Request for a historical marker for the Shangri-La condominiums, Palm Coast's first condominium complex built in 1974, located near the community center and the historical fire station sign.
HOA representatives presented a hand-constructed sign proposal and noted the complex has historical significance as the city's oldest condominium community.
Traffic congestion on Seminole Woods Boulevard, specifically requesting a right-turn lane from Sesame Boulevard onto Seminole Woods, and asking about the traffic signal near Fire Station 22 operating when no traffic is turning, causing unnecessary stops.
Healthcare provider shortages in the area, including loss of primary care and specialist physicians from Advent Health and the risk of United Healthcare dropping Advent from its network; requests for city business development efforts to attract alternative healthcare systems.
Also raised concerns about a new Walmart bringing inappropriate retail density, the FLUM increase from 300 to 700+ homes on the agenda, and infrastructure deficits.
Commended recent road improvements on White View Parkway and discussed a Tiger Bay Club forum on Florida Amendment 3 where Vice Mayor Pontieri spoke in favor; encouraged voter participation in early voting starting October 18 and the November 3 election.
Noted the Florida Realtors Association outspent opponents of Amendment 3 by 30 to 1.
Budget transparency concerns including grouped expenditures that don't add up, conflicting information on water capacity and wastewater usage, three city charter amendments on the ballot that may increase ambiguity, the distinction between state Amendment 3 and the city's Amendment 3, concerns that decisions tonight may be reversible due to the two appointed seats having passed two scheduled election cycles, and long meetings driven by developer entitlement requests.
Public records request regarding a letter from Dr.
James (veterinarian at the animal shelter) and two years of unresolved concerns about conditions at the shelter.
Speaker is a 15-year animal shelter board member in Indian River County and asked for a concrete update on city-county discussions about land and funding for a new shelter before she will resume fundraising efforts.
City fiscal responsibility, infrastructure funding gaps, and the obligations being left for future generations.
Speaker runs a local business (Pre Tint) and asked council to publicly explain what happens if growth or revenue projections fall short — whether the city would delay projects, use reserves, or ask households to pay more — and to assess affordability for current and future residents.
37-year Seminole Woods resident raising concerns about rapid loss of conservation areas and wetlands throughout Palm Coast due to mitigation fees allowing development in ecologically sensitive areas, water reclamation and infrastructure costs to existing residents, traffic congestion on Seminole Woods Boulevard, and requesting that major developers be required to contribute to water treatment capacity.
Skate park siting concerns — speaker has advocated for a skate park but does not want it built in a wetland or in a location that inconveniences neighborhoods.
Also noted severe traffic congestion near Seminole Woods and SR 100, with a 3.4-mile school pickup trip now taking 30–45 minutes.
The council approved piggybacking a Sourcewell Minnesota contract with New Line Skateparks, Inc. for skate park, bike park, pump track, and BMX track solutions.
One public speaker raised concerns that approving an open-ended vendor contract without a designated site was premature; staff clarified this only establishes an approved vendor for when the city is ready to proceed, with no funds committed.
The council approved piggybacking the NASPO master agreement with Boulevard Tire Center for tires, tubes, and related services.
A public speaker noted that the attachment in the agenda packet appeared to relate to an unrelated electrical contract from Jacksonville; staff indicated the correct version had been distributed.
The council approved a master price agreement with Alpha General Services, Inc. for miscellaneous repair parts for PEP systems on an as-needed basis, as part of the consent agenda passed unanimously.
The Magnolia Trace MPD-DA amendment — renaming the former Oare Mixed Use PUD, capping residential units at 544 (down from 754), eliminating the Zonal Geranium Trail road connection in favor of a wetland crossing with only emergency stabilized access, and retaining 71% of the site in conservation — passed on first reading 4–1 with Mayor Norris voting no.
Council added conditions including: 20-foot minimum town home lot widths; a requirement to maintain natural vegetative buffers unless storm water management necessitates alteration; no open burning; clarification that multifamily is limited to Tract 1 (neighborhood commercial) and that active adult housing in Tract 2 does not include multifamily; a Gore Lake Mound interpretive display in the amenity center; removal of the conversion table (Section 7.2); a comprehensive plan citation correction (1.1.2.3 not 1.1.2.4); and a borrow pit access clarification.
Staff is also directed to assess current drainage conditions in the Z-section.
Second reading is scheduled for October 20.
Concerns about H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — praised the developer for reducing units from 754 to 544 vs. the other project trying to increase from 416 to 743, but raised concerns about density with town homes on 20-foot lots and single-family on 60-foot lots compared to existing 80-foot lots nearby.
Urged that storm water drainage issues be resolved before proceeding and noted his own property is already receiving increased runoff from a neighboring new construction.
Concerns about H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — supports the 20-foot minimum lot width consistent with the LDC, and urges adherence to code standards without smaller deviations.
Also agreed with traffic concerns on Seminole Woods Boulevard.
H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — raised concerns about the legal enforceability of 'will' and 'may' versus 'shall' language in development agreements, the inadequacy of a 20-foot natural buffer (citing University of Georgia research that a quarter-mile undisturbed buffer is needed for meaningful mitigation of noise and visibility), and the need for administrative enforcement standards including tree protection fencing prior to permit issuance and meaningful stop-work and fine protocols.
H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — Z-section resident with water flow concerns; spent $10,000 regrading his yard after a neighboring new construction caused flooding and was told by the city the runoff was not their problem.
Requested 'shall not flood the Z-section' language in the agreement, adequate fire department emergency access maintenance requirements, and a warranted traffic signal analysis accounting for all surrounding development.
H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — asked to be sworn in before commenting as a quasi-judicial matter.
Thanked council members for raising drainage concerns and thanked the applicant for reducing entitlements from 754 to 544.
Primary remaining concern is drainage: the Z-section floods during ordinary heavy rain, the drainage analysis did not account for recent rainfall, and the development is approximately 80% wetlands.
Requested a drainage flow map be entered into the record and an updated analysis using current conditions and cumulative development impacts.
H.1 (Magnolia Trace) — Seminole Woods resident concerned about water being pushed westward into the K-section with its ponds and lakes, the dangerous curve on Beltier Boulevard, and whether Beltier will be widened to four lanes given all the development occurring.
Stated 20-foot buffers are too small and suggested 30 feet minimum.
The Red Mill Pointe MPD converting 216 previously-approved multifamily condominium units to fee-simple town homes (20-foot interior lots, 25-foot end units) with a public dog park at the entrance on Redmill Road passed unanimously on first reading.
The applicant noted permits had already been issued for the condominium version, and this change shifts the ownership structure while keeping the same footprint, unit count, and traffic profile as the approved site plan.
Second reading is scheduled for October 20.
The FLUM amendment for Seminole Trace (331.1 acres) to increase maximum dwelling units from 416 to 743 was denied unanimously on first reading.
Council concerns centered on: the traffic analysis not including the recently county-approved adjacent mixed-use development; several intersections already at or near Level of Service E; inadequate wastewater capacity data; unresolved storm water drainage issues throughout the Seminole Woods corridor; the Bert Harris claim context (a $12.19 million appraisal-based demand); and the absence of a sufficient change in circumstances to justify increasing entitlements.
A motion to approve drew no second and was withdrawn; a subsequent motion to deny passed 5–0.
Multiple residents from Seminole Woods spoke in opposition.
Called this the fifth bite at the same apple.
Said the area doesn't need a new park because the Seminole Woods neighborhood park on Sesame is three-quarters of a mile away.
Added up the cars: 416 homes, about 500 more homes in the new adjacent development and another thousand from the Citation area, all feeding Seminole Woods Boulevard, which is two lanes to US 1.
Spoke in favor of a skate park after hearing a developer might donate land for one.
Said not every child can get a ride across Palm Coast and asked the city to also look at another skate park on the other side of town.
Said the city's one skate park, at Ralph Carter, is too crowded when busy, which pushes skaters to parking lots and streets.
Suggested memberships, coaching, lessons and tournaments to help cover the cost of a second park.
Said the request to go from 416 to 743 homes has been denied repeatedly and keeps coming back.
Pointed to the adjacent county-approved development with a large shopping center on Seminole Woods.
Said a skate park is not equal to 300-plus more homes and asked council to deny permanently.
Listed the impacts of 327 more homes: about 818 more residents, more traffic onto two-lane Citation and Belle Terre, about 77,663 more gallons of water and 67,000 gallons of sewage a day while the wastewater plant is under a consent order.
Said wells the developer gave Flagler Beach should serve Palm Coast.
Said the code entitles 416 homes, and that taxpayers would carry a skate park's insurance, liability and upkeep.
Asked whether there has been a feasibility study of a skate park's long-term costs after it is built: maintenance, insurance and liability for injuries.
Suggested looking at California's experience with skate park lawsuits.
Recalled more than 200 residents filling the chamber against this project a few years ago.
Said three council members will soon be gone and won't live with the result.
Said the applicant attorney's talk of a multimillion-dollar claim sounded like a threat to the city, and asked council to turn the request away.
Said the applicant came back after five weeks instead of the three months council asked for.
Said the city website's application listing replaced the Aug 19 planning board date with Sept 16, and the item wasn't heard Sept 16.
Said 743 homes on about 196 net acres is incompatible with Seminole Woods, and that the lower part of the boulevard lacks the buffer and stormwater ditches the upper part has.
Said the comprehensive plan set a cap so infrastructure could keep up, and that the 2023 reduction to 416 homes was celebrated.
Cited an FDOT traffic study from the adjacent ICI project with 400,000 square feet of commercial.
Raised water supply, and asked whether an MPD designation would let the use change later to commercial or apartments.
Said the Live Local Act requires 40% of homes for lower incomes and she had not heard that here.
Supported keeping the original 416 homes.
Said Seminole Woods sidewalks flood after rain and stay flooded.
Described a Douglasville, Georgia skate park with batting cages and picnic areas as an example.
Supported the motion to deny.
Said the question is whether anything materially changed since council kept the 416-home entitlement in February 2025, despite a Bert Harris claim of about $12.2 million.
Credited the applicant for raising open space to 40%, capping townhomes at 130 and strengthening buffers, but said the record does not show a material change to support 743 homes.
Lives beside the site.
Said residents have asked for more than two years for a left-turn lane at Loganir Trail and Seminole Woods Boulevard, and that he was struck by a vehicle turning into his neighborhood there.
Raised stormwater capacity and two-story townhomes beside one-story homes.
The companion zoning map amendment for Seminole Trace (331 acres from SFR-1/PRS to MPD with development agreement) was withdrawn by the applicant (the packet names KL Seminole Trace, LLC and Byrndog PCP, LLC) immediately after the FLUM amendment denial, with the applicant's attorney stating on the record that the MPD application is withdrawn.
An ordinance substantially expanding the city's historical preservation regulations — from 1.5 pages to approximately 29 pages in the LDC — passed unanimously on first reading with the planning board's recommendations incorporated, including a requirement that the Historic Preservation Officer appointed by the city manager hold an advanced degree in a relevant field, and that the five-member quasi-judicial Historic Preservation Board include one voting member nominated by the Palm Coast Historical Society.
Second reading is set for October 20.
Ordinance amending the Unified Land Development Code — second reading tabled by consensus to the October 20, 2026 business meeting due to time constraints.
Ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department — second reading tabled by consensus to the October 20, 2026 business meeting due to time constraints.
Sitting as the SR 100 Corridor CRA Board, the council recommended approval of an amendment to the SR 100 Community Redevelopment Area Plan to incorporate 22 of the 23 town center parcels being acquired into the CRA, enabling tax increment financing revenue to service the line of credit for the ~$17 million acquisition.
The 23rd parcel (adjacent to Cigar Lake, north of Royal Palms) was excluded because it lies outside the CRA boundary.
The resolution passed 4–1 with Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no.
Reconvening as city council, the body approved the same SR 100 CRA Plan update — allowing CRA tax increment (TIF) revenue to repay the town center acquisition line of credit (expected to close at $11 million on October 20) and any general fund advance, with obligations remaining after the CRA's 2034 sunset payable from other legally available city revenue.
Finance Director Helena Alves confirmed the full line-of-credit resolution will be presented October 20.
Passed 4–1 with Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no.
Asked the total cost of the town center land purchase, the financing and interest rate, the payments and budget effect over the next three to five years, and what the city plans to do with the land.
Asked whether there is an early-payoff provision and whether proceeds from any parcel sold go directly to paying off the line of credit.
Asked council to put the full financial exposure on the record before final approval of the plan to buy 22 town center parcels, about 258 acres for an estimated $17 million: total cost with interest, expected tax increment revenue through 2034, and what pays any balance after the CRA ends.
Asked for independent appraisals, public disclosure of the final terms, and council approval before any parcel is sold, leased or transferred for private development.
The council unanimously approved a master price agreement with Merrell Brothers, Inc. for wastewater biosolids (sludge) management services covering approximately 10,000 tons per year from both wastewater plants.
The prior contractor did not renew; the new bid rate of $138/ton (up from $105) increases annual costs from roughly $990,000 to $1.3 million.
Staff noted a biosolids management feasibility study is planned for the future.
Resolution approving project expenses including a guaranteed maximum price contract amendment for Phase 1C, construction administration services, and a project contingency for the Maintenance Operations Center project — tabled by consensus to the October 20, 2026 business meeting due to time constraints.
Ended on a lighter note about Florida's 45-17 loss to Missouri for Councilman Miller, recognized participants in the Pink Army 5K for breast cancer awareness, thanked the young people who spoke for a skate park, and thanked council and staff for staying through a long meeting.
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 · Item D.4 and D.5 · recommendation — FLUM amendment (App. 6419): a motion by Vice Chair Albano, seconded by Board Member Hilton, to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval failed 2-2 (Hilton and Albano yes; Stancel and Chair Shank no), so no recommendation went forward. Rezoning (App. 6418): a motion by Hilton, seconded by Stancel, that it does not meet the MPD criteria and to recommend denial carried 4-0. Roll calls from the video; movers and seconders from the city minutes. p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · tabled — Tabled for three months, 4-1, on a motion by Council Member Miller seconded by Council Member Sullivan; Vice Mayor Pontieri voted no. An earlier motion by Council Member Gambaro to table for six months was withdrawn. The draft minutes had listed Mayor Norris as the no vote; on Sept 15 the Vice Mayor said she was the only nay, and the minutes the city posted carry that correction. Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 · this meeting
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.4 · this meeting
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, 4-1, Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no (minutes as posted; the clerk announced 4 to one).
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to table the Ordinance items 3 and 4 for 3 months — Passed 4-1 — yes: Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris; no: Pontieri 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: Tabled 4-1 for three months (motion Miller, second Sullivan; Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris yes; Pontieri no). An earlier motion by Gambaro to table for six months was withdrawn.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31
Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. p.1337
“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:01
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not show any resolution or revised standard addressing the LDC minimum 16-foot driveway width requirement after the September 1 meeting.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. p.1338
“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. p.1337
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. 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 to discuss and identify an acceptable public benefit, including potentially a park or skate park suggested by staff, and requested guidance on what council envisions.
Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. p.1336
“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. p.1337
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:36
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the open space ratio from 20% to 40%, matching the LDC requirement council demanded. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:40
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:14
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD increases minimum front setbacks to 20 feet for both single-family and townhome units, meeting the LDC minimum. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:35
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not specifically address a change to driveway minimum width of 16 feet as a separate amendment; the issue is mentioned only in the prior staff analysis context.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.3 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. p.1202
“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
Not yet checked against the video.Moot — the application ended 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.
Moot — the application ended A concurrency test will occur during the site plan/platting phase to ensure adequate infrastructure capacity, including wastewater treatment, to accommodate the proposed development.
Moot — the application ended 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.
Moot — the application ended The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner.
Moot — the application ended The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park.
Moot — the application ended Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process.
Moot — the application ended The owner will convey two well sites to the City of Flagler Beach within one year after approval of the development agreement.
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 · Item D.4 and D.5 · recommendation — FLUM amendment (App. 6419): a motion by Vice Chair Albano, seconded by Board Member Hilton, to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval failed 2-2 (Hilton and Albano yes; Stancel and Chair Shank no), so no recommendation went forward. Rezoning (App. 6418): a motion by Hilton, seconded by Stancel, that it does not meet the MPD criteria and to recommend denial carried 4-0. Roll calls from the video; movers and seconders from the city minutes. p.1339
Sep 1, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 and I.4 · tabled — Tabled for three months, 4-1, on a motion by Council Member Miller seconded by Council Member Sullivan; Vice Mayor Pontieri voted no. An earlier motion by Council Member Gambaro to table for six months was withdrawn. The draft minutes had listed Mayor Norris as the no vote; on Sept 15 the Vice Mayor said she was the only nay, and the minutes the city posted carry that correction. Sep 15 packet p.22
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.3 · this meeting
Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item H.4 · this meeting
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, 4-1, Vice Mayor Pontieri voting no (minutes as posted; the clerk announced 4 to one).
Vote, per the draft minutes: motion to table the Ordinance items 3 and 4 for 3 months — Passed 4-1 — yes: Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris; no: Pontieri 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: Tabled 4-1 for three months (motion Miller, second Sullivan; Gambaro, Miller, Sullivan, Norris yes; Pontieri no). An earlier motion by Gambaro to table for six months was withdrawn.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
The minimum townhome width must comply with the LDC rather than the proposed 18-foot standard.
Raised Sep 1 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:31
Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. p.1337
“Increase minimum lot width for Townhomes from 18' to 20'”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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:01
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not show any resolution or revised standard addressing the LDC minimum 16-foot driveway width requirement after the September 1 meeting.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit, but staff remains concerned about its financial conditions and adequacy as a material public benefit for Palm Coast residents. p.1338
“Staff remains concerned with the timely implementation of a skate park as a public benefit based on the following MPD conditions along with other financial considerations”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. p.1337
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. 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 to discuss and identify an acceptable public benefit, including potentially a park or skate park suggested by staff, and requested guidance on what council envisions.
Raised Sep 1 · by applicant · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:48:08
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The applicant proposed a skate park as public benefit after discussions, but staff still finds the benefit inadequate and raises financial concerns about the arrangement. p.1336
“New Section 8 (g). Proposal to convey a skate park as part of the MPD with the following conditions: a. Conveyance of 3 acre site to the City at no cost”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.4 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): Staff and applicant met and the applicant revised the MPD agreement to address open space, setbacks, and townhome width, and proposed a skate park, but staff still has concerns about the public benefit. p.1337
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:36
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the open space ratio from 20% to 40%, matching the LDC requirement council demanded. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:11:40
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD agreement increases the minimum townhome lot width from 18 feet to 20 feet, consistent with LDC standards. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:14
Made Oct 6: The amended MPD increases minimum front setbacks to 20 feet for both single-family and townhome units, meeting the LDC minimum. 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 staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 04:12:35
Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet does not specifically address a change to driveway minimum width of 16 feet as a separate amendment; the issue is mentioned only in the prior staff analysis context.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Partly made Oct 6: Shown in the companion H.3 packet (council heard I.3 and I.4 together on Sept 1): The traffic study confirms that eastbound left-turn lanes are warranted and recommends their construction at both project entrances, but this is a traffic engineering recommendation tied to development phases, not a commitment specifically linked to the applicant's earlier offer. p.1202
“an eastbound left turn lane is warranted at both the western driveway, which aligns with Sloganeer Trail, and at the eastern driveway which aligns with Slipper Trail.”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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”
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
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.
Moot — the application ended Oct 6: Council denied the FLUM amendment 5-0 and the applicant withdrew the MPD, so this was never resolved.
Not yet checked against the video.Moot — the application ended 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.
Moot — the application ended A concurrency test will occur during the site plan/platting phase to ensure adequate infrastructure capacity, including wastewater treatment, to accommodate the proposed development.
Moot — the application ended 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.
Moot — the application ended The City is responsible for design, permitting, and construction of the skate park other than the obligations assigned to the owner.
Moot — the application ended The City will escrow, allocate, and utilize park impact fees collected from the development to develop and complete the skate park.
Moot — the application ended Transportation concurrency, including any required roadway improvements, will be addressed during the Preliminary Plat or technical site plan process.
Moot — the application ended The owner will convey two well sites to the City of Flagler Beach within one year after approval of the development agreement.
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
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Expected after the Oct 6 tabling: the next Business Meeting on the city calendar (9 a.m.). Not yet confirmed by a posted agenda. p.2518
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
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Expected after the Oct 6 tabling: the next Business Meeting on the city calendar (9 a.m.). Not yet confirmed by a posted agenda. p.2518
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 staff · 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
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Expected after the Oct 6 tabling: the next Business Meeting on the city calendar (9 a.m.). Not yet confirmed by a posted agenda. p.2518
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
Oct 20, 2026 · Scheduled: Expected after the Oct 6 tabling: the next Business Meeting on the city calendar (9 a.m.). Not yet confirmed by a posted agenda. p.2518
Sources: the Oct 6, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page; background written from the packet by PalmCoastStorylines). Full packet →
Concerns about G.1 (skate park vendor contract) being approved without a designated site or parameters, described as 'putting the cart before the horse.' Also noted that the G.2 agenda packet attachment appeared to be an unrelated electrical contract from Jacksonville rather than the tire piggybacking documentation.