Policy needed for land swaps?

Palm Coast Observer
News

City Manager Jim Landon said a communitywide policy to address reserve parcels might be needed in the future.

Scattered throughout Palm Coast are pockets of land, known as reserve parcels, set aside by ITT Corp. more than 40 years ago. It was clear at the time that development would occur around the golf courses and along the saltwater canals, but ITT wasn’t sure where else would be the most desirable places to build.

And so, ITT carved out reserve parcels to plan for possible future development.

In the past six months, two reserve parcels have been brought before the Palm Coast City Council: the Sawgrass Villas proposal, in the L-section, and the Cypress Knoll proposed development, in the E-section.

In both cases, large numbers of residents have voiced their opposition to these reserve parcels being developed. And in both cases, the city has responded with proposals to swap land with the developers to reduce potential development near established residential areas. (Search “Sawgrass Villas” online at www.PalmCoastObserver.com.)

The reserve parcels carry land-use designations that were in place before the city existed — designations some residents feel are inconsistent with the neighborhoods that have since been built around the parcels.

With the outcry over the latest proposal involving the Cypress Knoll reserve parcel, Palm Coast City Manager Jim Landon said something probably will need to be done to address the reserve parcels as a whole. There are dozens more throughout the city.

“Currently, we are dealing with them on a case-by-case, property-by-property basis,” Landon said. “Eventually, a communitywide policy and program may be a better direction for the city to take to address these lots. We will be talking to City Council about possible options for them to consider in the future.”

City Councilman Frank Meeker acknowledged that the city only has so many things it can trade off.

“I think a policy would be a challenge to create,” Meeker said. “And I’m sure the staff is up to the challenge. The question is would it meet the goals and objectives of the council and the citizens of the city? Because they have a say in this, too.”

E-section neighbors: Larger lots
The reserve parcel being debated most hotly now is in Cypress Knoll. Palm Coast officials agreed Tuesday to delay an agreement with developer ICI for a proposed housing development in Cypress Knoll, which neighbors fear could decrease property values.

The proposed development is for a 43-acre parcel of land on the west side of Easthampton Boulevard and south of Eric Drive. The city owns 14 of those 43 acres, leaving 29 to be potentially developed. More than 100 residents attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Residents had several reasons for not wanting the City Council to approve the deal: Low-income housing wasn’t needed in the E-section; don’t change what is already there; the houses are going to be too close to existing homes.

A majority of the speakers didn’t agree with the proposed lot size requirement: a minimum of 6,600 square feet. That will make the homes smaller than the existing homes, residents said, thus decreasing property values.

It’s not all black and white, though.

Before the city was incorporated, Flagler County zoned the parcel “residential low density,” meaning up to three units could be developed per acre, for a maximum of 86 units.

Palm Coast adopted its 2020 comprehensive plan April 6, 2004, changing the designation of the 29 acres to “greenbelt,” which allows a maximum of one unit per acre, for a maximum of 28 units.

ICI filed a challenge with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, contesting the change in land-use designation. The proposed compromise, including a land swap, would result in 2.8 units per acre, for a maximum of 60 units.

Additionally, the developer would contribute $90,000 — which was originally set aside for construction of a park — for improvements throughout Cypress Knoll, including a right-turn lane on Easthampton Boulevard, a multiuse path and a monument sign for the neighborhood.

City Councilman Bill Lewis said the 6,600-square-foot lot sizes are too small.

“I think you need to maintain the character of a neighborhood,” Lewis said.

John Caruso, co-chairman of the Cypress Knoll Community Association, has lived in the neighborhood since 2003. He said he’s done the research.

According to Caruso, out of 2,177 residential lots in the E-section, only 14 are smaller than 10,000 square feet.

“So, not only as being a member of the committee, but being a resident, what’s going to happen to my land value?” Caruso said. “We’re concerned about this, and we really need your help,” he told the council.

Other residents referred to the proposed development as “low-incoming housing.” The consensus of the neighbors, according to Caruso, is that ICI has the right to build or develop, but the plans should be in accordance with the existing homes in the community.

Davis Haas, of ICI, said low-income housing isn’t even a thought.

“We’re ICI homes,” Haas said. “We do not build low-income housing anywhere, ever. We never have, and we’re not going to here.”

Meeker said in a phone interview Thursday that including another five acres in the land swap might be the difference-maker.

“If we (do that), then they can make the lot sizes bigger,” Meeker said, noting that would make all parties involved happy. “The key thing is to make the lawsuit go away.”

In regard to the Cypress Knoll development, Haas said it will be “many, many, many years before this is developed.”
The City Council will revisit the issue March 6, at the Community Center. In the meantime, city planners will renegotiation with the developer to address some of the residents’ concerns.