Minutes
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FORT PIERCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2021, IN FORT PIERCE CITY HALL, COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 NORTH US HIGHWAY 1, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.
ROLL CALL
- Present:
- Kori Benton; Anthony Westbury; Michael Broderick; George Johansen; Holly Theuns; Charlie Hayek; Suzanne Boardman, Chair
- Staff Present:
-
- Jennifer Hofmeister-Drew, Planning Director
- Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner
- Alicia Rosenthal, Executive Assistant
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Minutes from the October 25, 2021 meeting
Motion was made by Michael Broderick, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve the minutes from the October 25, 2021 meeting.
- AYE:
- Anthony Westbury, Michael Broderick, George Johansen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Kori Benton, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
b.
Certificate of Appropriateness 21-61 - New Roof - 101 Melody Lane
Madam Chair Boardman introduced the Certificate of Appropriateness for a new roof at 101 Melody Lane.
Madam Chair Boardman asked the Board Attorney, Fran Ross, to explain the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.
Before commencing this Quasi-Judicial Hearing, Fran Ross, Board Attorney, reminded the Board that they serve in both a legislative and quasi-judicial role. When acting as a legislative body, the Board engages in law-making activity by passing laws and establishing policies. When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board applies those laws and policies and is held to stricter procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court but are more formal than the normal Board meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process; and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, Board members have a duty to conduct the quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. That is why the Commission has established the uniform procedures for quasi-judicial hearings that will be followed today.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Benton recused himself.
Mr. Broderick - yes
Mr. Johansen - yes
Ms. Theuns - yes
Mr. Hayek - yes
Mr. Westbury - yes
Madam Chair Boardman - yes
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a brief background of the library building. She stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the removal of the existing clay tile roof as the tiles are in disrepair. As a county project, the applicant is seeking the input from the Historic Preservation Board in the selection of the roof material. The subject proposal seeks to remove the barrel clay tile roof and install Steel Stone Coated Tile (Sunset Gold or Santa Fe) or Concrete Tile (Spanish Clay or Canyon Clay) or original Clay Tile. Preserving roof materials is central to defining a structure’s overall historic character. When roof replacement is necessary it should be done on an in-kind basis, with the new roof matching the existing materials. Based upon Secretary of Interior Standards 5 and 6, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board approve the request for roof replacement with barrel clay tile or, consider approval of the roof replacement proposed by the applicant with the alternative roofing materials that are the most compatible in architectural texture, style and appearance to the existing roof.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Broderick asked if the tile should match the restroom tile. Ms. Theuns asked if the tile on the library building is the same as the restroom. Mr. Westbury asked why the tiles disintegrated in such a short time.
Applicant questions for Staff: none
Applicant presentation: Peter Jones, St. Lucie County Architect, sworn, gave an overview of the historic architecture and roof materials. He stated the county is looking for a cost-effective roof replacement while recognizing the value of the historic look and character of downtown Fort Pierce. Mr. Jones highlighted that the installation of a tile roof is critical. Mr. Jones noted that the library mimics a historical building, and they would like to keep the character of the building by using a tile that is cost-effective. He said they prefer the metal coated tile compared to the clay tile because the clay tile has a longer lead time, it is more expensive and more expensive to install.
Scotty Beaulieu, St. Lucie County Facilities Manager, sworn, said the Clerk of Court building currently has the metal roofing on it and the repairs under the tile have been very simple. Mr. Beaulieu stated, from a maintenance perspective, they prefer the metal tile.
Brian Master, St. Lucie County Facilities Project Manager, sworn, said the tiles they prefer are aluminum coated with stainless steel fasteners.
Board questions for Applicant: Mr. Broderick asked about the warranty on the tiles, being the building is so close to a saltwater environment.
Public comment: None
Staff final comments: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Mr. Hayek wanted to know if the Board should vote on a particular steel color.
Madam Chair Boardman introduced the Certificate of Appropriateness for a new roof at 101 Melody Lane.
Madam Chair Boardman asked the Board Attorney, Fran Ross, to explain the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures.
Before commencing this Quasi-Judicial Hearing, Fran Ross, Board Attorney, reminded the Board that they serve in both a legislative and quasi-judicial role. When acting as a legislative body, the Board engages in law-making activity by passing laws and establishing policies. When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board applies those laws and policies and is held to stricter procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court but are more formal than the normal Board meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process; and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence. Therefore, Board members have a duty to conduct the quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. That is why the Commission has established the uniform procedures for quasi-judicial hearings that will be followed today.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Benton recused himself.
Mr. Broderick - yes
Mr. Johansen - yes
Ms. Theuns - yes
Mr. Hayek - yes
Mr. Westbury - yes
Madam Chair Boardman - yes
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a brief background of the library building. She stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the removal of the existing clay tile roof as the tiles are in disrepair. As a county project, the applicant is seeking the input from the Historic Preservation Board in the selection of the roof material. The subject proposal seeks to remove the barrel clay tile roof and install Steel Stone Coated Tile (Sunset Gold or Santa Fe) or Concrete Tile (Spanish Clay or Canyon Clay) or original Clay Tile. Preserving roof materials is central to defining a structure’s overall historic character. When roof replacement is necessary it should be done on an in-kind basis, with the new roof matching the existing materials. Based upon Secretary of Interior Standards 5 and 6, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board approve the request for roof replacement with barrel clay tile or, consider approval of the roof replacement proposed by the applicant with the alternative roofing materials that are the most compatible in architectural texture, style and appearance to the existing roof.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Broderick asked if the tile should match the restroom tile. Ms. Theuns asked if the tile on the library building is the same as the restroom. Mr. Westbury asked why the tiles disintegrated in such a short time.
Applicant questions for Staff: none
Applicant presentation: Peter Jones, St. Lucie County Architect, sworn, gave an overview of the historic architecture and roof materials. He stated the county is looking for a cost-effective roof replacement while recognizing the value of the historic look and character of downtown Fort Pierce. Mr. Jones highlighted that the installation of a tile roof is critical. Mr. Jones noted that the library mimics a historical building, and they would like to keep the character of the building by using a tile that is cost-effective. He said they prefer the metal coated tile compared to the clay tile because the clay tile has a longer lead time, it is more expensive and more expensive to install.
Scotty Beaulieu, St. Lucie County Facilities Manager, sworn, said the Clerk of Court building currently has the metal roofing on it and the repairs under the tile have been very simple. Mr. Beaulieu stated, from a maintenance perspective, they prefer the metal tile.
Brian Master, St. Lucie County Facilities Project Manager, sworn, said the tiles they prefer are aluminum coated with stainless steel fasteners.
Board questions for Applicant: Mr. Broderick asked about the warranty on the tiles, being the building is so close to a saltwater environment.
Public comment: None
Staff final comments: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Mr. Hayek wanted to know if the Board should vote on a particular steel color.
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Holly Theuns to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 21-61 for the Boral Steel stone coated roof at 101 Melody Lane and to direct staff to work with the applicant to select a color that either matches the library and/or the bathrooms and the tile should closely resemble the barrel tile that is currently existing on the library roof.
- AYE:
- Michael Broderick, George Johansen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Anthony Westbury, Chair Suzanne Boardman
- Other:
- Kori Benton (ABSTAIN)
Passed
c.
Certificate of Appropriateness 21-19 - Kings Landing Mixed Use Development - at or near 322 North 2nd Street
Madam Chair Boardman introduced the Certificate of Appropriateness for Kings Landing Mixed Use Development at or near 322 North 2nd Street.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Westbury and Mr. Hayek were recused.
Mr. Broderick - yes
Mr. Johansen - yes
Ms. Theuns - yes
Mr. Benton - yes
Madam Chair Boardman - yes
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Jennifer Hofmeister-Drew, Planning Director, provided an overview of the application. She gave a brief history of the downtown historic district and background of the development along with the project summary comparisons. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew stated on May 24, 2021, the Historic Preservation Board approved the project with conditions and recommendations. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew showed the original site plan, the Planning Board approved site plan, the renderings from the May 24, 2021, Historic Preservation Board meeting, and the comparison of the elevation renderings from May 24, 2021, to November 15, 2021, which showed an adjustment in height and architectural articulations. Ms Hofmeister-Drew noted the comparison of architectural structures in downtown, and she highlighted the adjacent R-5 zoning district, which allows up to 200 feet in height.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Benton asked Ms. Hofmeister-Drew to read City Code section 111-153, Guidelines for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Broderick confirmed with Ms. Hofmeister-Drew that the Historic Preservation Board voted to approve the application at the May 24, 2021, meeting, with the condominium building being eight stories, the other buildings being five stories and the Historic Preservation Board made no changes to the applicant's submission. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew confirmed. Mr. Benton asked staff to confirm the incorporation of a parking structure was more of an encouragement rather than a condition. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew confirmed that it was a suggestion. Mr. Broderick asked if there are other significant changes in the size and scope of the buildings besides Building D and Building G going from five to eight stories. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew stated a three level parking structure will also be added. Mr. Benton asked Attorney Ross if he could provide staff, the Board and the applicant public records from the City of Fort Pierce from 2000 to 2017 related to projects approved in the vicinity but not built, for the context of design, height, scale and massing. Attorney Ross said the handouts would be appropriate.
Applicant questions for Staff: none
Applicant presentation: Lee Dobbins, Dean Mead Law Firm, sworn, provided background and context on why there was a difference in height from the previous renderings that were approved at the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Dobbins said the original renderings go back to when the RFP was approved, and since there was no height limitations, staying within a height limitation was not what the team was particularly targeting in terms of design. Through the site plan review process, buildings and internal drives moved, the hotel changed, and the parking garage was added. More condominium units were not added to increase the height. It was more a matter of needing more height to make everything fit on the footprint.
Joe Crunk - CD Urban, Architect, sworn, explained the foundation for the design concept and presented the further developed 3-Dimensional model. Mr. Crunk assured the Board that the sole, integrity and character of what was developed still holds true in the concept. Mr. Crunk gave a detailed presentation, and he noted they wanted to create an identity from the waterfront and a gate from the water.
Board questions for Applicant: Madam Chair Boardman asked if there are slides showing the Charleston form homes. Mr. Crunk said the Charleston typology is not appropriate for Edgartown. He said they are going to create a typology that is very in tune with the vernacular nature of the buildings in Edgartown and how they grew over time.
Mr. Broderick asked Mr. Crunk's if it was his understanding that the submission made to the Historic Preservation Board meeting on May 24, 2021, was subsequently improved by the Historic Preservation Board with no change in context, scope or height and the site plan that was submitted was approved by the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Crunk agreed.
Mr. Benton asked Mr. Crunk to verify the hotel is five stories. Mr. Crunk said the buildings need to be designed and with the addition of the parking structure they prefer to not have parking under the hotel. Mr. Crunk stated the Mainstay typology and prototype would like to be around five or six stories. Mr. Benton asked if the exaggeration design of the transition from the core buildings to Edgartown was the same on the approved plan by the Historic Preservation Board in May. Mr. Crunk stated the only building that has changed is the northeast building, which increased by two or three stories. Mr. Crunk said the hotel is being proposed as six stories. Mr. Benton asked for clarity on what the Board is acting on, whether it is the elevations in the staff report or the renderings in the presentation that was given. Mr. Crunk noted that the two-dimensional elevations that were submitted to the Planning Board is an exact representation of the 3D models. Mr. Benton asked Mr. Crump about accuracy on specific elevations.
Mr. Broderick asked if the site plan has changed since the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Dobbins said no changes have been made since the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Broderick asked Mr. Dobbins to square up why his client said at the October 25, 2021, Planning Board meeting that the Historic Preservation Board significantly reduced the size and scope of this project to create a 20 million dollar deficit. Mr. Dobbins said he was not at the Historic Preservation Board meeting, but he reviewed the minutes and the project was approved with conditions to not go above eight stories. Mr. Dobbins said they are coming forward with the elevations that were approved at the Planning Board and because of the condition that the project needs to come before the Historic Preservation Board if it goes over eight stories.
Dale Matteson, Audubon Developement, CEO, sworn, said the original renderings from the RFP for eight stories was presented to the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Matteson stated the content that was presented was a little more than what we are presenting now. We never knew what height it was going to be because there were no height restrictions. The old renderings were used from the RFP because we didn't know how high it was going to be. Mr. Matteson, explained that when they left the Historic Preservation Board meeting, they realized that can't fit all the units that were approved in eight stories. Mr. Matteson noted that updated renderings should have been presented to the Historic Preservation Board meeting.
Madam Chair Boardman clarified that the changes to Building C went from eight to eleven stories, Building D and Building G went from five to eight stories, a three-story parking structure was added, and the hotel will be five-stories if they do not need parking.
Public comment:
Jeanne Arias said that Fort Pierce needs to decide if they want to turn the city different from a small town.
Margaret Dirsa- Dubois stated she does not want to see a giant white elephant in the middle of the city.
Valerie Slack applauded the developer for bringing key uses to downtown, but she said the scale and massing is not exactly what they are reporting them to be, and the pedestrian friendly access is not there.
Gary Morris stated he would like to see photographs from every angle of the city with Kings Landing rendered into the pictures. He stated the renderings don't often match what you get. He said there is not enough parking to service the people that live and work in the complex and there currently is not enough parking in downtown.
Melissa Carter stated she would like to know the details, materials and design for each building.
Applicant final comments: None
Staff final comments: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Ms. Theuns stated the project is not perfect, but it will meet the needs of the citizens of Fort Pierce.
Mr. Benton said there are discrepancies in what is shown. The massing at the time of the Historic Preservation Board approval in May of no more than six stories, with a bonus seventh story and an eighth story with architectural projections, was at the higher end of what can be expected for downtown Fort Pierce, especially transitioning to Edgartown. The current increase in scale and massing negates some architectural design and integrity that was possible. The attention to detail is great but is not compatible with the downtown historic district. Mr. Benton said he would like to work with refining the prior design rather than significantly altering it.
Mr. Broderick stated he has several levels of concerns contemplating the transitions that needed to occur. The transitions will be non-existent with a 60% increase in height and other buildings going from five stories to eight stories. The City Commission has to decide the conceptual future of Fort Pierce. The size, height and scope of the project does not blend with downtown Fort Pierce and will tower of Edgartown and the City Marina. The uniqueness of Fort Pierce will no longer be significant. Mr. Broderick asked how big will the next project in the future will be. Mr. Broderick commented that the original components of the project were closer to correct, not perfect, but the revision has moved it to far into what Fort Pierce is not.
Mr. Johansen said the difference between eight and eleven stories is significant but when you are trying to compare it to Edgartown, you can't change the way Edgartown looks between three additional stories.
Madam Chair Boardman introduced the Certificate of Appropriateness for Kings Landing Mixed Use Development at or near 322 North 2nd Street.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked the Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Westbury and Mr. Hayek were recused.
Mr. Broderick - yes
Mr. Johansen - yes
Ms. Theuns - yes
Mr. Benton - yes
Madam Chair Boardman - yes
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Jennifer Hofmeister-Drew, Planning Director, provided an overview of the application. She gave a brief history of the downtown historic district and background of the development along with the project summary comparisons. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew stated on May 24, 2021, the Historic Preservation Board approved the project with conditions and recommendations. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew showed the original site plan, the Planning Board approved site plan, the renderings from the May 24, 2021, Historic Preservation Board meeting, and the comparison of the elevation renderings from May 24, 2021, to November 15, 2021, which showed an adjustment in height and architectural articulations. Ms Hofmeister-Drew noted the comparison of architectural structures in downtown, and she highlighted the adjacent R-5 zoning district, which allows up to 200 feet in height.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Benton asked Ms. Hofmeister-Drew to read City Code section 111-153, Guidelines for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Broderick confirmed with Ms. Hofmeister-Drew that the Historic Preservation Board voted to approve the application at the May 24, 2021, meeting, with the condominium building being eight stories, the other buildings being five stories and the Historic Preservation Board made no changes to the applicant's submission. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew confirmed. Mr. Benton asked staff to confirm the incorporation of a parking structure was more of an encouragement rather than a condition. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew confirmed that it was a suggestion. Mr. Broderick asked if there are other significant changes in the size and scope of the buildings besides Building D and Building G going from five to eight stories. Ms. Hofmeister-Drew stated a three level parking structure will also be added. Mr. Benton asked Attorney Ross if he could provide staff, the Board and the applicant public records from the City of Fort Pierce from 2000 to 2017 related to projects approved in the vicinity but not built, for the context of design, height, scale and massing. Attorney Ross said the handouts would be appropriate.
Applicant questions for Staff: none
Applicant presentation: Lee Dobbins, Dean Mead Law Firm, sworn, provided background and context on why there was a difference in height from the previous renderings that were approved at the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Dobbins said the original renderings go back to when the RFP was approved, and since there was no height limitations, staying within a height limitation was not what the team was particularly targeting in terms of design. Through the site plan review process, buildings and internal drives moved, the hotel changed, and the parking garage was added. More condominium units were not added to increase the height. It was more a matter of needing more height to make everything fit on the footprint.
Joe Crunk - CD Urban, Architect, sworn, explained the foundation for the design concept and presented the further developed 3-Dimensional model. Mr. Crunk assured the Board that the sole, integrity and character of what was developed still holds true in the concept. Mr. Crunk gave a detailed presentation, and he noted they wanted to create an identity from the waterfront and a gate from the water.
Board questions for Applicant: Madam Chair Boardman asked if there are slides showing the Charleston form homes. Mr. Crunk said the Charleston typology is not appropriate for Edgartown. He said they are going to create a typology that is very in tune with the vernacular nature of the buildings in Edgartown and how they grew over time.
Mr. Broderick asked Mr. Crunk's if it was his understanding that the submission made to the Historic Preservation Board meeting on May 24, 2021, was subsequently improved by the Historic Preservation Board with no change in context, scope or height and the site plan that was submitted was approved by the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Crunk agreed.
Mr. Benton asked Mr. Crunk to verify the hotel is five stories. Mr. Crunk said the buildings need to be designed and with the addition of the parking structure they prefer to not have parking under the hotel. Mr. Crunk stated the Mainstay typology and prototype would like to be around five or six stories. Mr. Benton asked if the exaggeration design of the transition from the core buildings to Edgartown was the same on the approved plan by the Historic Preservation Board in May. Mr. Crunk stated the only building that has changed is the northeast building, which increased by two or three stories. Mr. Crunk said the hotel is being proposed as six stories. Mr. Benton asked for clarity on what the Board is acting on, whether it is the elevations in the staff report or the renderings in the presentation that was given. Mr. Crunk noted that the two-dimensional elevations that were submitted to the Planning Board is an exact representation of the 3D models. Mr. Benton asked Mr. Crump about accuracy on specific elevations.
Mr. Broderick asked if the site plan has changed since the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Dobbins said no changes have been made since the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Broderick asked Mr. Dobbins to square up why his client said at the October 25, 2021, Planning Board meeting that the Historic Preservation Board significantly reduced the size and scope of this project to create a 20 million dollar deficit. Mr. Dobbins said he was not at the Historic Preservation Board meeting, but he reviewed the minutes and the project was approved with conditions to not go above eight stories. Mr. Dobbins said they are coming forward with the elevations that were approved at the Planning Board and because of the condition that the project needs to come before the Historic Preservation Board if it goes over eight stories.
Dale Matteson, Audubon Developement, CEO, sworn, said the original renderings from the RFP for eight stories was presented to the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Matteson stated the content that was presented was a little more than what we are presenting now. We never knew what height it was going to be because there were no height restrictions. The old renderings were used from the RFP because we didn't know how high it was going to be. Mr. Matteson, explained that when they left the Historic Preservation Board meeting, they realized that can't fit all the units that were approved in eight stories. Mr. Matteson noted that updated renderings should have been presented to the Historic Preservation Board meeting.
Madam Chair Boardman clarified that the changes to Building C went from eight to eleven stories, Building D and Building G went from five to eight stories, a three-story parking structure was added, and the hotel will be five-stories if they do not need parking.
Public comment:
Jeanne Arias said that Fort Pierce needs to decide if they want to turn the city different from a small town.
Margaret Dirsa- Dubois stated she does not want to see a giant white elephant in the middle of the city.
Valerie Slack applauded the developer for bringing key uses to downtown, but she said the scale and massing is not exactly what they are reporting them to be, and the pedestrian friendly access is not there.
Gary Morris stated he would like to see photographs from every angle of the city with Kings Landing rendered into the pictures. He stated the renderings don't often match what you get. He said there is not enough parking to service the people that live and work in the complex and there currently is not enough parking in downtown.
Melissa Carter stated she would like to know the details, materials and design for each building.
Applicant final comments: None
Staff final comments: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one else, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Ms. Theuns stated the project is not perfect, but it will meet the needs of the citizens of Fort Pierce.
Mr. Benton said there are discrepancies in what is shown. The massing at the time of the Historic Preservation Board approval in May of no more than six stories, with a bonus seventh story and an eighth story with architectural projections, was at the higher end of what can be expected for downtown Fort Pierce, especially transitioning to Edgartown. The current increase in scale and massing negates some architectural design and integrity that was possible. The attention to detail is great but is not compatible with the downtown historic district. Mr. Benton said he would like to work with refining the prior design rather than significantly altering it.
Mr. Broderick stated he has several levels of concerns contemplating the transitions that needed to occur. The transitions will be non-existent with a 60% increase in height and other buildings going from five stories to eight stories. The City Commission has to decide the conceptual future of Fort Pierce. The size, height and scope of the project does not blend with downtown Fort Pierce and will tower of Edgartown and the City Marina. The uniqueness of Fort Pierce will no longer be significant. Mr. Broderick asked how big will the next project in the future will be. Mr. Broderick commented that the original components of the project were closer to correct, not perfect, but the revision has moved it to far into what Fort Pierce is not.
Mr. Johansen said the difference between eight and eleven stories is significant but when you are trying to compare it to Edgartown, you can't change the way Edgartown looks between three additional stories.
Motion was made by George Johansen, and seconded by Holly Theuns to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 21-19R as stated.
- AYE:
- George Johansen, Holly Theuns
- NAY:
- Kori Benton, Michael Broderick, Chair Suzanne Boardman
- Other:
- Charlie Hayek (ABSTAIN), Anthony Westbury (ABSTAIN)
Failed
6.
NEW BUSINESS
a.
Administratively Approved Certificates of Appropriateness - October 2021
7.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
There were no comments from the public. The Board discussed moving the December 20, 2021 Historic Preservation Board meeting to December 14, 2021, due to members traveling for the holiday.
There were no comments from the public. The Board discussed moving the December 20, 2021 Historic Preservation Board meeting to December 14, 2021, due to members traveling for the holiday.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
All members were in attendance.
All members were in attendance.
9.
ADJOURNMENT