FPRA continues decision on $25,000 commercial‑facade grant for 722 Orange Ave, requests staff‑applicant revisions

The Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency continued consideration of a $25,000 commercial‑facade grant application for property at 722 Orange Avenue after extended discussion about scope and consistency of improvements.

FPRA staff reported the application from Botanical Sanctuary LLC covers Units 722, 724 and 726 and an adjacent vacant lot. The proposed improvements submitted to staff included replacing windows and a door with impact glass on Unit 722, replacing a metal roof on the rear portion associated with Unit 726, and adding gravel and pavers on the vacant lot. Staff reported a total project investment of $57,075.79 and a grant request of $25,000. The CRA advisory committee evaluated the application (six evaluators) and the cumulative score reported was 519 out of a possible 600 points; the committee recommended approval and additionally recommended replacing all three doors to create a uniform appearance.

At the meeting, CRA staff (Miss Garcia) said the applicant asked the board to consider replacing only the door and windows on Unit 722 because Units 724 and 726 are planned for a separate “old Florida” barbecue concept and the applicant wanted those doors to retain an eclectic, kitschy character. Applicant representative Emily Fingerhut described a broader redevelopment plan tied to an adjacent arts destination and said the roof is currently blighted and has holes.

Board members debated whether the roof replacement met the facade‑program intent (visible from the right of way and part of a front facade), whether replacing only one section of windows and door would leave inconsistent appearances on the street, and whether the grant program should focus strictly on visible street‑facing facade elements. Several commissioners expressed concern about partial improvements that leave adjacent portions visually inconsistent; others urged moving forward to restore a long‑vacant building and help make the property rentable and active. City legal counsel clarified that funding decisions are ultimately the board’s discretion even if the CRA committee recommended specific items.

Outcome: Commissioner Johnson moved, and Commissioner Broderick seconded, a motion to continue the item to the next FPRA meeting and have staff work with the applicant to revise the proposal and cost estimates. The roll call vote to continue passed unanimously. Staff was asked to solicit updated estimates, discuss door/window consistency with the applicant, and return with a revised package.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting: the grant program reimburses 50% of eligible costs up to $25,000; per the application the total project investment was $57,075.79; CRA committee used a 100‑point scale per evaluator with a total of six evaluators (maximum 600 points) and scored the application 519/600.

The board did not approve the grant at this meeting; the item will return after staff‑applicant revisions.