Historic Preservation Board approves King’s Landing COA with conditions

The Fort Pierce Historic Preservation Board voted to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the King’s Landing mixed‑use development, granting the applicant’s major amendment to a previously approved site plan and attaching four conditions that address phasing and required roadway improvements.

Planning Director Kevin Freeman told the board the application (PD4500027) revises the original 2022 plan for a parcel bounded by Indian River Drive, North 2nd Street, Moores Creek and Avenue B. Freeman said the amendment keeps the condominium count unchanged but alters program elements: hotel rooms rise to 148, restaurant area drops to about 12,900 square feet from more than 38,000, and parking increases from roughly 428 spaces to about 516. “Staff recommendation is for the Historic Preservation Board to approve this application for certificate of appropriateness,” Freeman said.

Applicant David Baggett of Haley Ward said engineering comments have been largely addressed and that the team has coordinated water‑main and utility work with the city and FPUA to avoid tearing up newly resurfaced streets. “Most of those have been addressed and we’re working on getting those resubmitted with the engineering department,” Baggett said, noting villas shown in earlier approvals remain under construction and that trash‑pickup compounds and internal garage collection are included in updated plans.

Board members pressed for details on parking, trees and whether work would conflict with Indian River Drive improvements; Freeman and the applicant said the plan increases in‑development parking capacity and that city engineering and utility staff are coordinating schedules so road resurfacing will not be undone by utility work. A board member asked whether the site has historic designation; staff said they found no evidence of historic designation for the former wood‑burning power‑plant site, and the architect—who described promotional renderings vs. dimensioned elevations—said the design will “respect” local historic character.

Freeman read four conditions attached to the approval that relate to the timetable in the existing development agreement, required roadway improvements, and limits the COA to the site plan under review (excluding the villas element). He also recited milestone dates set in the development agreement: Phase 1 must be completed by 2028‑07‑11; Phase 2 DPCR (pre‑building permit review) must be complete by 2027‑02‑24; and Phase 2 construction must commence no later than 2027‑05‑19. Freeman noted outstanding engineering comments must be resolved before the item proceeds to the City Commission.

Mr. Hyatt moved to approve the COA (PZCOA 2020‑522) along with the four conditions; Mr. Westbury seconded. The clerk called roll and the board voted in favor on the motion. The approval advances the amended site plan to the next stage in the city’s development‑review sequence, with the City Commission to receive the development‑agreement–compliance and final approvals later in the process.

The board’s approval does not change the development agreement itself; Freeman said penalties for missed milestones are governed by that recorded agreement and would be enforced or adjusted by the City Commission as needed. The applicant noted the contract includes a force‑majeure provision to address unforeseen delays.

Next procedural steps: engineering comments must be cleared and the item will return to the city commission for final action on associated development approvals.