The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH

REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX 2451

DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 32115-2451

PHONE (386) 671-8180

AGENDA BEACHSIDE REDEVELOPMENT BOARD WEDNESDAY, March 13, 2019 – 6:00 P.M.

City Commission Chambers - City Hall NOTICE – Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if any person decides to appeal any decision made

by this Board at this public meeting, such person will need a record of the proceedings and, for that purpose,

such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the

testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not prepare or provide such a

record.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), persons with a disability needing a special

accommodation to participate in the Board meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Office, 301 S. Ridgewood

Ave, Room 210, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, Ph: (386) 671-8023, Email: clerk@codb.us not later than 72 hours

prior to the proceedings. If you are hearing or voice impaired contact the relay operator at 1-800-955-9771.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes: October 10, 2018 meeting

4. Wall Graphics – 100 N. Atlantic Avenue (Hilton Hotel)

A request by Jim Berkley, General Manager of the Hilton Daytona Beach Oceanfront

Resort, to apply wall graphics to the hotel.

5. Redevelopment Projects Update

6. Public Comments

7. Board Comments

8. Adjournment

For special accommodations,

please notify the City Clerk's

Office at least 72 hours in

advance. (386) 671-8023

Help for the hearing impaired is available

through the Assistive Listening System.

Receivers can be obtained from the City

Clerk's Office.

BEACHSIDE REDEVELOPMENT BOARD

MINUTES

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

The regular meeting of the Beachside Redevelopment Board was held Wednesday, October 10, 2018, at 6:00

p.m. in the Commission Chambers, 301 S. Ridgewood Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. The following people

were present:

Board Members Present

Mr. Dino P. Paspalakis, Chair

Mr. Mike Denis, Vice Chair

Mr. Gilbert Myara

Mr. James Newman (Planning Board appointee)

Ms. Jennifer Nazak

Mr. Dino M. Paspalakis

Ms. Amy Pyle

Ms. Marcia Tuggle

Staff Members Present

Mr. Reed Berger, Redevelopment Director

Ms. Carly Meek, Assistant City Attorney

Ms. Becky Groom, Board Secretary

1. Call to Order

Dino P. Paspalakis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

Roll was taken with attendance as noted above.

3. Approval of Minutes – August 8, 2018

A motion was made by Mr. Myara, seconded by Ms. Tuggle, to approve the minutes of the August 8,

2018, Beachside Redevelopment Board meeting, as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0).

4. Staff Reports

There was no discussion on the Staff Reports.

5. Rezoning to Planned Development-Redevelopment (PD-RD) – Breakers Park Hotel, DEV2018-064

(Quasi-Judicial Hearing)

Staff Presentation:

Mr. Berger presented the staff report which was included as part of the packet. Mr. Berger stated the

subject property was at the corner of Harvey and Ocean, and Breakers Ocean Park was to the north. Mr.

Berger stated two hotel brands, Marriott Courtyard and Springhill Suites, were proposed to occupy the

site for a total of 300 rooms with parking for 358 vehicles. Mr. Berger stated the property where the

project would be located was acquired by the City after the hurricanes in 2004 and was subsequently

purchased by Avista Properties. Mr. Berger stated a 15 foot wide boardwalk was proposed for the

project from Breakers Park to the north to the southern end of the property. Mr. Berger stated upon

2

completion of the boardwalk, it would be dedicated to the City. Mr. Berger stated the northern half of

the beach access along Harvey would be vacated, which had been agreed to by Volusia County. Mr.

Berger stated the survey work was still pending to determine the high water line; and it would be

determined if the modifications requested would be needed after the survey was completed.

Mr. Myara stated he was the adjacent property owner and asked if that would create a conflict of interest

for him.

Ms. Meek stated there was not a conflict of interest since he would not be receiving financial gain from

the project.

Dino P. Paspalakis stated the City Manager had signed a letter stating a building permit must be issued

within 18 months after issuance of the PD. Mr. Paspalakis asked if the project was not completed,

would the City buy back the property.

Mr. Berger stated the documents did not address reversion of the real estate.

Applicant’s Presentation:

Glenn Storch, Esq., 420 S. Nova Road, Daytona Beach, Florida spoke representing the applicant. Mr.

Storch stated Volusia County had stated if the project was not started within 18 months after issuance of

the PD, the vacated portion of Harvey would be rescinded and would revert back to Volusia County.

Mr. Storch stated he anticipated the PUD would be approved by the City Commission in December and

the closing would be held within 30 days. Mr. Storch stated the area had been blighted for at least 10

years and the proposed project would help to revitalize Main Street. Mr. Storch stated there was

sufficient parking for the site and additional parking would be provided for the area. Mr. Storch stated

the project would include shops along Ocean Avenue and restaurants along the beach. Mr. Storch stated

there would be a sidewalk along Ocean Avenue and a landscaped walkway along Harvey. Mr. Storch

stated handicap accessibility would be available from the boardwalk and pavers would be placed along

Harvey in order to achieve a new sidewalk to the beach.

Dino P. Paspalakis asked about the sand that would be excavated from the site and stated it would be to

everyone’s advantage to have the sand placed on the beach. Mr. Paspalakis asked if the sand would just

be placed along the applicant’s property.

Mr. Storch stated that would be part of the permitting process and it would be premature to address the

sand issue at this time.

Mr. Storch stated permits would be required to construct a new seawall since the existing seawall was in

terrible condition.

Ms. Pyle asked why the survey had not been completed.

Mr. Storch stated the survey would take a while but it was in process.

Ms. Pyle asked if there was a possibility that the open public space would not be used for shops and

restaurants.

Mr. Storch stated the property would be designed and built for shops and the market would determine

what shops would lease the space.

Ms. Pyle asked who would be required to maintain the seawall and the 15 feet of boardwalk space.

3

Mr. Storch stated that was something that would be addressed through the development process, but he

believed the developer would prefer to maintain the site.

Ms. Pyle stated she would like to see the site developed with something that would be signature Daytona

Beach and asked if a mural could be placed along the walkway to the beach.

Mr. Berger stated a mural would be welcome.

Ms. Pyle asked where the Joe’s Crab Shack parking would be relocated to once the project was done.

Mr. Berger stated the parking was for everyone using the Boardwalk area and additional parking would

be needed. Mr. Berger stated the City may need to look at parking structures, which are a part of the E-

Zone plan.

Mr. Denis asked what material would be used in the view barrier above the parking lot area.

Mr. Storch stated a chain link mesh product would be used which would move with the wind.

Mr. Denis expressed concern about overcrowding Ocean Avenue.

Mr. Storch stated traffic lanes would be reduced to allow for a sidewalk and pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Denis stated he was concerned about the space that would be needed for delivery trucks.

Mr. Storch stated there would be a loading dock on site and unloading of delivery trucks would be

addressed as part of the PUD.

Mr. Denis stated he felt the property owner to the south would suffer damage due to Harvey now being a

one-lane access.

Mr. Storch stated he did not feel the property owner to the south would be damaged by a $40 to $60

million dollar hotel being constructed next to his property.

Mr. Denis asked if any consideration was given to moving Breakers Park north 10 feet.

Mr. Storch stated that was considered but Federal funding was received for the development of Breakers

Park and the Federal subsidies would not permit other uses for the property. Mr. Storch stated if the

park was moved, the funding must be rescinded.

Ms. Tuggle stated she was also concerned about the loading dock area. Ms. Tuggle asked what would

be done with the traffic flow along Ocean Avenue.

Mr. Storch stated the utility lines would have to be reconstructed along Ocean which means the road

would have to be reconstructed.

Ms. Tuggle suggested people leaving the hotel should be forced to make a right turn only.

Mr. Storch stated the traffic flow would be looked at during the review process.

Mr. Myara stated Ocean Avenue was basically one lane now and would be packed during Bike Week

and Race Week. Mr. Myara asked where the people working on the project would park.

4

Mr. Storch stated Avista owns other property in the area which could be used as a parking area. Mr.

Storch stated a construction parking plan would be part of the PUD.

Dino M. Paspalakis asked if the restaurants would be coffee shops or restaurants where locals would

want to go to eat.

Mr. Storch stated the restaurants would be what locals would want to visit.

Dino P. Paspalakis stated he currently did not feel safe to walk in this area and what was proposed

would help to clean up the area.

Ms. Nazak stated she liked the idea that Ocean Avenue would become more pedestrian friendly.

Mr. Newman stated he felt this was a perfect project for the beachside but would like to see something

with more flair. Mr. Newman stated what was proposed is boxy and ordinary. Mr. Newman stated

regarding delivery trucks, businesses can schedule the trucks to arrive early in the morning when there

was less traffic.

Ms. Pyle stated she was looking forward to the project but the City needed to address the concerns

regarding the surrounding area.

Ms. Nazak stated she hoped this project would spark movement in the area.

Mr. Denis stated there had been problems with other development projects in the area. Mr. Denis stated

there was a requirement in the Land Development Code for a boardwalk to be constructed and dedicated

to the City. Mr. Denis stated he felt that requirement should be removed from the LDC. Mr. Denis

asked when the Main Street CRA ends.

Mr. Berger stated the Main Street CRA ends in 2036.

Ms. Tuggle stated she felt the project lacks design flair and would like to see more artwork and

creativity on the outside of the building. Ms. Tuggle stated she liked the boardwalk and the extension of

the boardwalk would enhance not only the proposed project but the area as a whole.

Mr. Berger stated a Final Site Plan would be presented to the Beachside Redevelopment Board, and

traffic flows and colors of the building would be addressed at that time.

Dino M. Paspalakis asked when the project would be open for business.

Mr. Storch stated there would be an 18 month construction time and the project was required to be

started in 18 months. Mr. Storch stated permitting and design would be very time consuming. Mr.

Storch stated he would look at how an Ocean Avenue district can be created so people will want to

spend time in the area.

Public Comments:

John Nicholson, 413 N. Grandview, Daytona Beach, Florida stated Breakers Park would be used as a

northern buffer/landscape area for the proposed project and suggested the developer should agree to help

maintain Breakers Park as part of their agreement. Mr. Nicholson stated a Project Manager was needed

for the beachside area.

5

Anne Ruby, 137 Park Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida stated she liked the project. Ms. Ruby stated the

CRA had been a failure. Ms. Ruby stated Main Street still looked terrible. Ms. Ruby stated there were

repairs that were needed on Main Street. Ms. Ruby stated the existing businesses are grubby inside and

outside and that must change in order for the proposed development to succeed.

Board Action:

A motion was made by Mr. Myara, seconded by Ms. Nazak, to approve Rezoning to Planned

Development-Redevelopment (PD-RD) – Breakers Park Hotel, DEV2018-064, in accordance with the

Staff Report as presented.

Mr. Myara amended the motion, seconded by Ms. Nazak, to include a construction parking plan as part

of the approval. The amendment carried (7-0).

The motion as amended carried unanimously (7-0).

6. Redevelopment Projects Update

Mr. Berger stated the developer of the Prototype project was trying to bring in a new contractor on the

Russian hotel project. Mr. Berger stated the City’s role was to make sure there was no one working on

site without the proper permits and authorizations. Mr. Berger stated the developer had stated that as

soon as he could have a new contractor in place, the work will proceed.

Mr. Berger stated the former Shell’s restaurant building on A1A would be torn down. Mr. Berger stated

the City had acquired some properties along A1A that would be demolished as well.

7. Public Comments

John Nicholson, 413 N. Grandview, Daytona Beach, Florida stated a Jimmy John’s was being

constructed next to his house and the neighbors did not know about the construction. Mr. Nicholson

stated new FPL poles were being installed but the old ones were not removed. Mr. Nicholson stated

there were 47 street lights not working along A1A and asked when they would be repaired. Mr.

Nicholson stated there was a need for maintenance in the Beachside Redevelopment area. Mr.

Nicholson stated there is a problem with graffiti in the area.

8. Board Comments

Ms. Pyle stated the seawall at Harvey was secured to City standards which meant no one can crawl in.

Ms. Pyle asked how it was determined what standards would apply but she felt the seawall needed to be

repaired or replaced. Ms. Pyle stated she felt the redevelopment standards should be upheld. Ms. Pyle

stated the redevelopment area was not being taken care of. Ms. Pyle stated the kiosk at the end of Main

Street should be updated to list new businesses.

Mr. Myara stated the seawall was not completed and the owner had but a minimal repair on it.

Ms. Nazak stated she was excited about the new project that was proposed this evening. Ms. Nazak

stated water conservation was a concern.

Mr. Denis stated he would like to talk about the LDC requirement for a boardwalk at the next meeting.

Mr. Denis stated he would also like to talk about imposing a requirement that old FPL poles be removed

when new ones were installed.

6

Ms. Tuggle stated she was concerned about enforcement regarding vagrants in the boardwalk and

beachside areas. Ms. Tuggle asked about the vacant gas station on International Speedway.

Mr. Berger stated he did file a complaint with Code Enforcement regarding the gas station site.

Dino P. Paspalakis showed a photo to the Board of a homeless person holding a sign at the entrance to a

vacant lot charging $10 to park cars on the lot.

Mr. Myara stated he felt businesses along Main Street would be willing to pay for signage to be included

in the kiosk on Main Street. Mr. Myara stated he was excited to see new projects coming to the

beachside area.

Mr. Berger stated a business directory would be updated for Main Street, similar to what was done for

the kiosk on Beach Street.

9. Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

_________________________ ________________________

Dino P. Paspalakis, Chair Becky Groom, Board Secretary

THE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION

POST OFFICE BOX 2451 DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 32115-2451

PHONE (386) 671-8180 Fax (386) 671-8187

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 8, 2019

TO: Beachside Redevelopment Board

FROM: Reed Berger, Redevelopment Director

SUBJECT: Wall Graphics – Hilton Hotel (100 N. Atlantic Avenue)

Jim Berkley, General Manager of the Hilton Daytona Beach Oceanfront Resort, is requesting

approval to apply wall graphics on the walls at the entrance to the lower level public breezeway

that permits pedestrians to access Oceanfront Park and the Boardwalk from Atlantic Avenue near

the intersection with Auditorium Blvd. A location map is attached.

The Board shall determine whether or not the proposed wall graphics attached to this report are

an aesthetic enhancement of the building and that the scale, design, intensity, and character are

consistent with the design of the building and compatible with the building and surrounding

structures in compliance with the Land Development Code requirements in Section 6.10.J.13 -

Wall Graphics and Architectural Embellishments (attached).

Staff recommends that the Board consider approval of the wall graphics as presented by the

applicant.

LOCATION MAP

COLORS OF DAYTONA BEACH PROPOSAL

OBJECTIVE: Create a colorful and inspirational wall art walkway of our currently unused breezeway @ street level at A1A and Auditorium Blvd. Vibrant, colorful and tasteful visuals.

TASK: Commissioning of three local Daytona area artists to create their work and bring it to life on three experimental spaces of an unused area of our hotel.

RESULT: Visitor foot traffic to observe, discuss and take photos with the most key destination opportunity being promotion of Daytona Beach via all social media platforms when visitors hashtag their photos to Daytona Beach.

A1A Breezeway

Space 1

Space 1

Space 2

Space 2

Space 3

Space 3

Land Development Code requirements in Section 6.10.J.13

13. Wall Graphics and Architectural Embellishments.

a. A wall graphic is a wall decoration that depicts a scene, picture, illustration, or design

with no written message, word, insignia, arrow, or logo.

b. An architectural embellishment is a three-dimensional architectural decoration added

to a building for aesthetic purposes.

c. Wall graphics and architectural embellishments may be permitted in any district,

subject to the review and approval as follows:

i. In Redevelopment Areas, wall graphics and architectural embellishments may

be permitted by the Redevelopment Board for the area.

ii. In other areas of the City, wall graphics are subject to review and approval by

the Planning Board and architectural embellishments are subject to review and

approval by City staff.

d. Wall graphics and architectural embellishments shall comply with the following

standards:

i. The wall graphic or architectural embellishment shall be applied to a prepared

wall surface free of cracks, peeling paint, or stucco, and shall be covered with a

protective coat to minimize deterioration.

ii. Wall graphics and embellishments shall be for the aesthetic enhancement of the

building. Scale, design, intensity, and character shall be consistent with the design

of the building, and compatible with the building and surrounding structures.

iii. No written messages, logos, arrows, or bare bulbs shall be part of the wall

graphic or embellishment.

iv. Wall graphics or embellishments shall be applied and constructed strictly in

accordance with the approved application. Any deviation from the approved plan

or rendering, in materials or style, shall require removal of the wall graphic or

embellishment within five days of notice.

e. Any variance from these standards or appeal from a determination made pursuant to

this paragraph shall be reviewed by the Planning Board, whose decision shall be final

administrative action.