Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Design Review Addition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Design review presented for two‑lot addition with infinity pool at 404–406 Pass‑a‑Grille Way

St. Pete Beach Historic Preservation Board · December 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff reviewed a two‑lot addition (Case 25145) that combines 404 and 406 Pass‑a‑Grille Way and adds a two‑story extension with an infinity pool; staff said the addition meets current overlay criteria but future redevelopment must meet a 7‑ft side setback and lot combination goes to commission after historic‑board review.

City staff presented design review Case 25145 for a two‑lot project at 404 and 406 Pass‑a‑Grille Way. The proposal adds a two‑story addition to an existing three‑story residence, includes an infinity pool and architectural treatments to visually integrate ground‑level facades with upper floors.

Planner Brandon Berry said the proposal does not seek variances and meets the overlay design criteria for the addition; he requested an architectural treatment for the blank wall beneath the infinity pool edge so the ground level reads more like a living level rather than a plain storage facade. Staff also noted that future redevelopment on the combined lot will be subject to increased setbacks — from 5 feet currently to 7 feet on both sides — and that any lot combination or separation petitions are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board and then sent to the City Commission.

Board members asked procedural questions about the lot‑combination process and whether particular parcels were intentionally excluded from the CRD in 2013; staff said any new lot combination would proceed to the commission after historic‑board review. The board supported the architectural treatment suggestions and requested the design team provide details on facade materials and transitions in a revised plan.

No formal vote was taken because of lack of quorum; staff said the site plan remains under technical review pending the outcome of any future lot‑combination and design revisions.