St. Pete won't let developer add more apartments to proposed downtown tower
By Breanne Williams
Tampa Bay Business Journal
Published: Sep 20, 2022

St. Petersburg City Council has rejected a developer’s request to add more units to an 18-story residential tower.

The tower, once known as Blue Lotus and later as Bezu, has been mired in controversy for years. A site plan for the project, which is on the corner of Fourth Avenue North and First Street North in downtown St. Pete, was approved in 2018 but will expire Oct. 3.

City council, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, found a request from developer Driven Ziggy LLC to expand the tower from 20 to 36 units and add a carousel parking structure to be consistent with the city’s Intown Redevelopment Plan in June. The expansion plan also requires approval by the Development Review Commission, which denied it on July 6. The developer appealed that denial to city council, which sided with the DRC in a 4-3 vote on Sept. 15.

Councilman Ed Montanari was absent for the initial CRA vote. At the CRA vote, councilwoman Lisset Hanewicz voted in support of the expansion plan’s consistency with the Intown Redevelopment Plan but did not support appealing the DRC’s decision. During her comments, she referenced the feedback from the DRC and concerns from residents as part of her decision to deny the appeal.

The expansion would not have changed the building’s height; the size of the units would have been reduced and changed from condominiums to apartments.

The denial comes as St. Petersburg and other Florida cities face a housing shortage, which has sent home prices and rents skyrocketing. Neighbors have opposed the project for years, citing concerns about its design and additional traffic.

Craig Taraszki, the lawyer representing Driven Ziggy, told council that the reduction in unit sizes places the tower in a different category and different marketplace “with respect to available housing in downtown.” He added that with smaller floor plans, the prices would also be lower.

Taraszki declined to comment following the vote.

Councilman Richie Floyd highlighted the fact that denying the appeal would mean losing an additional 16 units.

“My thinking is if this were a new conversation about a new building going into this place that didn’t have an approved site plan, I would be looking at it very differently,” Floyd said. “But they have an almost identical footprint already approved here, and the choice was whether or not we’re going to have 36 instead of 20 units there.”

Councilman Copley Gerdes said supporting the appeal would add more units to the city, which is something they all know it needs.

However, public tensions and concerns from the DRC gave many at the dais pause despite having supported the project earlier this summer.

“This has been to us so many times now I think it’s time to admit that this development is just not meant to be,” said Gina Driscoll, council chairwoman, “and that a different type of development that truly does harmonize with the adjacent properties is truly the best way to go.”