Planning Board approves Florida Logistics Center site plan with stormwater and off‑site conditions

The Daytona Beach Planning Board voted to approve the Florida Logistics Center phase 1 and 2 major site plan (DEV2025-428), authorizing two one‑story warehouse and distribution buildings totaling 305,550 square feet on a 276.5‑acre property south of Beville Road and west of Williamson Boulevard.

Millie O'Brien, senior planner for the City of Daytona Beach, opened the presentation by correcting two items in the staff report and summarizing the proposal, saying, “the project number [in the presentation] is DEV2025-428” and confirming the site’s future land use designation is mixed use. She told the board the project includes two 46‑foot high single‑story warehouse buildings and that the site contains roughly 56 acres of wetlands, 18.3 acres of surface waters and 202 acres of uplands; the entire property lies within the floodplain.

Staff recommended approval with conditions. O'Brien noted two specific conditions that must be met before the site plan approval letter is issued: completion of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) and documentation that any required fees are paid. Final approval, she said, is contingent on providing the required off‑site improvements either on the applicant's plans or on plans prepared and funded by others.

The applicant team, represented by attorney Jessica G, described project sequencing and mitigation measures. Jessica said the project’s PD rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments were recently approved and emphasized the phased connection to the adjacent Walker’s Green plan district. She told the board the project will include stormwater improvements tied to a Williamson Boulevard widening and said the county may install turn lanes and driveway work as part of a separate construction package.

Responding to board concerns about wetlands and flooding, project engineer Chris Rolley explained the flood‑compensation approach: “we are not allowed to impact the flood plane more than what the site does now,” he said, and described compensating storage ponds and modeled post‑construction storage designed to match pre‑construction floodplain volume. Rolley explained liners will be used on ponds near wetlands to avoid drawing down adjacent wetlands and triggering additional impacts.

The staff presentation and applicant testimony described tree and landscaping commitments: the applicant identified more than 8,400 on‑site trees meeting a mitigation size threshold, reported 804 specimen trees (433 proposed for preservation) and proposed 1,189 replacement trees; the total area devoted to landscaping for both phases is 32.14 acres. Staff also reported parking calculations (476 required; 531 proposed; surplus 55).

Board members raised long‑term planning questions about cumulative wetland impacts and the practice of funding mitigation in other locations. Staff and the applicant said that wetland impacts were conceptually approved by St. Johns River Water Management District and that mitigation funding is directed to protected mitigation banks; staff and the applicant noted the Army Corps review where applicable. Board members urged continued attention to future cumulative impacts as development proceeds in the corridor.

A motion to approve the site plan, including the staff‑recommended conditions (completion of TIA, payment of fees, and provision or funding of off‑site improvements), was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote with six members recorded in favor.

What happens next: staff will not issue the site plan approval letter until the TIA process is complete and required fees are documented as paid; final approval will be issued when required off‑site improvements are provided or funded as required by condition.

Authorities referenced in the hearing were administrative and agency permits and the project’s PD (planned development) document; staff also referenced conceptual approval by the St. Johns River Water Management District and noted other jurisdictional reviews (county DOT, county, FEMA) would be required before building permits are issued.

Ending: The board approved the project with conditions and emphasized the need to monitor future cumulative impacts in the corridor as build‑out continues.