St. Pete Beach commission denies Windward Pass condo-hotel and related requests

The City Commission of St. Pete Beach voted on May 13 to deny a package of land-use requests for Windward Pass, a proposed 104-unit condo-hotel and amenity complex on multiple consolidated parcels along the bayou.

The developer sought three linked approvals: a hardship variance for two pools to encroach into required side setbacks; a conditional-use permit to construct a six‑story, 104‑unit condo‑hotel with outdoor bars, pools, a mini‑golf course, indoor ballroom, an arcade and a 12‑slip lodging dock; and an ordinance allocating 104 temporary‑lodging units from the town‑center / bayou residential density pool. Commissioners voted to deny the variance (6a), the conditional‑use resolution (6b), and the density‑allocation ordinance (7a) during the same meeting.

Why it matters: the project would have concentrated a high level of hotel‑style activity — amplified music, rooftop bar service, commercial watercraft access and multiple pools — in the Bayou Residential district, a zone the city’s code and comprehensive plan describe as a transitional area between Gulf Boulevard’s commercial frontage and residential neighborhoods to the east. Commissioners said the proposal exceeded the intent and character of that district and raised potential impacts to neighbors, traffic, shoreline environment and public safety.

The developer’s case and staff review: Architect and agent Jack Bosiak told the commission the consolidated site is unusually shaped and constrained, leaving only about half of the acreage buildable under existing setback rules; he said those physical limits justified the variance and overall design. Staff explained the three approvals are linked but distinct: the variance was only for pool setbacks, the conditional use is required for the temporary‑lodging/condo‑hotel use and for waterfront slips, and the ordinance would have allocated units from a city density pool established in the comprehensive plan. Staff and the applicant agreed that the applicant could pursue other, permitted development paths that would not require the same approvals.

Commissioners’ concerns: multiple commissioners called the requested scale and intensity out of character for the Bayou Residential district. Commissioners cited the comprehensive plan and land‑development code standards that require conditional uses to avoid significant adverse effects to the environment, public services and neighborhood character. Several commissioners also flagged shoreline and marine issues — the bayou is shallow and used by manatees — and questioned whether renting watercraft and building lodging slips were appropriate there. Commissioner Robinson called the proposal “a very, very difficult item to say yes to” and noted noise, traffic and public‑safety concerns. Commissioner Mulholland said the application did not demonstrate a qualifying hardship and said the request sought treatment not afforded other property owners.

Votes and next steps: Roll calls on the three items recorded full commission support for denial. For the variance the clerk recorded: Commissioner Reznicki — yes; Commissioner Mahal (listed in packet as Mohan/Mahal) — yes; Vice Mayor Marriott — yes; Commissioner Robinson — yes; Mayor Petrilla — yes. The same vote pattern applied to the conditional‑use resolution and to first reading of the density‑allocation ordinance; the commission therefore did not advance any of the requests to a second reading.

Developer and public reaction: Applicant representatives argued the project fits the code allowances they sought to use and said they had modified height and pool plans in response to prior review. Several nearby residents and speakers during public comment opposed the proposal on marine‑habitat, noise and neighborhood‑character grounds and asked commissioners to deny it.

Outcome: All three linked requests for Windward Pass were denied on first reading. Because the commission conducted de novo review, that denial is the final local legislative decision unless the applicant files a new application or pursues judicial review. The applicant may revise and resubmit a different proposal that complies with district standards or pursue permitted uses that do not require a conditional use or density allocation.