Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves seventh amendment to Daytona Auto Mall PD to accommodate large furniture/appliance store with adjusted buffers, parking and wall signage
Summary
The Planning Board recommended approval of a seventh amendment to the Daytona Auto Mall PD to allow a future furniture/appliance store with revised building height, scenic‑buffer width (with intensified planting), lower parking ratio supported by a parking study, and expanded wall signage.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of a seventh amendment to the Daytona Auto Mall Planned Commercial Development (DEV2024‑765) intended to accommodate a large furniture or appliance store on Lots 3 and 5 of the auto‑mall subdivision.
City planner Danley Peddick summarized the changes: increase the maximum building height on the subject lots from 35 feet to 60 feet (other PD lots already allow up to 70 feet); reduce the scenic thoroughfare overlay buffer width from 50 feet to 35 feet while retaining the more intensive planting standards; lower the parking requirement for a furniture/appliance store from 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 1 space per 1,000 square feet (the applicant provided a parking study to justify the reduction and staff added a conservative cushion); and increase wall signage allowances from six signs/1,200 square feet to 14 signs/2,803 square feet tied to a specific sign plan.
Applicant representative Jessica Gallop (from 1 Daytona Boulevard) told the board the proposed sign program is intended to let the building itself function as a landmark in lieu of a very large pole sign on the interstate. She noted the proposed sign area compares to other large furniture retailers in the market and that the firm is preparing site‑plan materials with a traffic/parking consultant.
Board members expressed the view that the requested wall signage amount is substantial and discussed whether the parking and sign allowances are appropriate for an interstate‑facing site. Other members said similar retail users in the area have comparable signage and that the proposed treatment is intended to balance visibility and avoid a large pole sign. Staff recommended forwarding the amendment to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval and the planning board approved the motion by voice vote.

