Tuesday, February 4th, 2024 at 6 pm, the Palm Coast City Council held their evening business meeting, where a myriad of topics were discussed, including the Cascades Development in Seminole Woods, and the design phase 2 on Old Kings Road extension.
The Palm Coast City Council heard a presentation about the Old Kings Road Design Phase 2, which would widen a section of Old Kings Road between Town Center Blvd and Palm Coast Parkway. Carl Cote explained the history of the project and the timeline to date on the Old Kings Road project, which is a three-phase project. Project One has already been completed, and the City is ready to move forward with the design for Phase 2. Funding for this project is set at 15% Utility Funds, 14% Stormwater Funds, 8% FDOT Grant, 16% Town Center Transportation Impact Fees, 32% City Transportation Impact Fees, and 15% OKR Special Assessment District Funds. Pontieri asked what percentage of the project impact fees could be paid for by law, with Carl Cote answering that Transportation and Utility Impact Fees can pay for 100% of the project. Multiple Utility funds were included in the source sheet provided to council members, to which Pontieri asked for clarification as to which funds listed are impact fee funds. Cote continued explaining that they would be using as many impact fees to cover as many funds as legally possible. Public comment brought forth many questions, including why a design should cost over 6 million dollars, why funds are coming from the Utility Funds when it has been stated we are running out of water, and others. The project design phase was passed unanimously after Gambaro and Pontieri requested regular status updates with detailed updates on what could be funded with impact fees and what could not be. Right now, up to 32%, which includes the stormwater funds and the FDOT grant, along with 10% possible from Utilities, is the only portion not being funded by impact fees.
During a final discussion on the Dias, the city attorney brought up the fact that the developers of Seminole Woods have filed a Bert Harris Claim against the City regarding the density of the Cascades development. They are asking for more density, which would be about 200+ more homes or “stay put with the ordinance passed,” as the City Attorney put it. Pontieri spoke about the history of the project so far. Originally, this PUD was with the County and set to 416 single-family dwelling units.n, they requested a change to al After annexation to allow 816 units, including multifamily units. She explained her stance, which was against the change to the agreement, and ultimately, during the second read, the amendment was denied, and it was to stay at the 416. The second attempt by the developer to gain more density was when they came back to the dais claiming the “hook piece” that was previously mentioned during the discussions was not supposed to be included; they should be entitled to a rehearing for the amendment to allow for more density for the project. Pontieri stated that the facts do not line up for a Bert Harris Claim and that approving a settlement would open up a precedent for future developers to file claims against the City without cause. Ty Miller explained that he appreciated the history Pontieri gave on the subject and said that while he is a large proponent of minimizing risk, he is apt to agree with Pontieri’s stance on the subject. Gambaro also spoke on the matter, thanking Pontieri for her explanation. He stated his stance by asking the question of what the risk is if they don’t offer a settlement to the developer. He explained that some municipalities have won a claim, but there have also been municipalities that have lost. Gambaro asked the City Attorney what the risk is if they lose, to which the City Attorney explained that the City would be looking at the minimum of what they are asking for with possible attorney fees. Due to the nature of the fact that these discussions have to be done in an open forum, the discussion didn’t delve into detail. Pontieri made a motion to keep the ordinance as is and offer no settlement, option 1, which was seconded by Council member Stevens. Public comment on the subject was a resounding no from members of the public who were still in attendance. Following public comment on the subject, the motion was put to a vote; the motion passed unanimously.
