Council upholds DRC approval after heated appeal over 21‑story 'Pelican' project

A divided City Council on March 26 upheld the Development Review Commission’s approval of a proposed 21‑story mixed‑use project in the 400 block of 5th Avenue North after a lengthy de novo appeal hearing that drew hundreds of pages of written materials and more than two dozen public speakers.

Preserve the Burg, which filed the appeal, argued the plan is incompatible with the scale and character of adjacent historic neighborhoods, would demolish a cluster of contributing buildings in the Downtown National Register Historic District and replace them with a long podiumed parking structure and tower that together create an outsized mass facing low‑rise residential blocks. “When you apply the compatibility criteria with common sense, it is too big,” appellant counsel Peter Belmont said during closing arguments. Belmont urged council to deny the DRC approval, citing neighborhood compatibility and the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing within the current building stock.

Applicant counsel Don Mastry told council the proposal complies with the adopted Land Development Regulations and the downtown height map and noted that every required city department had reviewed and recommended approval. “This project satisfies all the standards of review,” Mastry said. He pointed to the project’s commitments of FAR bonuses, including a payment to the city’s workforce‑housing fund and public‑art contributions, and argued national‑register status does not, by itself, prevent demolition absent local landmark designation.

City planning staff had recommended denying the appeal and upholding the DRC decision, saying the site is zoned for high intensity (DC‑2) and that the downtown height map and associated review criteria were applied. Staff noted the project team adjusted the scheme during review to concentrate the taller mass at the corner of 4th Street and 5th Avenue — the intersection most appropriate for greater height, planners said — and added design features intended to reduce pedestrian‑level impacts.

Residents and preservationists who spoke in favor of the appeal described the project as an abrupt intrusion on adjacent historic neighborhoods, raising concerns about shadows on Round Lake Park, traffic and parking impacts, and the demolition of buildings that currently house low‑income and supportive housing beds. “Putting a gigantic high rise next to our historic neighborhood puts it in grave danger of being next on the list for redevelopment,” one speaker said.

Business and development groups and several residents who supported the project argued that the proposal followed the rules adopted by the city and would add housing in a central, transit‑served location and funds to affordable‑housing programs. The St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce urged council to deny the appeal and preserve a predictable development review process.

After more than four hours of deliberation during which councilmembers weighed the code’s 16 site‑plan review criteria, a motion to grant the appeal — which would have overturned the DRC approval — failed on a 4–3 vote. Under the city’s rules, overturning the DRC decision required a supermajority (five votes). Councilmembers Driscoll, Fig Sanders (Deborah Fick Sanders), Floyd and Hanowitz voted to grant the appeal; Gertis, Givens and Harding voted to deny it. Because the motion to grant failed, the DRC approval stands.

The outcome does not end the procedural path. Under city rules the decision may be subject to a court challenge (petitions for certiorari) within the statutorily prescribed period; staff reminded council that any post‑decision appeal processes and code changes are separate from the de novo review that was just completed.

The council concluded the quasi‑judicial portion of the meeting after announcing the vote and reminded the public that the written order and the administrative findings will be issued consistent with council procedure.