Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves amendment allowing detached single‑family homes on two parcels in Sawmill Branch; critics raise historic‑site drainage concerns
Summary
Council approved a first‑amendment request to the Palm Coast Park MPD to convert two Sawmill Branch tracks from 320 townhouses (18‑ft lots) to 244 detached single‑family homes on 30‑ft lots, reducing maximum density from 10 to 7 units per acre; the planning board recommended approval subject to landscaping breaks and a small amenity, but some council members raised concerns that prior site work may have damaged the Huelet Mill historic site.
The City Council on April 21 approved an amendment to the Palm Coast Park master plan development (MPD) agreement allowing single‑family residential development on two designated tracks (16 and 7A) of the Sawmill Branch community (phase six), a change proposed by the developer to alter a previously approved 320‑unit townhouse plan.
Estelle Linds of the Community Development Department said the amendment would convert an approved townhouse layout (2,000 sq ft lots, 18‑ft wide) to detached single‑family homes on 30‑ft lots with a proposed minimum living area of 2,550 sq ft and a requested maximum density of seven units per acre. The developer’s conceptual plan showed roughly 244 detached lots — a reduction of 76 units from the townhouse plan — and staff told council utilities can be extended at the owner’s expense.
The Planning & Land Development Regulation Board reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with two conditions: (1) a 20‑foot wide landscape break every 12 lots; and (2) a small on‑site amenity such as a playground for residents. Staff concluded the change reduces density, lowers projected traffic, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan housing goal to provide a diversity of lot sizes and housing choices.
During discussion councilmember Sullivan raised an environmental and historic‑preservation concern he said he observed on site: he alleged recent clearing and placement of a retention pond had altered drainage onto the Huelet Mill historic site and said the site appeared to be “ruined.” The applicant’s representatives and staff said they were not previously aware of that specific concern; staff committed to investigate and follow up before second reading. The applicant (representing Dr. Horton) described the product as “detached multifamily” that responds to market demand for a yard and private open space while reducing density compared with the approved townhouse plan.
Council action: After deliberation the council approved the first reading of the amendment, incorporating the two planning‑board recommendations. The vote was 4–1, with Council member Sullivan voting no and citing the land‑development code compatibility standards (LDC 2.05.05 and MPD section 2.09.04) and concerns about site impacts.
Next steps: If adopted at second reading, the applicant must submit a subdivision master plan and preliminary and final plats. Staff also will follow up on the Huelet Mill drainage/historic‑site concern and report back to the council.
