'Things change.': Harborside Marina application approved in split vote

While the density was lowered after the last City Council meeting, the proposed density of 21.9 units per acre is still higher than that of surrounding developments.


JDI Palm Coast, LLC, expects to divide the lot with the restaurant on the north side of the property in lot two. JDI will be limited to 299 additional units to the property.
JDI Palm Coast, LLC, expects to divide the lot with the restaurant on the north side of the property in lot two. JDI will be limited to 299 additional units to the property.
Image from Palm Coast City Council meeting documents
  • Palm Coast Observer
  • Share

City Council members approved a controversial Harborside Marina zoning application in a split 3-2 vote on Feb. 7.

The council met for its regular business meeting on Feb. 7. 

At a previous business meeting, the City Council had approved the application on first reading pending a compromise between city staff and the applicant,  JDI Palm Coast, on density issues.

City staff and the applicant did come to a compromise of 21.9 units per acre in density, limiting the applicant to 299 new units.

But council members Theresa Carli Pontieri and Cathy Heighter, who cast the two dissenting votes, thought the density was still too high. 

We have a code for a reason. We have density requirements for a reason. — Theresa Carli Pontieri, Palm Coast City Council member

“We have a code for a reason,” Pontieri said, “We have density requirements for a reason.”

Vice Mayor Ed Danko said that residents may not want the development, but unless residents want a tax hike, Palm Coast needs development to diversify the city’s tax base.

“We’re going to grow — that’s a fact of life,” he said. “With that growth … we will have some increase in traffic. That’s life. Things change.”

Most of the residents speaking against the JDI Palm Coast application said they weren’t against development — just the high density of the current project, even with the compromise.

The 21.9-unit-per-acre density would lead to a total of 371 units —including 72 units that are already on the property — so JDI Palm Coast would be limited to adding 299 new units. 

The 21.9-units-per-acre density is still twice the density of the largest neighboring development.

City staff had originally wanted to limit the density to 18.3 units per acre, while the applicant was asking for more than 25 units per acre and an overall total of 432 multi-family units.

The application now all but requires a restaurant to be built on Lot 2 before any other commercial use can be built, said attorney Jay Livingston, representing JDI Palm Coast.

Ray Tyner, the city’s deputy chief development officer, told the City Council that staff had requested that two additional items be added to the conditions for approval: that the existing boat ramp remain and be available for government emergency operations, and that a 5-foot sidewalk be built and accessible to the public on the west side of the Intracoastal.

The City Council and JDI Palm Coast agreed to docking accommodations for emergencies, but JDI, citing liability concerns, did not agree to add a public sidewalk.

We’re going to grow — that’s a fact of life.  With that growth … we will have some increase in traffic. That’s life. Things change. — Ed Danko, Palm Coast Vice Mayor

City Attorney Neysa Borkert said the council cannot require the applicant to agree to something for approval that is outside of code regulations.

While City Council is restricted in why it can deny an application, the Harborside request left plenty of room for it to do so, between the city Planning Board’s denial recommendation in October and the extreme difference between the JDI proposal and surrounding densities.

The only reason the project can qualify for approval is because of an infrequently used Comprehensive Plan Policy that allows for a deviation from standard density caps — 15.5 units per acre here — if the development would be unique to the area.

“This is a zoning change,” Pontieri said. “This is precedent-setting.”

Pontieri put forth a motion to defer the application for more review, but did not get a second. 


 

Latest News

×

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning local news.