The city administration had recommended against approval. He determined that the number of housing units requested would double the amount authorized. The developer disputed the conclusion, saying the increase in density is more modest. The board asked both parties to return to the negotiating table and bring the item back to Wednesday’s meeting. They have. But the essential difference remains unresolved.

The city agrees to some increase in density, compared to what was proposed last month, and this only because it had time to calculate figures that it had not finished when the article was presented to council last month. (A developer can ask for an item to be heard even before the administration’s review is complete.) But a big gap remains between what city planners are willing to recommend and what the developer wants.

Whether the planning board votes to recommend the project or to reject it, it goes either way to the Palm Coast City Council. The board will have the final say. But Wednesday’s planning committee decision will carry considerable weight, as will what has so far been strong public opposition to the developer’s plan. And it may not be the usual vote to recommend or reject, as this is a negotiated development agreement between the city and the developer. Thus, the planning board may well vote to approve the city ​​administration version, even if it goes against the request of the developer. If so, it will be a vote of approval with one big caveat: the developer will be in opposition.

He will always leave it to the council to settle. When this is the case, the council will have the same choices. This can go with the developer’s request, stick to the city’s recommendations, or work out a new agreement. The bottom line is that the developer and the city are still at odds.

Public opposition to the developer’s plan continued, including a four-page letter from a Palm Coast Resort resident that the city did not receive until Friday, but dated September 19. The letter reads almost like a legal brief, if more lucidly and without jargon. One of the concerns he raised had not been expressed in such detail at the September meeting.

“With this increased density, residents, guests, customers, visitors, employees and contractors at Legacy Vacation Resorts (72 units), planned hotel (125 keys), existing marina (80 locations), planned townhouses (30 units) the rental complex (200 units) and 146 Palm Coast Resort Blvd. (72 units) must all pass through a single entrance at Palm Harbor Parkway and Club-House Drive,” wrote John Mueller. “(That’s a total of 579 units, keys and slips.) This entrance has a concrete wall and a deep water retention basin on one side and a dead end marina entrance (and canal) from the other. In the event of a natural disaster or serious emergency, drivers have no choice but to exit through this single entrance. No other vehicular entrances or exits are available today. This may well be a security issue, as you know.

The proposal before the planning board is to rezone 18 acres from a planned unit development to a main planned development. The proposed development would include a U-shaped apartment tower, marina, townhouses and possibly a restaurant and hotel. Representatives of the developer were hesitant to commit to a hotel when they discussed the project before the planning board last month. They are not sure that it will make money.

Whichever approach the proponent takes, this would result in densities between 25.5 (with a hotel) and 29 (without a hotel) housing units per acre. The developer wants to be able to choose one or the other. The developer, Jim Jacoby’s JDI Palm Coast, does not budge from this request. The city says it exceeds density rules. The city is willing to go just over 18 units per acre (compared to 15 when the city administration opposed development in September), allowing for a total of 310 or 273 housing units – 122 to 159 less than this that the developer wants.

But the city’s proposal is conditional on the developer’s acceptance of eight conditions, or “standards,” that would make the project compatible with its environment. “In the professional opinion of the staff, the applicant’s proposal of 25.5 to 28.9 units per acre is not compatible with neighboring properties, as required by several sections of the LDC,” the memo from the LDC states. administration to the planning board. LDC is the city’s land use planning code.

The approach to the city does not appeal to the developer.

The city’s eight conditions include building a sit-down restaurant of at least 4,000 square feet and capacity for 75 customers, a new ship store, keeping the marina open and in compliance with safety standards. environmental cleanliness while reserving at least 25% of the port planning board -221019
its boat ramps for non-resort residents, maintains an existing public boat ramp, and constructs a sidewalk in some areas and a Palm Coast entrance sign on the Intracoastal.

JDI’s response is largely a restatement of its request, making the city’s terms conditional on its own interpretation of the numbers it seeks. In doing so, he denies the city’s approach and merely reframes his own. Yes, its eight conditions say, we will do anything you ask, but only if you approve our version of the number of units requested. The developer sees himself as simply adding 50 residential units, no more. He disputes the larger numbers in town, as he calculates them differently. It links this number or its derivatives to the eight conditions.

Last month, the planning council hoped that further administrative-level negotiations would spare it a repeat of a long and contentious meeting where, although civil, public opposition to the plan was fierce and sometimes incredulous, while own impressions of the planning council on the request of the promoter was not far from those of the public. The four weeks that have passed since then and the additional material in the already voluminous 135-page planning council package have not changed the premise.