Another self-storage facility for Old Kings Road, a car wash near Starbucks and Taco Bell on SR100


Palm Coast businesses and developers love redundancy: gas stations, healthcare and assisted living facilities, car washes, self-service storage. Redundancy in turn speaks to the demographics of the region: older, quieter, downsizing, more disease-prone. On Thursday night, the Palm Coast Planning Board paved the way for two more familiar types of businesses: a self-storage facility on Old Kings Road North and a car wash on State Road 100 and Belle Terre Boulevard.

The self-storage facility is the third approved for Old Kings Road, north or south, in the past four weeks. Facilities have also been approved on Old Kings Road South near Hidden Lakes and near Toscana. The latest approval excludes motorhomes and boats, unlike the first two. Flagler County is experiencing a boom in self-storage facilities that may be approaching a glut, now that development appears to be slowing from its peak last spring and summer.

Take 5 Express Car Wash will open in the Shoppes of Palm Coast strip on State Road 100 across from Target. It replaces the Gate service station initially planned on the site. The 1 acre site sits between the relatively new Culvers Restaurant and Taco Bell. The three-lane car wash will operate on 4,200 square feet. The land is zoned commercial, but Driven Brands, the parent company of Take 5, was looking for a special city exception that would allow car washing at this location. (The location belongs to Ramzy Bakkar of Jacksonville.)

Jason Sheridan of Pennoni Associates, which represents Take 5, said the car wash itself will cover 3,600 square feet and use three 1,500-gallon reclaimed water tanks and a 2,500-gallon “sand interceptor” before that water does not flow into the sewage system.

The car wash will be express only, i.e. self-service, much to the chagrin of one of the board members. “It looks like we’ve lost all of our full services in town,” the council member said. Sandra Shanks, another board member, noted that when the strip was first approved in 2015, a car wash was not planned. She was worried about the impact of traffic on the site.

“That’s one of the things we’ve been looking at very carefully to make sure the cars won’t pile up in the internal aisles,” said Ray Tyner, deputy director of development. “We actually made multiple edits or had the requester make multiple edits to make sure the stack wouldn’t come out.” Tyner said the number of vehicles passing through the site would be lower than those calculated for what would have been the Gate service station there. A car wash would take about two minutes. The facility provides 150 feet of stacking space before vehicles interfere with the rest of the site’s common areas. The business would likely operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Sheridan said, with an employee on site.

The planning board approved the special exception 6-1, with Shanks dissenting.

The 36-acre King’s Crossing storage facility received its special exception nearly three years ago – with no less than 20 city conditions, as there are significant wetlands and floodplains on the site. It took the developers that long to comply with the conditions (including the construction of all sorts of culverts and ‘compensatory storages’ for flood waters) and come back to the planning board with a plan of the site. This has not been easy. “Before this project, I didn’t use hair dye. Now I’m a Clairol M9,” Dan Wilcox, the project’s chief engineer, said of the light brown hair coloring agent. “This project almost exhausted us. This is a difficult question. Water runoff and flooding were major concerns.

“On a positive note,” Tyner said, “because there are significant wetlands associated with this site, all of the residential properties you will see on the presentation are well protected by a high quality wetland system. And the only real neighbor the storage facility would have would be I-95.

King’s Crossing is midway between Matanzas Woods Parkway and Palm Coast Parkway on the west side of Old Kings. One building will total 10,011 square feet, another, a two-story building, will total 59,730 square feet. The facility will provide 838 individual internal storage spaces.

The city was concerned about “the viability of the existing wildlife corridor the parcel currently provides,” according to Terracon, the consulting engineers who conducted a species at risk study and wetland impact analysis for the facility. . “After an analysis of the corridor, Terracon has determined that the four (4) 36” culverts proposed for the road crossing will allow continuity for most mammal species, larger species such as deer and feral hogs can cross the road. say Terracon analysts. “In addition, the road will have a minimum of trips, estimated at 8 trips per day from
vehicle volume. Proposed mitigation measures, such as a 10-mile-per-hour speed limit, will create a low-risk environment for crossing animals, while landscape plantings at crossings will allow animals to be close of the road before crossing, which will reduce crossing time. Therefore, with these mitigation measures, wildlife vehicle collisions (WVCs) will be minimal and therefore the ability of the property to be a wildlife corridor should not be disrupted. »

For consumers and customers, the facility will be your standard self-service type of storage, offering household goods and professional equipment, but no firearms, drugs and hazardous materials. Signatures are required on leases, but there are no systematic inspections of the storage units themselves. The site will be hidden by wetlands, with the top of the building possibly visible from I-95.

But then a disagreement took Tony Kostantinidis, the plaintiff and owner of the establishment, by surprise. He surmised there could be – there would be – RV and boat storage outside. Members of the planning council, reading the application, determined differently. Some were under the impression that there would be no boats and RVs there. The distinction, for Konstantinidis, was that the boats and motorhomes would not be visible, but would be there.

“As far as planning goes, we don’t care what you store inside the unit as long as it’s not hazardous,” said Bill Hoover, the project’s lead planner. But a representative from a storage facility was keen to point out that there would also be boats and motorhomes outside, only vehicles would not be visible from any right of way.

“The document provided to us in the “Background” section indicates that the applicant submitted a request for a technical site plan for an enclosed self-storage facility with no outside storage of boats or recreational vehicles, this is the very front line,” Shank said. She clarified: she was not necessarily against the boats and RVs, only the inconsistency between the wording of the documents and what she was hearing from the plaintiff at the time.

“The plan in front of you today won’t – won’t have – outdoor storage,” Tyner agreed. “If they want to come in and edit their plan, because their sitemap that we have now doesn’t show offsite storage, if they want to come in and edit their plan at a later date, they can do that and go through the process again and edit it to show where they will be stored externally.

“So I just want to make sure we’re clear and you’re clear that when we vote, we’re not voting for – that doesn’t include outside storage,” Shank told Konstantinidis.

“So you would have a choice to move forward tonight without outside storage, if that’s what the board determines,” planning board chairman Clint Smith told Konstantinidis, “or file and resubmit and come back with one that has outdoor storage. But right now the layout we have doesn’t allow for outdoor storage. I don’t want to embarrass you, but…”

Konstantinidis didn’t let him finish: “Well, that gets us in a bit of trouble,” he said. “We’ve been working on this for so long to get to this point and there’s a real need in Palm Coast for off-camper and boat storage. And although we have quite a few large indoor units, to fit a larger RV or larger boat, it would be beneficial for community development to allow this. But he conceded that “if we have to go through another submission process, and that’s the only way to vote at the moment, then I guess we’d take it because we’d like to go ahead with just the building .” He pushed the board as far as he could.

The council pushed back. “There is a review process that does not involve the planning board. So you have to go through the planning department for that,” Shank said. “Even if we wanted to grant that approval – and I understand how you feel – we just don’t have the authority to do so.” Konstantinidis conceded.

There were no public comments. Council approved the site plan application with conditions, 7-0.

The application context:


Comments are closed.