Flagler County planning board backs 119‑acre Seminole Woods mixed‑use PUD after public objections
Loading...
Summary
The Planning & Development Board unanimously recommended that the County Commission approve a future land use map amendment and rezoning to PUD for a 119‑acre Seminole Woods mixed‑use project that limits residential density to 7 units per acre; residents raised traffic, water and property‑value concerns during a lengthy public comment period.
The Flagler County Planning & Development Board voted unanimously to recommend that the County Commission approve a future land use map amendment and a rezoning to Planned Unit Development for a 119‑acre Seminole Woods project.
County planner Simone Kenny told the board the proposal would change 108 acres of agricultural and timber and 11 acres of commercial low‑intensity land to mixed use high intensity with a parcel‑limiting policy capping residential density at an average of 7 units per acre. Staff analyzed a worst‑case 60% residential / 40% commercial scenario that could translate to roughly 502 residential units and, under theoretical comp‑plan maxima, nearly 829,000 square feet of commercial, although the PUD master plan shown to the board limits commercial acreage at buildout.
The applicant’s attorney, Michael Schimento, said the city of Palm Coast reviewed the traffic study and confirmed utility capacity at the Palm Coast plant, and he emphasized that the PUD agreement and subsequent site‑plan process will specify design and enable further agency review.
More than a dozen residents from adjacent Grand Landings and Seminole Woods pressed the board during the public comment period. Speakers including Jeff Baker and Ira Costell cited potential traffic congestion, strain on schools and emergency services, loss of trees and wildlife, and possible property‑value declines; several asked the board to deny the application. Concerns also included the range of uses potentially allowed under a high‑intensity mixed‑use designation and the effects of the state—9s Live Local Act on local control.
Board members questioned the traffic study scope and the apparent mismatch between comprehensive‑plan worst‑case numbers and the PUD’s conceptual master plan. Staff and the applicant explained the difference: comprehensive‑plan analyses must evaluate theoretical maxima while the PUD agreement will govern the project’s actual limits. The applicant committed that later site‑plan submittals would address tree mitigation, traffic details and other technical studies required by county, city and state reviewers.
The board recorded roll‑call votes recommending approval of the future land‑use amendment and the PUD rezoning. Those recommendations go to the Board of County Commissioners, which has final authority.
Next steps: the County Commission will consider the board’s recommendation at a noticed public hearing on March 16, and detailed PUD site‑plan and permitting work will follow if the commission approves the map change and rezoning.
