Place
Proposed $134 million St. Pete tower hits height hurdles
The 370-unit multifamily project’s development team now has 60 days to consider the Development Review Commission’s feedback regarding height and architectural concerns.
Plans to demolish seven structures within the Downtown St. Petersburg National Register Historic District to build a 21-story, $134 million luxury apartment tower will have to wait till November.
However, the Development Review Commission’s concerns focused more on the proposed building’s height and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Attorney Don Mastry, who represents Stadler Development, agreed to defer Wednesday’s vote rather than face a potential denial.
The St. Petersburg-based development firm proposed a 370-unit tower with 3,819 square feet of ground-floor retail area and a 485-space parking garage on a 1.3-acre site bordered by 5th Avenue and 4th and 5th Street North. The 10 parcels currently feature seven occupied multi-family buildings ranging in age from 105 to 95 years old.
“This is a difficult one,” said Commissioner Sarah Jane Vatelot. “I think the scale of it is just hard to stomach, although the zoning allows it. This is going to be a new normal. It’s the first of many.”
The Development Review Commission (DRC) already postponed an initial hearing scheduled for July 9, as Stadler was working to address concerns from the city’s engineering department. A July 2 memo from the Planning and Historic Preservation Division flagged the proposal for not meeting one of 16 mandates.
Criterion No. 14 requires “sensitivity of the development to on-site and adjacent (within 200 feet) historical or archaeological resources related to scale, mass, building materials and other impacts.” The 103-year-old Trinity Lutheran Church, which received a local historic designation in August, sits 75 feet south of the site.
Previous renderings didn’t include the surrounding area. Multiple commissioners criticized Tampa-based Baker Barrios for a new image that highlights the church and the surrounding historic district.
“I think the design professional didn’t do the owner any favors by putting that unrendered model in the cityscape,” Vatelot said. “I think that makes it even more offensive … It doesn’t allow us to imagine it blending into the city.”
An initial rendering of the proposed tower.
Michael Andoniades owns the adjacent Hollander Hotel and roughly century-old buildings. While the city considers those contributing resources to the historic district, the designation offers no protection from demolition.
Most commissioners agreed with Mastry’s assertion that the structures “are in poor condition, have been extensively altered over the years and contain no historically important elements.” However, many disagreed with his claims that providing 85 more parking spaces than what the city requires would benefit the neighborhood.
Stadler’s contract with Andoniades grants the Hollander sole user of the those 85 spaces. Mastry said that would leave 1.08 for each of the unnamed project’s 370 units.
While Commissioner Michael Kiernan welcomes “a project on that site, desperately,” he was also a “bit bothered” that “we’re going to brag about having so many spaces over the requirement for parking.”
“But 85 of them are dedicated already – I’m not sure that even qualifies,” Kiernan added. Andoniades said the “85 spots will free up street parking which is often used by hotel and Tap Room guests.” The Tap Room is the Hollander’s on-site restaurant.
Several neighboring residents expressed similar concerns. They and some commissioners also bemoaned a lack of community outreach, and the city received several emails opposing the project.
An overhead view of the subject area.
Manny Leto, executive director of Preserve the ‘Burg, believes the existing structures provide unsubsidized affordable housing. Mastry said about 30 people occupy the buildings, and Andoniades will “relocate them.”
“Most of them, I am told, woork for him at the Hollander Hotel,” he continued. “So, he’s certainly not going to fire them or cause them to lose their place of residence.”
Former City Councilmember Robert Blackmon, who currently serves on the Pinellas County Historic Preservation Board, stated that Andoniades has partnered with Stadler to continue reinvesting in more prominent historical properties around the site and throughout St. Petersburg.
Blackmon noted that project approval requires a $50,000 contribution to the city’s public art trust fund and a $1.5 million contribution to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. DRC staff recommended approving the site plan and requested density and height bonuses if Stadler met 20 conditions.
Commissioners unanimously agreed that the developer should also screen the six-story parking garage’s south facade. Vatelot said the “entirety of downtown” would see back-of-house conditions.
“I could not agree more on screening the south side of the garage,” Kiernan said. Mastry agreed with the additional condition for approval.
The impetus for suggesting a deferral stemmed from the 221-foot-tall tower’s height and ambiguous language in the city code, which states that buildings should taper down away from the downtown core. City Zoning Official Corey Malyszka presented a color-coded map showing the project is in an unlimited height area, but the building would still need to taper down in height from the Central Avenue corridor.
Commission Chair Kevin Reali did not share the same height concerns as some of his colleagues, and cautioned against “artificially” denying a site plan that “checks all the boxes.” Commissioner Joseph Griner III countered that “we wouldn’t even be here” without the height and density request.
“I would think this would be a great project if it was lower,” Griner said. “I would be very enthusiastic.”
The development team has 60 days to decide whether to incorporate the DRC’s feedback. Commissioners will discuss the project again in November.
Liza Smith
October 28, 2025at8:48 am
I generally support development but this project is a HUGE mistake. We need to contact the Development Review Commission and make our opinions known: https://www.stpete.org/government/boards___committees/development_review_commission.php
Jimmy Burke
September 9, 2025at6:30 am
Blackmon noted that project approval requires a $50,000 contribution to the city’s public art trust fund and a $1.5 million contribution to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. DRC staff recommended approving the site plan and requested density and height bonuses if Stadler met 20 conditions.. translation the working man just gets taxed and gets nothing but evidently you can bribe city officials to get what you want
joseph boone
September 5, 2025at5:57 pm
The parking situation is the best part of this whole deal. The developer tries to brag about providing 85 extra spaces, but then admits in the fine print that they’re all already promised to the hotel next door.
Linda Marr
September 5, 2025at12:46 pm
Also please stop Palm Lake “Christian “ Church from building an 86 cell blocks next to Northwest Elementary School in an historic neighborhood that was designed for single family homes.
“Disston Heights is considered St. Petersburg’s oldest and largest, known for its elevated, flood-resistant “high ground” and development from the 1950s onward. Named for Hamilton Disston, the developer who purchased vast tracts of Florida land in the 1880s, the neighborhood was subdivided and built out in the mid-20th century, resulting in a large area of modest, sturdy homes.”
julia burke
September 5, 2025at12:09 pm
Well said in the comments. This is heartbreaking, really. American cities all over are losing their character. Here goes St. Pete – a very different place from when my mom was at St. Pete High in 1938…
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
September 5, 2025at9:02 am
Please Please, not another high rise in downtown St. Pete. The skyline is already ruined. Enough is enough, please.
Bill Herrmann
September 5, 2025at6:28 am
Let’s be honest. The housing St. Petersburg, particularly DTSP, needs is workforce housing. Not a token amount to earn credit, but hundreds of units. Anyone lamenting that the DRC’s actions are “getting in the way of MUCH NEEDED housing”, is taking severe literary license.
It was great to see that DRC is still willing to say NO to a developer. St. Petersburg has long been at a point where we need to be selective. No more huge boring buildings with floor after floor of the same façade, like the Waldorf Astoria. We need to encourage developers to build appealing structures that are compatible, such as the two projects around Mirror Lake.
There are opportunities for development and redevelopment in DTSP. The projects offered need to BOTH meet the needs of our city (workforce housing) as well as, be visually appealing.
DTSP has a brand. Visitors come here because we are not Miami or Ft. Lauderdale. Our vibe and architecture are very different, that difference needs to be preserved.
Andrea Graham
September 5, 2025at5:39 am
Enough with the over-development of St. Pete!
Will Lemmon
September 4, 2025at3:50 pm
This says it all “I think the scale of it is just hard to stomach, although the zoning allows it.” What’s hard to stomach is is getting in the way of MUCH NEEDED housing which complies with the rules. Disappointing.