337
Staff remains concerned about when the skate park would actually be built, and says the adequacy of the impact fees to pay for it cannot be determined yet. p.1338
“the adequacy of impact fee collected is undetermined at this time”
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Recommended denial of the rezoning (MPD); the FLUM staff report's recommendation line was left unfilled. p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · tabled — Tabled for three months on a motion by Council Member Miller, seconded by Council Member Sullivan. The tally is unsettled: our caption record says 5-0; the draft minutes say 4-1 with Mayor Norris voting no; and on Sept 15 the Vice Mayor asked for the record of this vote to be corrected before the minutes were approved. Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 and H.4 · this meeting
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. p.2518
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.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to table the Ordinance items 3 and 4 for 3 months — Passed 4-1 — yes: Pontieri, Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan; no: Norris Moved by Miller, seconded by Sullivan. Sep 15 packet p.22
These are draft minutes. On Sep 15, council asked for a correction to an incorrect recording of the vote for Items I.3/I.4 before approving them; don't rely on that vote until the approved minutes or the video confirm it.Vote, per our caption record: 5-0 to table (Pontieri yes; Sullivan yes; Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Norris yes) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Open space in the MPD reduced from the required 40% to 20%. p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Amended agreement raises the open space ratio back to 40%. 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. p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet. 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). p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet for both. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. p.1047
Promised The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner. p.1337
Promised The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park. p.1337
Promised Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process. 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. p.1399
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for September 1, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Back after being tabled · Item H.4 · Oct 6, 2026
Raises the maximum number of homes allowed in the 331-acre Seminole Trace planning area, formerly known as Cascades, from 416 to 743, and rearranges its conservation and residential areas. p.1010
It has a companion rezoning (H.4) from Single Family Residential-1 and Preservation to a Master Planned Development with a development agreement. p.1010
The developer would convey a 3-acre site to the city at no cost for a city-owned and maintained skate park. p.1336
The city would be co-applicant for wetland permits and pay for wetland impacts; the conceptual site plan shows about 0.56 acre of impacts on the site, and possibly 1.39 acres more for a shared entrance road. p.1337
The developer would grade the site, extend utilities and size a lift station at its own cost, and receive park impact-fee credits equal to its actual cost for clearing, grubbing and grading, plus credits for 50% of a shared entrance road. p.1337
The city would set aside park impact fees collected from the development to build the skate park, and is otherwise responsible for its design, permitting and construction. p.1337
Staff remains concerned about when the skate park would actually be built, and says the adequacy of the impact fees to pay for it cannot be determined yet. p.1338
“the adequacy of impact fee collected is undetermined at this time”
For the rezoning (H.4), the packet says the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board held a hearing on Aug 19 and recommended denial. p.1339
“RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT”
For the land-use map change (H.3), the staff report still carries a template line that was not filled in. p.1011
“RECOMMENDED THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE/DENY THE PROPOSED FLUM AMENDMENT. STAFF WILL PROVIDE THE OUTCO”
Both recommendations predate the changes the applicant made after Sept 1 (below). p.1336
Staff compared the current maximum development potential (416 units) with the proposed maximum (743). For the 327 added units, the packet projects a maximum potential net increase of 818 residents, at 2.5 persons per home. p.1081
“the proposed amendment results in a potential increase of 327 dwelling units and 818 persons (2.5 persons/dwelling unit)”
The same analysis projects 317 additional PM peak-hour trips, 77,663 gallons a day of drinking water, and 67,035 gallons a day of wastewater, as maximum potential net increases. p.1021
Staff writes that the increases will not cause any public service or infrastructure to fall below the adopted level of service, and that capacity is reviewed again at the site plan and plat stage. p.1011
“The increases will not cause any of the public services and infrastructure to fall below the adopted Level of Service.”
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Recommended denial of the rezoning (MPD); the FLUM staff report's recommendation line was left unfilled. p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · tabled — Tabled for three months on a motion by Council Member Miller, seconded by Council Member Sullivan. The tally is unsettled: our caption record says 5-0; the draft minutes say 4-1 with Mayor Norris voting no; and on Sept 15 the Vice Mayor asked for the record of this vote to be corrected before the minutes were approved. Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 and H.4 · this meeting
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. p.2518
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.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to table the Ordinance items 3 and 4 for 3 months — Passed 4-1 — yes: Pontieri, Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan; no: Norris Moved by Miller, seconded by Sullivan. Sep 15 packet p.22
These are draft minutes. On Sep 15, council asked for a correction to an incorrect recording of the vote for Items I.3/I.4 before approving them; don't rely on that vote until the approved minutes or the video confirm it.Vote, per our caption record: 5-0 to table (Pontieri yes; Sullivan yes; Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Norris yes) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Open space in the MPD reduced from the required 40% to 20%. p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Amended agreement raises the open space ratio back to 40%. 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. p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet. 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). p.1337
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: Raised to 20 feet for both. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. p.1047
Promised The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner. p.1337
Promised The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park. p.1337
Promised Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process. 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. p.1399
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for September 1, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Heard before · Item H.5 · Oct 6, 2026
Council directed the City Attorney to draft this ordinance at the Aug 11, 2026 workshop. p.1578
The changes council requested and the planning board's recommendation are attached to the item. p.1578
The land code update (I.1) defers an exception for existing ITT lots from cultural resource surveys to this ordinance. p.2004
Aug 11, 2026 · City Council · Item E.3 · workshop
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.5 · this meeting
City Attorney Duffy presented a draft historical preservation ordinance (Chapter 10.05) that would create a city register of historic places, require cultural resource surveys for lands not previously investigated, establish a Historical Preservation Officer position (appointed by city manager), and create a five-member preservation board (reduced from seven per council direction) with two alternates meeting at least four times per year.
Key council feedback included adding a temporal limit on prior survey exemptions (e.g., 10-year expiration), ensuring historic designations are recorded in title records to notify future buyers, and reducing board membership to five primary plus two alternates.
The ordinance will proceed to the planning board and then return for two council readings.
Exception from the cultural resource survey for existing platted lots (handed over from the land code update). p.2004
Raised Oct 6 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: The draft ordinance says no survey is required for any parcel or lot in a recorded platted subdivision in the city. p.1597
“shall not be required for any parcel or lot that is part of a platted subdivision”
Add a temporal component (expiration period, e.g., 10 years) to sections 10.05.03 and 10.05.04 so that prior cultural resource surveys do not exempt a parcel indefinitely.
Raised Aug 11 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:10:11
Made Oct 6: Section 10.05.03 now includes a 5-year temporal limit on prior cultural resource surveys, so a prior survey only waives the requirement if conducted within the last 5 years. p.1583
Not yet checked against the video.Staff will research what time period the state requires for survey renewal and consider adding a renewal threshold to the ordinance.
Raised Aug 11 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:10:57
Made Oct 6: The ordinance adopted a 5-year renewal threshold for prior surveys, reflecting the research staff promised to conduct on the appropriate time period. p.1583
Not yet checked against the video.Reduce the preservation board membership from seven members with two alternates to five members with two alternates.
Raised Aug 11 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:19:59
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages provided do not contain any text specifying the number of preservation board members or alternates.
Not yet checked against the video.Staff will ensure that a historic designation is recorded so that it appears in a title report and puts future buyers on notice.
Raised Aug 11 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:34:02
Made Oct 6: The ordinance requires the city clerk to record the designation resolution in the official records of the county, putting future buyers on notice through the public record. p.1640
“The city clerk, who shall record such resolution in the official records of the county;”Not yet checked against the video.
Clarify whether small individual lots (e.g., an 80-by-125-foot lot) are required to undergo a cultural resource investigation and what that would cost.
Raised Aug 11 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:27:02
Partly made Oct 6: The packet clarifies that platted subdivision lots within city boundaries are exempt from cultural resource surveys, and that a Registered Professional Archaeologist may certify a low-probability determination as a waiver, but no cost information for small lots is provided. p.1583
“Any previous parcel or lot that is part of a platted subdivision within the City boundaries and recorded with the Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller of Flagler County.”Not yet checked against the video.
Clarify whether city-owned structures such as fire station 22, which are being substantially altered, would be subject to this ordinance.
Raised Aug 11 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:27:56
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages provided contain no discussion of city-owned structures such as fire stations or whether they are subject to this ordinance.
Not yet checked against the video.Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for August 11, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Second reading · Item I.1 · Oct 6, 2026
Under Table 2-1 in the ordinance, the Land Use Administrator has final approval of Tier 1 projects: nonresidential site plans up to 40,000 square feet of building and multifamily projects not exceeding 40 units, among other application types. p.1665
The same table gives the Land Use Administrator final approval of subdivision master plans for residential up to 100 units, and of developments under the Live Local Act regardless of size or number of units. p.1665
“Developments pursuant to the Live Local Act regardless of size or number of units”
Larger projects (Tier 2 and up) go to the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board or to council. p.1665
Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Planning board recommended approval with no additional changes (per the Oct 6 packet). p.1654
Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.2 · workshop
Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 · first reading — 4-0 (Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 · this meeting
Community Development staff presented a comprehensive package of proposed Land Development Code (LDC) amendments scheduled for first reading September 15 and adoption October 6.
Key discussion topics included: data center definitions and prohibitions (currently requiring supermajority council approval via special exception, with a tiered performance standards ordinance to follow); the neighborhood meeting waiver provision in section 2.05.02, where council directed staff to strike the land use administrator's authority to waive meetings for residential developments of 40 or more units; the development order approval thresholds table (Table 2-1) and concerns about project piecemealing through different LLCs to avoid higher tiers of review; a footnote to Table 3-4 on MPD permitted uses to be expanded to clarify that city council approval and compatibility review is required; kennel and pet boarding definitions and their inconsistency across code chapters; and live local mixed-use provisions reflecting state law amendments.
Staff was directed to highlight changes from this workshop session in the first-read package.
Ordinance amending the Unified Land Development Code received first reading and passed unanimously, with second reading scheduled for October 6.
Notable discussion included Vice Mayor Pontieri's question about buffer requirements between new subdivisions and existing infill lots; staff confirmed language requiring a minimum 15-foot buffer where new subdivision elevation is 2 or more feet above existing homes had already been added to Chapter 13.
A public speaker raised several technical concerns (freeboard rules, historical resource survey requirements, coastal view relief ratios, and AC unit screening rules), and staff agreed to address each specifically before second reading.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to be approved on first reading — Passed 4-0 (Pontieri, Gambaro, Sullivan, Norris) Moved by Gambaro, seconded by Pontieri. p.21
Vote, per our caption record: 4-0 (Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Norris yes) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Concern that the 2-foot freeboard requirement may hurt neighboring properties because of elevation differences. p.2004
Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Not made Oct 6: Rule kept. Staff cites the floodplain coordinator: homes already built with 2 feet of freeboard have not affected surrounding structures. p.2004
Comment at the Sept 15 hearing; the packet doesn't say who raised it.No exception for existing platted lots from the cultural resource survey — an added cost to homebuyers. p.2004
Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Deferred Oct 6: Staff points to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (H.5 on Oct 6), which as drafted would provide the exception. Deferred to: Historic preservation ordinance. p.2004
Comment at the Sept 15 hearing; the packet doesn't say who raised it.Coastal building visual relief rule (views to the Intracoastal). p.2004
Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Clarified Oct 6: Staff clarifies the rule applies to non-residential buildings only. p.2004
“Staff further clarifies that this condition applies to non-residential buildings only.”
Whether mechanical equipment must be screened more than before. p.2004
Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Clarified Oct 6: Only change is adding back-flow preventers as an example; equipment still screened if visible from the right-of-way or an access easement. p.2004
Buffers between new subdivisions and existing homes at a lower elevation. p.2005
Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet
Made Oct 6: New language requires buffers between residential areas because of vertical difference (Section 11.03.05). p.2005
“New language to require buffers between residential areas due to vertical difference.”
Staff will add a statutory definition of 'data center' to the glossary (chapter 14) before the first reading.
Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:47:20
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention adding a statutory definition of 'data center' to the glossary (chapter 14).
Not yet checked against the video.Staff is directed to research how other communities prevent applicants from piecemealing or artificially splitting related projects across separate LLCs to avoid higher-tier public review thresholds.
Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:26:26
Deferred Oct 6: The packet states that research and analysis to address 'parcelization' of projects to avoid LDC review process will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. p.1657
“Research and Analysis to address "parcelization" of projects to avoid LDC review process”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff will draft expanded language for table 3-4 footnote 1 to clarify that MPD 'permitted' uses require city council approval and are not automatically granted.
Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:42:14
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention any expanded language for table 3-4 footnote 1 clarifying that MPD 'permitted' uses require city council approval.
Not yet checked against the video.Staff is directed to ensure the definition of 'kennel' is consistent across chapters 8 and 14, to separate 'kennel' from 'pet boarding' in the use table, and to consider precluding residential kennels in MPD zones.
Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:56:50
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention any changes to the definition of 'kennel,' separation of 'kennel' from 'pet boarding' in the use table, or preclusion of residential kennels in MPD zones.
Not yet checked against the video.Staff will review kennel and pet-related definitions across chapters for consistency, research Flagler County's puppy-mill ordinance language, and bring revised provisions back to council.
Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:58:55
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention review of kennel and pet-related definitions, research of Flagler County's puppy-mill ordinance language, or revised provisions.
Not yet checked against the video.Staff is asked to delineate in the first-reading packet exactly which changes were made as a result of today's workshop session so council can track them.
Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:02:39
Made Oct 6: The packet includes a 'Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop' as an attachment and references that requested changes from the September 15 meeting are summarized in a table attached to the agenda package. p.1654
“4. Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff will clearly mark the amendments arising from the September 8 workshop in the September 15 first-reading document so council can see what changed.
Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:03:16
Made Oct 6: The packet includes a 'Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop' attachment intended to show council what changed as a result of the workshop. p.1654
“4. Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff will bring back performance standards for data centers at a future date.
Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:16:48
Deferred Oct 6: The packet explicitly states that an ordinance to address performance standards for data centers will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. p.1657
“An ordinance to address performance standards for Data Centers”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff will bring back an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal.
Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:16:58
Deferred Oct 6: The packet explicitly states that an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. p.1657
“An ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff was directed to highlight in the chart of changes, for the second reading, the location of the buffer language between new subdivisions and existing infill residential lots.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:24:36
Made Oct 6: The packet includes a response table for September 15 comments, and the buffer language between new subdivisions and existing residential lots is highlighted with the new footnote 1A in Table 11-5. p.2005
“Buffer requirements only when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2' or more.”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff confirmed a 15-foot buffer and enhanced landscaping requirement for new subdivisions adjacent to existing residences where elevation is 2 feet or more higher has already been added to Chapter 13 of the LDC.
Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:23:24
Made Oct 6: Table 11-5 now includes footnote 1A requiring buffer requirements when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2 feet or more between new subdivisions and adjacent residential properties. p.2005
“1A Buffer requirements only when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2' or more.”Not yet checked against the video.
The public commenter asked staff to clarify whether the 2-foot local freeboard requirement in Chapter 1002 conflicts with the existing 10-inch-above-neighbor drainage rule.
Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:27:40
Partly made Oct 6: The packet addresses the freeboard concern by noting that homes built with 2-foot freeboard have not caused impact to surrounding structures, but does not explicitly resolve the conflict with the 10-inch-above-neighbor rule. p.2004
Not yet checked against the video.The public commenter raised concern that the five-year cap on survey validity in section 1005.02 would require new surveys for all originally platted 80-by-125 lots.
Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:28:46
Partly made Oct 6: The packet addresses concern about the five-year survey cap by noting the City Attorney has drafted a Historic Preservation Ordinance that would provide an exception for existing ITT lots, with comprehensive changes deferred to that ordinance. p.2004
Not yet checked against the video.The public commenter raised concern that the coastal view relief ratio in section 1302.03 effectively limits building width to 60 feet on 80-foot intracoastal lots, restricting property rights.
Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:29:31
Made Oct 6: The packet clarifies that the coastal building visual relief ratio in section 13.02.03 applies to non-residential buildings only, addressing the commenter's concern about restriction on residential intracoastal lots. p.2004
“Staff further clarifies that this condition applies to non-residential buildings only.”Not yet checked against the video.
The public commenter raised concern that the mechanical equipment screening requirement in section 1303.04 mandates landscaping on neighbor-facing sides, which would impede drainage in tight side-yard spaces.
Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:30:28
Made Oct 6: The packet clarifies that mechanical equipment screening in section 13.03.04 only requires screening from public right-of-way and access easements, with no material change for side-yard buffering requirements. p.2004
Not yet checked against the video.Council directed staff to note the public commenter's specific concerns, describing him as an actual builder with valid points, so they could be addressed specifically before second reading.
Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:31:24
Made Oct 6: The packet includes a response table specifically addressing each code-section concern raised by the public commenter at the September 15 meeting. p.1657
“Staff has addressed comments from the September 15 City Council business meeting (September 15) and response is summarized in Table attached to the Agenda Package.”Not yet checked against the video.
Staff asked the public commenter to email the specific code-section concerns so staff could review them prior to the second reading.
Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:31:43
Made Oct 6: The packet's response table demonstrates that staff reviewed and responded to the specific code-section concerns, consistent with the request that the commenter email them prior to second reading. p.1657
“Staff has addressed comments from the September 15 City Council business meeting (September 15) and response is summarized in Table attached to the Agenda Package.”Not yet checked against the video.
Promised An ordinance setting performance standards for data centers, after the code update is adopted. p.1657
Promised An ordinance setting penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal, after adoption. p.1657
Promised Research and analysis on "parcelization" of projects to avoid code review, after adoption. p.1657
Promised Staff will bring forward an ordinance to address performance standards for data centers after the LDC updates are adopted. p.1657
Promised Staff will bring forward an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal after the LDC updates are adopted. p.1657
Promised Staff will conduct research and analysis to address 'parcelization' of projects to avoid the LDC review process after the LDC updates are adopted. p.1657
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for September 8, 2026; September 15, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Second reading · Item I.2 · Oct 6, 2026
Prohibits the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department. p.2339
Council directed the City Attorney to draft this ordinance at the Sept 8, 2026 workshop. p.2339
Staff reports no changes to the item since then. p.2339
Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.3 · workshop
Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.2 · first reading — 4-0 (Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.2 · this meeting
Fire Chief Kyle Berryhill provided historical context on the Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, noting the department predates the city's 1999 incorporation and that fire protection was a primary driver of cityhood following the catastrophic 1985 and 1998 wildfires.
City Attorney Marcus Duffy presented a draft ordinance that would prohibit transfer of the fire department without a supermajority council vote followed by a public referendum, while carving out exceptions for mutual aid agreements, equipment sales, and similar operational matters.
Council expressed unanimous support and no proposed changes; the ordinance will proceed to first and second readings.
Ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department passed unanimously on first reading with minimal discussion; staff noted the item had been fully workshopped and no changes had been made since that session.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to be approved on first reading — Passed 4-0 (Pontieri, Gambaro, Sullivan, Norris) Moved by Sullivan, seconded by Pontieri. p.22
Vote, per our caption record: 4-0 (Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Norris yes) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Staff was directed at a previous business meeting to draft an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, which is what was presented at this workshop.
Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:13:06
Made Oct 6: The packet confirms the City Attorney drafted and presented an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, as directed at the September 8, 2026 Workshop Meeting. p.2339
“City Council directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department which is attached to this item for consideration and direction.”Not yet checked against the video.
Any future transfer of the fire department would require approval by a supermajority of City Council before going to the electors for a ballot vote.
Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:13:27
Made Oct 6: The ordinance requires a supermajority vote of City Council before calling a citywide referendum, fulfilling the condition that council approval precede any ballot vote on transferring the fire department. p.2341
“the City Council approves such action by a supermajority vote and the action is approved by a majority of electors voting in a Citywide referendum. The City Council's vote shall occur before the referendum is called.”Not yet checked against the video.
Promised The ordinance is scheduled for adoption on second reading after due public notice and hearing on October 6, 2026. p.2343
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for September 8, 2026; September 15, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Second reading · Item I.3 · Oct 6, 2026
Prohibits direct potable reuse. p.2346
Council directed the City Attorney to draft this ordinance at the Sept 8, 2026 workshop. p.2346
Staff reports no changes to the item since then. p.2346
Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.4 · workshop
Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 · first reading — 4-0 (Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 · this meeting
City Attorney Duffy and Utility Director Roche presented a draft ordinance prohibiting direct potable reuse within the city's water supply system, defining the practice and explicitly banning construction, operation, or funding of any such infrastructure.
The ordinance preserves the city's existing non-potable reclaimed water program for irrigation and industrial uses.
Council members noted no current plans for direct potable reuse exist in Palm Coast but said the ordinance is a proactive protective measure against growing statewide interest in the practice and as an indirect check on overdevelopment.
No changes were requested and the item will proceed to formal readings.
Ordinance prohibiting direct potable reuse passed unanimously on first reading.
Utility Director Brian Rocher explained that 'direct potable reuse' is an industry term meaning treating municipal wastewater to drinking water standards and injecting it into a public water supply, distinct from the city's existing 99% reclaimed water irrigation reuse.
A public speaker raised concern that the word 'direct' leaves indirect reuse unaddressed; Vice Mayor Pontieri clarified the term's technical meaning.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to be approved on first reading — Passed 4-0 (Pontieri, Gambaro, Sullivan, Norris) Moved by Gambaro, seconded by Sullivan. p.22
Vote, per our caption record: 4-0 (Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Norris yes) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Council directed staff to bring the ordinance forward for first and second reading.
Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:22:08
Made Oct 6: The ordinance was brought forward, approved on first reading September 15, 2026, and is presented for second reading and adoption on October 6, 2026. p.2349
“APPROVED on first reading this 15th day of September 2026. ADOPTED on second reading after due public notice and hearing this 6th day of October 2026.”Not yet checked against the video.
A member of the public asked that the ordinance address indirect potable reuse, arguing that the word 'direct' leaves a loophole allowing treated wastewater to be introduced indirectly into the drinking water supply.
Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:39:48
Not made Oct 6: The packet states there were no changes made to the item after the September 15, 2026 meeting, and the ordinance remains limited to prohibiting Direct Potable Reuse only, without addressing indirect potable reuse. p.2346
“UPDATED BACKGROUND FROM THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, BUSINESS MEETING: City Council reviewed the item at their September 15, 2026, Business Meeting. There were no changes made to the item.”Not yet checked against the video.
Promised The City Utility will continue to utilize reclaimed water exclusively for non-potable applications including landscape irrigation, zero liquid discharge, and brackish groundwater as alternative water supply sources. p.2347
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for September 8, 2026; September 15, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Heard before · Item J.1 · Oct 6, 2026
Amends the State Road 100 Community Redevelopment Area plan so the CRA's tax-increment money can repay the financing used to buy land in Town Center. p.2358
J.1 is the CRA's recommendation; K.1 is the council resolution that adopts the amendment. p.2352
The plan lists 258.37 acres for acquisition at $17,000,000. p.2361
The parcels are listed under Florida Landmark and Palm Coast Holdings. p.2363
On Aug 19, 2026, council approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement/Settlement Agreement with Palm Coast Holdings, Inc., Florida Landmark Communities, LLC and Palm Coast Land, LLC, settling the lawsuit they filed against the city (Case No. 2025-CA-000670). Aug 19 packet p.4
“designated as Case No. 2025-CA-000670”
The CRA's version says tax-increment money would repay a line of credit, with principal and interest, and any interfund advance from the city's General Fund. p.2358
“for the repayment of the line of credit, including principal and interest, and of any interfund advance made from the General Fund”
The plan amendment text in this packet does not name a lender or state the rate, term or amount borrowed. p.2358
The CRA ends in 2034. The CRA's version says tax-increment support is limited to that date and any balance left after it is paid from other revenues. p.2359
“increment support for the financing described herein is limited to the Plan’s existing 2034 time certain, and any obligation outstanding after that date is payable from other lawfully available revenues”
The council resolution's version of the same amendment (K.1) is worded differently and does not include the 2034 sentence. p.2371
“for repayment to the General Fund, and to assign future CRA dollars for the repayment of Line of Credit and Interest as Incurred”
Aug 19, 2026 · City Council · Item E.1 · approved — 4-1 (Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Sullivan yes; Norris yes; Pontieri no) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item J.1 and K.1 · this meeting
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar lists a "Loan Resolution" (presenter Alves). The calendar does not say what it covers. p.2518
The city attorney presented a 49-page land purchase and settlement agreement under which the city would acquire approximately 259 acres in Town Center from Palm Coast Holdings for $17 million (plus a $1 million deposit), settling case No.
2025-CA-670.
Before discussion, Mayor Norris required each council member to disclose any ex-parte communications with the plaintiff's counsel; Vice Mayor Pontieri and Council Member Miller each disclosed a call from plaintiff's attorney Chimento asking whether a shade meeting had been called, while others reported no substantive contact.
Council debated financial risks — including a $1.9 million outstanding developer bond and ongoing carrying costs — against litigation risk and the strategic value of controlling Town Center parcels.
The resolution passed 4-1, with Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to approve the settlement agreement with Palm Coast Holdings — Passed 4-1 — yes: Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris; no: Pontieri Moved by Gambaro, seconded by Sullivan. Sep 1 packet p.26
Vote, per our caption record: 4-1 (Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Sullivan yes; Norris yes; Pontieri no) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for August 19, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Heard before · Item K.1 · Oct 6, 2026
Amends the State Road 100 Community Redevelopment Area plan so the CRA's tax-increment money can repay the financing used to buy land in Town Center. p.2358
J.1 is the CRA's recommendation; K.1 is the council resolution that adopts the amendment. p.2352
The plan lists 258.37 acres for acquisition at $17,000,000. p.2361
The parcels are listed under Florida Landmark and Palm Coast Holdings. p.2363
On Aug 19, 2026, council approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement/Settlement Agreement with Palm Coast Holdings, Inc., Florida Landmark Communities, LLC and Palm Coast Land, LLC, settling the lawsuit they filed against the city (Case No. 2025-CA-000670). Aug 19 packet p.4
“designated as Case No. 2025-CA-000670”
The CRA's version says tax-increment money would repay a line of credit, with principal and interest, and any interfund advance from the city's General Fund. p.2358
“for the repayment of the line of credit, including principal and interest, and of any interfund advance made from the General Fund”
The plan amendment text in this packet does not name a lender or state the rate, term or amount borrowed. p.2358
The CRA ends in 2034. The CRA's version says tax-increment support is limited to that date and any balance left after it is paid from other revenues. p.2359
“increment support for the financing described herein is limited to the Plan’s existing 2034 time certain, and any obligation outstanding after that date is payable from other lawfully available revenues”
The council resolution's version of the same amendment (K.1) is worded differently and does not include the 2034 sentence. p.2371
“for repayment to the General Fund, and to assign future CRA dollars for the repayment of Line of Credit and Interest as Incurred”
Aug 19, 2026 · City Council · Item E.1 · approved — 4-1 (Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Sullivan yes; Norris yes; Pontieri no) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item J.1 and K.1 · this meeting
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Tentative calendar lists a "Loan Resolution" (presenter Alves). The calendar does not say what it covers. p.2518
The city attorney presented a 49-page land purchase and settlement agreement under which the city would acquire approximately 259 acres in Town Center from Palm Coast Holdings for $17 million (plus a $1 million deposit), settling case No.
2025-CA-670.
Before discussion, Mayor Norris required each council member to disclose any ex-parte communications with the plaintiff's counsel; Vice Mayor Pontieri and Council Member Miller each disclosed a call from plaintiff's attorney Chimento asking whether a shade meeting had been called, while others reported no substantive contact.
Council debated financial risks — including a $1.9 million outstanding developer bond and ongoing carrying costs — against litigation risk and the strategic value of controlling Town Center parcels.
The resolution passed 4-1, with Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no.
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to approve the settlement agreement with Palm Coast Holdings — Passed 4-1 — yes: Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris; no: Pontieri Moved by Gambaro, seconded by Sullivan. Sep 1 packet p.26
Vote, per our caption record: 4-1 (Gambaro yes; Miller yes; Sullivan yes; Norris yes; Pontieri no) Taken from the meeting's captions; not yet checked against the video.
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines), and PalmCoastStorylines meeting records for August 19, 2026, built from the city's agenda packets and meeting video. Summaries and votes from those meetings are generated from the captions and are unverified unless marked otherwise; the video is the record. Full packet →
Heard before · Item K.3 · Oct 6, 2026
Project expenses of $41,400,496.89 for the Maintenance Operations Center. p.2404
That total is a guaranteed maximum price amendment with Gilbane Building Company for Phase 1C, the fleet maintenance and wash buildings ($37,050,539), a change order with Pond & Company for construction administration ($474,885.11), and additional expenses and project contingency ($3,875,072.78). The three add up exactly. p.2404
The cover sheet's Amount field shows $37,052,889.00, which is $2,350 more than the Gilbane amendment amount stated in the same item. p.2404
Any money left from the approved expenses may be used to advance Phase 2. p.2405
“Any balance of the Approved Project Expenses is authorized to be utilized to Advance Phase 2 of the project”
Council approved Phase 1 (site development, now under construction) on Oct 15, 2024, and Phase 1B (more site work, Peavy Grade improvements and the fuel depot) on Oct 21, 2025. p.2404
Oct 15, 2024 · City Council · approved — Phase 1 approved (site development, southern portion). p.2404
Oct 21, 2025 · City Council · approved — Phase 1B GMP amendment approved (site work, Peavy Grade improvements, fuel depot). p.2404
Sep 23, 2026 · City Council · approved — FY2027 Capital Improvements Budget and five-year plan approved; the packet says they fund this project. p.2405
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item K.3 · this meeting
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines). Full packet →