Fort Pierce board approves certificate of appropriateness for 8-unit development at 1204 Avenue E

The Fort Pierce Historic Preservation Board on a 5-0 roll-call vote approved a certificate of appropriateness (PZCOA 20250015) for an eight-unit residential development at 1204 Avenue E in the Lincoln Park Historic District, subject to four conditions including a landscaping plan, a tree survey and mitigation plan, a solid-waste arrangement agreed with Public Works, and a requirement that the application return to the board if variances are needed.

The vote followed a staff presentation from Kevin Freeman, director of the Planning Department, who described the property as a vacant, non-contributing parcel in the Lincoln Park Historic District (parcel number 240482300070507) and said the application proposes two four-unit buildings on a 0.73-acre site zoned R4 with a future land-use designation of residential medium density. "We are recommending that additional architectural features such as decorative shutters [and] a differentiating color banding be incorporated into the final design to better compose with the characteristics of the Lincoln Park Historic District," Freeman said, adding that the site plan lacked a landscaping plan and that a tree survey and mitigation plan will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.

Applicant Terry Coley, one of the owners of Telco Investments LLC and the project's contractor, and applicant Monique Neil said the developer combined three lots to obtain sufficient area to build the proposed configuration. "I purchased 3 lots and I combined them to 1 to get enough square footage to be able to build," Coley said, explaining the rectangular layout was intended to meet setbacks and accommodate the units. Coley and Neil told the board they intend to split the lots again after construction so each building will have a separate address.

Board discussion concentrated on solid-waste service and site layout. Staff noted the city's code directs that dumpsters be located to minimize public view and that Public Works has recently preferred dumpster service for multifamily properties. Freeman said the development-permit compliance review (DPCR) process — a pre-building-permit interdepartmental review — will involve Public Works, engineering, fire, building and planning departments and will determine final code compliance and whether a dumpster is required. The board adopted a condition requiring the developer to agree a solid-waste disposal arrangement with Public Works; staff said that if a dumpster is required and it forces a substantial reconfiguration of building locations that requires variances, the matter should return to the board.

On architecture and streetscape, staff recommended avoiding large, solid blank walls and incorporating window banding or shutters and buffer landscaping between parking and the right-of-way. Freeman noted that the front setback is 25 feet but suggested the buildings could be moved forward to allow parking and a dumpster in the rear if the design is revised; board members asked that any substantial change that necessitates variances be returned to the board for review.

The board's formal approval listed four conditions: (1) submit a landscaping plan in accordance with city landscaping code and provide buffer landscaping between parking and right-of-way; (2) provide a tree survey and mitigation plan prior to a building permit; (3) agree a solid-waste disposal arrangement with Public Works (Public Works may require a dumpster); and (4) if the proposed building locations require variances, the application must be returned to the Historic Preservation Board.

The motion to approve cited staff recommendations and passed on a roll call: Miss Stark — yes; Mister Vincent — yes; Miss Garrett — yes; Mister Westbury — yes; Chair Davis — yes.

Next steps: if the board's approval stands, the application will proceed to the city's DPCR (development permit compliance review) where Public Works and other departments will confirm dumpster/parking requirements and code compliance; any reconfiguration that requires variances will return to the board or to the Board of Adjustment as applicable.