The most contentious topic was the density of the resort and its compatibility with the surrounding area. Concerns were raised that the development would not serve as a suitable transition between residential and commercial zones. The proposal includes consolidating four parcels into a single development site, previously identified by multiple addresses on Gulf Boulevard. It aims to enhance public access to the waterfront, yet the board expressed reservations about increased pedestrian traffic and the potential for jaywalking on Gulf Boulevard, posing a public safety risk.

Noise pollution emerged as a concern, particularly from the proposed rooftop bars and outdoor music areas. Conditions have been established to control noise levels, such as prohibiting music from 10:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. and ensuring levels do not exceed 3 dB above ambient noise when measured from adjacent properties. Despite these measures, residents remain apprehensive about the cumulative noise impact on the neighborhood. A public commenter highlighted persistent noise disturbances from similar nearby establishments, fearing that the new project would exacerbate existing issues.

The board also scrutinized the project’s impact on local transportation and utility systems. The cumulative effects of recently approved projects, such as the Sarata, Trade Winds, and Maramar, on these systems were discussed. There was agreement that future developments must consider these impacts and provide solutions to manage increased demand. The applicant has been tasked with submitting a transportation management plan to address potential traffic congestion and pedestrian safety concerns.

Environmental considerations were also a focus, with discussions on stormwater management, landscaping, and water conservation. The applicant has proposed using Florida-friendly trees and reclaimed water for landscaping, but concerns about the adequacy of these measures were voiced. The board stressed the importance of maintaining ecological balance, especially given the proximity of the development to sensitive waterfront areas.

The proposed development’s architectural design and massing were debated, with some board members suggesting that the building’s perceived bulk could be mitigated. The unique “bow tie” shape of the property was noted as a challenge, and the applicant was encouraged to explore alternative designs to reduce the building’s width. The board also sought clarification on the perpetual maintenance of the promenade and commercial facilities, which will become critical as the property transitions to condominium ownership.

Further discussions centered on the proposed site plan, particularly the logistics of traffic management and parking solutions. The absence of a comprehensive transportation management plan was a sticking point, with board members emphasizing the need for a plans to ensure the safety and convenience of both residents and visitors. Suggestions included implementing a drop-off loop to improve traffic flow and expanding green space buffers.

The board’s deliberations culminated in a motion to recommend disapproval of the project to the city commission. This decision underscores the ongoing debate about balancing development with environmental preservation and community well-being in St. Pete Beach.

In addition to the Windward Pass Resort, the board discussed an emergency ordinance related to historic building improvements and specifications for artificial turf installations. The ordinance aims to streamline approval processes for minor repairs on historic properties. Meanwhile, the artificial turf debate focused on ecological impacts and potential restrictions on its use near water bodies.