City of Palm Coast

CITY OF PALM COAST DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE October 27, 2006

ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: NONE

DRC STAFF PRESENT: Ray Tyner, Current Planning Manager; Constance Bentley, Land Development Manager; Andrew Ames, Traffic Engineer; Chris Johnson, Utility Department; Bill Butler, Landscape Architect; Phong Nguyen, Transportation Planner; Jeff Pattee, Fire Marshal; Ken Kruger, Development Review Engineer; David Evans, Land Development Technician; Carol Hamilton, Recording Secretary; Angela Tagliamonte, Staff Assistant

1. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance.  Mr. Tyner called the DRC Meeting to order at 9:03 am  Voting Members will be Ken Kruger and Bill Butler  Staff introductions

2. Case SD-ODP-07-01 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; MATANZAS POINT; proposed 6 commercial- use lots on a total of 38.357 acres located in the COM-3 (Commercial – High Intensity) Zoning District; project is located on the northeast corner of Matanzas Woods Parkway and US Highway 1; Applicant – Clinton F. Smith (Project 200610004; Applicant #1258)

Attendees representing the project: Clint Smith, VP with Florida Landmark Communities and Heather Patterson, EI with Singhofen & Associates.

DISCUSSION INCLUDED:

PLT  Comment #7 – The Overall Development Plan shows site work outside of the plat; we can only approve construction within site during preliminary plat. Applicant/Developer disagrees with the comment. Drainage improvements, easement to City, not dedicated, owned by Florida Landmark Communities, need agreement to insure that the property will be maintained. Modify survey. Ms. Bentley will get back with Mr. Smith regarding this issue.  In response to Mr. Butler’s question, Mr. Smith said that a tree survey was not submitted at this time. He will check.  Comment #12 –Do you propose to have shared retention? Calculation for non-residential intensity is based on FAR. Portion of the off-site drainage can be counted in direct proportion to the size of the subject lot. Calculation must be provided in the note area on the plat providing the portion of the shared retention allotted to each lot. See Section 3.07.02 (b) of the LDC. The drainage area will need to be in a separate tract. Applicant/Developer would like to put in easement not a tract. If there are no plans, it would not be necessary to put in a tract.  Additional Comment to read: “No impacts shall occur with the future land use wetland designation without going through FLUM Amendment process.”

DRC Page 1 of 7 UD1 – UTILITY DEPARTMENT:  Informational Comment #1 – Has projected water and waste water flows for the project been calculated into the overall master plan of Linear Park?

ENGIN1:  Comment #2 – Are there 2 drainage outfalls?  Wetlands: 5, old borrow pit NE corner, wetland adjacent to US 1, south of Matanzas & US 1 – borrow pit, small wetlands on lots 1 & 4. Wetland impacts briefly discussed. Mr. Tyner requested a breakdown, wetland impacts are not allowed to wetlands over ½ acre under LDC. Mr. Smith said that the area burned in 1998, this is not a high quality wetland. Re-hydrate system.

Staff Comments:  Mr. Tyner briefly discussed gopher tortoises.  Mr. Johnson briefly discussed water/sewer issues.

Mr. Kruger made a motion to approve subject to comments presented Case SD-ODP-07-01 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; MATANZAS POINT; proposed 6 commercial-use lots on a total of 38.357 acres located in the COM-3 (Commercial – High Intensity) Zoning District. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and was approved 3-0.

3. Case SD-ODP-07-02 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; GRAND WOODS, PATIO HOMES; proposed development of 45 sfr lots on 25.51 +/- acres, located in the GCC (Golf Course Community) District; project is situated north of Lakeview Boulevard in the Matanzas Woods Subdivision; Applicant – Jim Cullis (Project # 2006100005, Application #1260)

Attendees representing the project: Chris Hill, Project Manager with Landmar; Jim Bonnano, Engineer with ARCADIS

PLT – PLANNING TECHNICIAN:  Lakeview Boulevard development will be discussed at meeting with Staff and Applicant/Developer.  Master Plan needs to be approved.

FD1:  Delete Informational Comment #1

UD1:  Existing Clubhouse will be replaced. Impacts to sewer system should be minimal.  Additional Comment to read: “The potential development of this property will require water and sewer system improvements off-site of the subject property. These improvements will require coordination and design efforts on the developer’s part. The City of Palm Coast Utility Department will work with the developer to provide them with information relative to the existing utility facilities for use by the development team.”  Additional Comment to read The City of Palm Coast Utility Department will not be able to approve of this project prior to these water and sewer systems being designed and permitted to the City’s satisfaction.”

DRC Page 2 of 7 PLTR:  Lakeview Typical Section needs to show a 6 1/2’ wide sidewalk and not 5’ wide. Applicant/Developer requested one 8’ sidewalk instead of two 6.5’ sidewalks. Mr. Nguyen recommended a minimum 10’ sidewalk.  Lakeview Boulevard was discussed

PLLA:  Delete all Landscaping Comments.

ENGIN1:  Graphics – should be on a separate sheet  Engineering Comments were provided to Applicant/Developer.

PLENV:  Comment #1 – According to the development plan submitted with the package, wetlands are located within the footprint of development. Please clarify all wetland impacts, if any and the associated impact acreages as this information is unclear.  Mr. Tyner: was an environmental assessment provided? Wetlands are not delineated on the plan; buffer line against wetland line  Additional comment to read: “Show wetland buffers at 25’; depict all wetlands on site. No impacts on a wetland system over a ½ acre in size as per LDC.” A/D said that the JD was approved by SJRWMD.

Staff Comments:  Ms. Bentley asked if this is the un-platted piece. Applicant/Developer said yes.  Mr. Tyner discussed Lakeview Boulevard, huge impact on wetlands, Applicant/Developer is getting determination of wetlands, dig out as original system to determine the wetlands for the roadway, Applicant/Developer will provide information; are the on-site wetlands: SJRWMD OR AOC jurisdiction?  Meet to discuss the BIG picture.

Mr. Butler made a motion to approve subject to DRC Comments Case SD-ODP-06-11 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; GRAND WOODS, PATIO HOMES; proposed development of 45 sfr lots on 25.51 +/- acres, located in the GCC (Golf Course Community) District. Mr. Kruger seconded the motion. The motion carried and was approved 3-0.

4. Case SP-ODP-07-03 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; GRAND WOODS, NORTHWEST PARCEL; proposed development of 272 sfr on 205.49 +/- acres, located in the GCC (Golf Course Community); project is situated on southeast corner of Old Kings Road and US Highway 1; Applicant –Jim Cullis (Project #2006100008, Application #1265)

Attendees representing the project: Chris Hill, Engineer with Landmar; Chris Hill, Project Manager with ARCADIS

PLT:  Ms. Bentley: Discussed at length: Master plan is a use plan, depict uses, not a plat, still have to follow platting through ODP. Options: if qualify – subdivision exemption or plat entire property, undeveloped property as a tract. Plat must conform to master plan, if # of lots increase, do a modification of

DRC Page 3 of 7 master plan (no guarantee approval); using density from golf course to get residential uses, plat and sell properties, it is recorded, cannot take away from owners. Requires all owners to approve modification to master plan. Request PUD to protect property requires PLRDB and council approval with no guarantees of approval. Lot sizes and density are a concern of the A/D; certain criteria in master plan that must be met and will discuss at the upcoming meeting.

DRC Page 4 of 7  General Comment #1 – Be advised that development of floating zone ‘A;’ is restricted to the Grand Woods Master Plan.  General Comment #2 – The entire property in which this floating zone is located is not included in this submittal. Be advised that the Grand Woods Master Plan designates the uses of the floating zones but it does NOT plat this parcel. If only floating zone ‘A’ is to be platted with this application, then prior to continuing, a subdivision exception application must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded PRIOR to the platting of floating zone ‘A’.  Sketch Comment #1 – Be advised that the sketch and survey provided MUST match the Master Plan for all and include the ENTIRE property. The subdivision exemption option was discussed  Additional Comment to read: “Lakeview Boulevard road extension through master plan will need to be resolved for construction.”  Additional Comment to read: “Master plan needs to be approved prior to preliminary plat.”

PLENV- PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL:  Delete Comment #3.

PLLA:  Comment #3 – There is a small narrow line connecting the southern portion of the subdivision with the northern section which would qualify for a secondary access per the Comprehensive Plan requirements for two points of access. Is this the intention of this line as a temporary emergency access road? If not, need to provide such access.

UD1:  Comment #1 – The proposed water and waste water system on US 1 (Linear Park Project) is currently in design and in the review process. Will schedule meeting between Utility Staff and Applicant/Developer to discuss water/sewer issues.

FD1:  Delete Comment

TRENG:  Comment #1 – Provide secondary emergency egress on the northern roadway system per Comp Plan.

ENGIN1:  Comment #4 – Currently there is one entrance each provided for phase 6 and 7A. a secondary means of ingress and egress for emergency purposes is needed for each phase.  Comment #11 – A traffic analysis will be required at preliminary plat to determine traffic lane improvements and possible signalization entering the development from US HWY 1.  Comment #13 – Identify the structure and parking shown adjacent to the south entrance. Also provide left turn maneuver exiting the parking area.

DRC Page 5 of 7 Staff comments:  Mr. Tyner: Delete PLENV Comment #3. Contiguous wetland (Hughlet Branch) – appears that (#12) some lots going into system, Applicant/Developer may want to look at that. Also will bring lot development plan with overlay and SJRWMD line.  Additional Environmental Comment to read: “No impacts are permitted in the Conservation FLUM without a FLUM Amendment.”  Ms. Bentley said that the overall development plan is not showing the entire property. Would this affect Staff’s comments?

Mr. Kruger made a motion to approve subject to DRC Comments Case SP-ODP-07-03 – Subdivision, Overall Development Plan; GRAND WOODS, NORTHWEST PARCEL; proposed development of 272 sfr on 205.49 +/- acres, located in the GCC (Golf Course Community). Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and was approved 3-0.

Mr. Butler made a motion to recess the DRC Meeting for 10 minutes. Mr. Kruger seconded the motion. The motion carried and the DRC was recessed at 10:35 am. Mr. Schneiger arrived at 10:58 am

5. Case SD-PLP-07-01 – Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; TOWN CENTER PHASE IV; proposed subdivision of 1 parcel into 2 lots on 11.847 +/- acres, located in the Town Center PUD (Planned Unit Development) District; project is located on the north side of SR 100, east of Belle Terre Parkway, west of Interstate-95; Applicant – Stan R. Bullington (Project # 2006100007, Application # 1264)

Attendees representing the project: Michael Chiumento, III and Jay Livingston representing Applicant and Michael McMahan with Tomoka Engineering

PLT:  General Comment #1 – Service road shall be provided at this time. Currently there is no provision for this roadway with this application. General Comment #2 – Until service road alignment and/or required easements are shown on plat and determined, additional comments may be forthcoming. Discussion followed regarding major concerns and disagreements regarding alignment and service road followed. Meeting with City Manager and Property Owner is vital.  Plat Comment #11- Are any signs proposed at this site? If so, they shall be so designated at this time. Provide tracts for signage and dedicate appropriately in the Dedication.  CONSTRUCTION PLANS Comment #1 – Sheet C-2, revise name “24’ Access Easement” to state 24’ “Ingress-Egress Easement” as sown and labeled on the plat. This is required for consistency between the proposed plat and the construction plans.  CONSTRUCTION PLANS Comment #2 – provide the following Notes on the cover of construction plans: a. “All utilities shall be located underground.” b. “ Contract shall attend a mandatory pre-construction meeting with City Staff prior to disturbing the property.”

DRC Page 6 of 7 PLTR – PLANNING TRANSPORTATION:  This is a proposed plat of Tract 29 of the Town Center DRI development. This Tract of land also is situated within the SR 100 CRA District. A Frontage Road Alignment crosses this Tract. The City has requested the owner for the provision of ROW to accomplish the SR 100 Frontage Road alignment. This preliminary plat does not include ROW for the Frontage Road; therefore, Staff recommends that this issue be resolved prior to proceeding further into review and/or for approval.

UD1:  Comment #1 – Utility fees, Agreements and FDEP permits or Design Engineers letter of determination must be completed before a final Development Order will be issued.

TRENG – TRAFFIC ENGINEER:  This parcel falls within the footprint of the SR 100 CRA project addressed by the Community Development Department. This parcel will require an easement or dedicated ROW to the City to complete the service road. Please contact John Schneiger with the Community Development Department to coordinate.

CA1:  Comment #1 - We endorse prior comments of the City Staff as well founded and clearly articulated.  Comments #3 – All references to the Number of Lots should be verified at (one) 1 lot. References to two (2) lots refers to the prior Application No. 1109.

Staff Comments: Frontage road is a major issue, there are 17 comments from City Attorney and Engineering issues

Mr. Kruger made a motion to continue subject o comments presented, resolve frontage road issue Case SD-PLP-07-01 – Subdivision, Preliminary Plat; TOWN CENTER PHASE IV; proposed subdivision of 1 parcel into 2 lots on 11.847 +/- acres, located in the Town Center PUD (Planned Unit Development) District. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and approved 3-0.

6. Case SP-MAJ-06-02 – Site Plan, Major; CASTELLO DEL LAGO; proposed 3 condominium buildings (a total of 120 units) on a 17.47 +/- acres located in the MFR-1 (Multi-Family Residential) District; project situated in the Matanzas Woods Subdivision, North of Matanzas Woods Parkway, East of U.S. Highway 1, with an entrance off of Londonderry Drive; Applicant – Robbie Richmond (Project # 2006040002, Application #1138)

Attendees representing the project: Brett Markovitz, Jason Kellogg and James Tiffany with CPH; James Manfree and Robbie Richmond with River City Homes

PLT:  Informational Comment #6 – Provide square footage of sidewalks  Informational Comment #7 – Explain the resource-based recreational area being provided. Provide the square footage of this walkway and the calculations to determine compliance with Section 3.06.02, B, 9 d of the LDC. Please clarify. Comp plan objective, show how residents can enjoy amenities (passive park, picnic area, walking trails, sidewalks)

DRC Page 7 of 7 PLENV:  Comment #2 – Wetland creation areas are proposed, however, the construction plans merely refer to an area as wetland preservation. Please be specific as to which portion of this preservation is proposed to be creation.

FD1:  Delete all comments. No comments at this time.

UD1:  Comment #1 – Utility fees, Agreements and FEDP permits or Design Engineers letter of determination must be completed before a final Development Order will be issued.  Comment #3 – The pump station shall be dedicated to the City of Palm Coast. The pump station shall be designed to City standards. The pump station site plan detail needs to be to scale. Please provide details for the grinder pump system for the pool area.  Comment #8 – A utility easement from the owner of the parcel that the water main and force main is crossing to the London Drive right-of-way.

SW1:  Comment #1 – Provide the City of Palm Coast with a 20’ wide access and maintenance easement along the east edge of Ashwood Waterway. Ashwood Waterway is a significant channel in the City’s Master Stormwater System and access for ditch maintenance from the east side is necessary.

PLLA:  Additions to Comment #4 to read: “a. Provide an irrigation plan.” “b. Island needs a shade tree.” “c. No shrubs in islands M, H, R, S, J.”

Staff Comments:  Ms. Bentley: bldg 3 – being built in the A zone, low mar, plan on doing an elevation certificate prior to construction, suggested moving the building out of A Zone, mortgage as per state, requires flood insurance. A/D will do a map amendment. A/D will also provide elevation certificates prior to building permit application.  Mr. Johnson: pump station sites  Mr. Butler: could be more comments after review of plans

Mr. Butler made a motion to approve subject to DRC Comments Case SP-MAJ-06-02 – Site Plan, Major; CASTELLO DEL LAGO; proposed 3 condominium buildings (a total of 120 units) on a 17.47 +/- acres located in the MFR-1 (Multi-Family Residential) District. Mr. Kruger seconded the motion. The motion carried and approved 3-0

7. Adjournment.  Mr. Kruger made a motion to adjourn the DRC Meeting. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The motion carried and Mr. Tyner adjourned the meeting at 12:05

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Hamilton, Senior Staff Assistant

DRC Page 8 of 7 City of Palm Coast Community Development

DRC Page 9 of 7