St. Pete Beach pauses comprehensive-plan review after residents criticize workshop outreach; consultants to clarify legal scope

Mayor Petrillo opened a lengthy discussion of the city’s comprehensive-plan review, saying the work must reflect “what the community wants” and raising concerns about a recent public workshop where many residents said consultants steered options toward larger-scale development.

Commissioner Robinson and several residents told the commission the workshop materials did not make it easy for displaced or working residents to participate and that the meeting’s framing appeared to favor particular redevelopment scenarios. Deborah Schechner told the commission she found the presentation “rushed, disorganized” and that the session seemed to marginalize resident concerns about sewer capacity, traffic and hotel-scale growth. Dana Richardson said displaced residents need remote (Zoom) access to participate.

Louie Serna of Calvin Giordano and Associates, the consultant firm under contract, told the commission the firm will collect the survey and workshop input and give the city a fuller report. He said the firm will explore whether residents could legally reduce density, but cautioned that Florida’s property-rights laws create real legal constraints: “Florida has very strict property rights laws,” he told the commission, and the firm cannot promise legal pathways in every scenario. Serna said his team would work with the city’s attorneys to test options and report back.

City Attorney and staff briefed the commission on a pending state measure (House Bill 1535) that, if enacted, would restrict local governments from adopting more burdensome or restrictive comprehensive-plan provisions through mid-2027; the city attorney advised commissioners the Legislature’s action could limit local options and that the commission should consider that timeline when deciding whether to continue or pause the review.

After extended public comment and discussion, the commission reached consensus to pause the outreach-driven portions of the review and asked Calvin Giordano to return with clarifying analysis and next steps at the commission meeting on May 13, 2025. The city attorney's review of the contract showed the city could terminate the engagement with 30 days’ written notice and pay the consultant for work performed to date; staff estimated the contract was roughly 40–50% complete.

Commissioners said they prefer the project move forward if the firm will explicitly address the question the commission raised at the contract award stage: if the community asks to reduce density, intensity or height, can the consultant propose legally viable changes or procedures that achieve that outcome? If the consultant cannot provide options, commissioners said they want the consultant to say so so the city can consider alternatives.

No formal vote to terminate the contract was taken at the meeting; the commission set a follow-up on May 13 and asked staff and the consultant to refine outreach, increase remote participation options and return with legal clarifications and any feasible technical measures (for example, changes to pool‑area rules, transfers of density or infrastructure‑based limits) the city might employ without running afoul of state law.