Council approves 12‑month extension for Tangerine Plaza redevelopment option amid funding questions

The Saint Petersburg City Council on Thursday approved a 12‑month extension of the Sugar Hill Group's option agreement for the Tangerine Plaza site, allowing the developer more time to secure financing, finalize site plans and confirm a grocery operator for a planned mixed‑use development.

The extension, which the council approved after extended debate, keeps in place the option that Sugar Hill needs to move toward a lease and development agreement for the site. Proponents — including Derek Cooper of the Saint Petersburg NAACP and Esther Soni, NAACP president — urged the council to give the community‑led team more time to deliver affordable housing and a grocery store to the Midtown/Deuces corridor. "This extension isn't just a technical ask. It's a litmus test for whether Saint Petersburg will honor its commitments to equitable economic development," Cooper said.

Why it matters: Tangerine Plaza is intended to provide up to 186 affordable rental units and retail space anchored by a grocer. City staff and developers told council the project team has submitted site plans and letters of interest from lenders and partners, but remaining conditions must be met before the option can be exercised: verified commitments for all funding sources, completion of outstanding site‑plan comments (including water resources), and a completed review of the grocer letter. Administration reported receiving a letter naming Taste of the Islands as the prospective grocer but said staff received that letter only the day before the meeting and had not completed a full review.

Sugar Hill representatives said progress has been steady despite setbacks including last year's hurricane season and a delay while site plans were revised. Jason Jensen, the design lead for the developer, described a multi‑step permitting and underwriting process and said the team had retooled the site plan to increase the housing component and address city comments. Oliver Gross, representing the development team, said timing constraints make shorter extension windows impractical: "90 days just would not work," he said, arguing the full year is consistent with the stages required to secure financing and permits.

Council concerns and debate centered on the project's capital stack and the size of the public subsidy requested. Staff noted Sugar Hill's application asked for a city CRA contribution of roughly $11.16 million and a similar request to Pinellas County; city housing staff said those county funds typically require some units at 80% of area median income to qualify for certain county sources. Council members asked whether the AMI mix could be adjusted to unlock county penny funds and reduce the city's subsidy. Mark Van Lew, assistant director for housing and community development, said the county application currently is incomplete and must be revised before county staff can act.

Action and vote: After an unsuccessful effort to shorten the extension period (first to 90 days, then a friendly amendment to 6 months), the council approved the 12‑month extension. Clerk announced that Council Members Driscoll and Hanowitz voted no; Council Members Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Gurtis, Givens and Harding voted yes.

What comes next: The extension preserves the developer's ability to move forward while staff continues review of site plans and funding applications. Any request for public subsidy would return to council for separate funding approval. Developer and city staff told the council they will continue refining financing documents and completing outstanding site‑plan and water resources conditions.