Today is Monday, April 20th. I would like to call to order the planning board. Please rise and join me for the pledge of >> allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. >> Member Izzy, >> here. >> Member Perry, >> here. >> Chair Hubard, >> here. >> Vice Chair Angelitus, >> here. >> Member Kak >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you.
Okay. Item one is approval of the agenda. Does anyone have changes to today's agenda? >> Nope. Okay. Um, I would I would like to add just a one minute discussion item as 5C just for some uh personal comments.
Um, if everyone's okay with that. Okay. Do we need Jenny? Do we need a motion for that or? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can I have please have a motion? >> Motion that we approve the agenda as amended. >> I'll second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Perry.
>> Yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus. >> Yes. >> Member Kak. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. Yes. >> Chair Hubard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any audience comments? >> Nope. Okay. Our first action item of
today is 4A and this is election of officers for this coming year. >> Oh, we have to >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, yeah. We skipped a month. Uh, so this is an approval of the minutes from our February 26th meeting as we had no
March meeting. Does anyone have changes to those minutes? >> I didn't have any. Uh, can I please have a motion to approve those minutes? >> We approve the minutes from the February 2016. >> I'll second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Vice Chair Angelitus. >> Yes. >> Member Kak. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. Member Perry, Chair Hubard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. All right. Now we are on to action item 4A, which is election of officers for this upcoming year.
>> Do you want to lead that Brandon or how do we normally handle that? Um so annually we have elections of officers around this time obviously with recent elections. Um this is pertinent. This will be a decision to appoint both
a chair and a vice chair who would serve as the chair if the um chair is absent and any member can um request that they become chair or vice chair or another may make action on their behalf.
>> Okay. >> I'd like to nominate David to continue as chair done a very good job see. >> Thank you. Um, I would love to I I uh certainly have enjoyed my time here and
would like to continue. So, if >> can I second that? What did you did you make the motion or >> I nominate I make a motion? >> Sure. >> Please make a motion and then a second and then we'll do a roll call. >> I motion that David Hub be chair. >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. >> Member Kak. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. >> Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any volunteers for vice chair?
>> I can remain vice chair. Unless anyone else. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to have Sam Angelitus remain as the vice chair. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Angelus.
>> Yes. >> Member Kak. >> Yes. Chair Hubard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Moving on to 4B. We need to temporarily adjourn as the planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency.
This is 4B, ordinance 2026-06. And Brandon, are you going to walk us through this? Okay, >> I will. if we could pull up the PowerPoint and we'll be addressing items 4, B, and C under the same presentation. We will ask for separate action if if
the board's amendable to that. So, this is a continuation of the item that we had as a as a discussion topic back in February. This focuses on the 6 acre threeblock TC2 town center to Coina West district over on the west side of
downtown. It encompasses the area between 76th Avenue down to 73rd Avenue. It's bounded by Coina Way and Sunset Way along the uh east and west sides as well. We were directed by the city commission to evaluate this district in
late 2025. It faces some unique challenges that I'll summarize on the next slide. Uh we have engaged with the community as well as the commission on the item that you're seeing today. We had an um community meeting last October. We was fairly well attended, had many residents from the area, many
business owners who attended and and gave their thoughts on potential changes to the zoning standards for this district. Uh we also received direction from the city commission in late 2025 and then earlier this year on the items that we'll be discussing today.
So, uh we did discuss this in the past um but just to summarize and for our new member um this is a fairly unique area of the city. There are a large number of residential properties that cannot redevelop under the current land use regulations. The city does not allow for residential or lodging uses in the
zoning district unless they're redeveloped as part of a block level mixeduse redevelopment. Um, as you can see on the slide in the aerial on the right side of the screen that shows the use mix in the area, but it also shows that many of the properties are individually owned. They're not being
used as one comprehensive development as we saw on the east side of downtown through the Corey Landing redevelopment that was approved late last year. Uh these properties have remained separate. They have been operated as as different uses even when there are residences next to one another. They're they're owned by
different entities and individuals. Uh there was support from both the community and the commission for horizontal mixeduse development. keeping that mix that you see on the screen. The red being the commercial, gray being office, yellow being residential, and
purple being lodging, either current or formerly lodging. Then there are some vacant properties on this on this slide as well. Um that has historically been the mix of uses throughout this district even prior to the current zoning designation and it's something that there was support from both the
community and the commission to maintain through the development regulations not necessarily requiring them to be invol to be owned by um one entity but allowing for that that his uh historic horizontal use mix. So the proposed regulations that we're looking at today
were written to support a walkable downtown. that is a policy as well as goals that we have in our comprehensive plan. Um we want to retain that incentive to redevelop under the modern flood plane building design parking and landscaping code. So in incentivize
property owners to comply uh through redevelopment with those standards. Local beautifification was an item that we heard from the community especially about. what we want to see. They wanted to see um improved landscaping, improved architecture through the redevelopment process. And there was that support for
the retention of the existing uses that that fall within the district, the residential, commercial office, and lodging mix that we have out there, not necessarily in the same locations, but allowing for that horizontal mix that exists in the district and has for many decades.
So uh we have some proposed changes in both the land development code as well as the comprehensive plan. We wrote these um changes in the two ordinances to correspond to one another. So they're not future land use elements that are distinct from the zoning. We did write for them. We did write that they align
between the two ordinances. If this were to be accepted um by the planning board as a recommendation to the city commission for it were to be adopted by the commission. This would allow for standalone multifamily residential developments within the TC2 Cookina West District. Specifically,
those are developments on lots smaller than one block. Um, it would allow for multifamily only, which is three or more units in a single development. We do have a couple of single family homes in the area. Those single family homes would be able to be maintained, but they
could not be newly developed. if they were demolished, they would need to be redeveloped as multifamily residential. As I mentioned before, um we currently do allow for residential development, but only as part of a mixeduse project on a development site of 1.8 acres or
greater. That is effectively a whole block. Um we would for those smaller projects allow up to 18 units per acre and three stories in height. That was something we discussed with this board at the February meeting. That is a
lesser density and a significantly lower height than what is allowed for those block level developments. The block level developments are allowed up to 24 units per acre and around eight stories in height. So it would preserve the character would preserve the general
height of the area for those single small um lot level redevelopments, but it would still preserve that incentive for a developer to come in and assemble half a block or a full block and build up to those higher standards, the higher density and height that is allowed under
a property consolidation stand um proposal. We're also looking at the lodging developments that exist in the vicinity. And just to distinguish between the two, residential is any rental or ownership that is intended to be resided in for
greater than 30 days. Lodging is 30 days or less under the current zoning code. That would not be changing under this proposal. That would remain the same. And that is a city-wide distinction. This would allow for existing lodging facilities at their existing lot size to
redevelop if they existed at the date of the amendments. We do have two lodging facilities that were operated pre-torrm as lodging. We had the Bellis Arena in as well as the Widewaters uh lodging facility. We do have a property on the southwest corner of 75th or sorry 76th
and Coina that historically was operating as a lodging facility. I understand that they're now operating as a residential development. Um, this would not allow for any increase to density. So, the property would be able to be redeveloped with the density that it had pre-storm. These units would be
allocated out of a density pool that specifically exists for this purpose. It would allow for a 20% increase in unit size or 750 square ft per unit, whichever is larger. Again, that would be an incentive for redevelopment to the modern zoning, flood plane, and other
codes. This change would not allow for new lodging projects on individual small sites. It would allow, as we allow today, for a developer to purchase and redevelop an entire block um at that 1.8 acre threshold, but it would not allow
for new lodging projects on lots smaller than 1.8 acres or again about a whole block in size. That is the existing standard. that would be unchanged under this proposal. >> Brandon, how does how does that align with the prior slide uh where it's it
sounded like we're reducing the requirement to half a block for is this specific to residential? >> That would be specifically for residential mixed use. Yes. So um we worked with Ford Penllis our county partner on a basic feasibility
gap calculation. So this is really just looking at the economic viability of these development proposals that are being brought forward. We have not performed a full economic analysis. Um we are looking of course at larger more visionary processes like the community
redevelopment area that may take more of a a focus on that. But we wanted to perform a basic feasibility gap which is effectively looking at whether a property owner could redevelop and have a have a reasonable profitable overhead
under these redevelopment scenarios. So what is currently allowed on a single lot or a a smaller less than half block um setup is a standalone commercial development of 0.55 floor area. So if
they had a site of 10,000 square feet, the maximum floor area of the building on the site could be 5,500 square feet. Under the proposal, this would allow for standalone multifamily based on the setbacks, the lot coverage limitations, and so on. This would allow a floor area
of just under one uh 1.0 for the average property. So again on a 10,000 foot site that would be about 9600 square ft in floor area between potentially two levels of multifamily. We would also allow for mixed use on a
small scale. So that would be on an individual parcel basis or potentially on a one or two parcel combination basis with the ground floor commercial and the multif family above. That would allow for an approximate floor area of 1.5. Now this analysis um one of the major
limitations was it did not take into account land value. It took into account the value of actually developing these properties, the materials, the overhead from the contractor and so on. It did not factor in land value. Based on this analysis and that alone um an estimation
of local land values, mixed use appears to be the most viable from a solely profit generating consideration. So, a developer coming in and looking at redeveloping a site and operating both the commercial as well as the multif family component as a um profitable
enterprise. We would expect that the mixed use, the smallcale mixed use would likely be the most viable. As you know, um residential does have other considerations. Many of the property owners, including those who spoke at the community meeting last year, they were looking to redevelop potentially with
their own primary residence and and rent two or more of the remaining units um income generating property for themselves, but still have it as a primary residence. So having this from a solely profit generating consideration, that's that's not the only um basis from
which this can be considered. But working with the county, that was what we were able to produce in the in the time we had to bring this back to you. So looking at the comprehensive plan, this is obviously something that's communitydriven. It's something that we had a community meeting to address and it's not fully in line from a use
standpoint based on the current comprehensive plan but we do feel generally that the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan, especially the future land use element do support these land development code changes. Um we do already have policies, goals and objectives that address the
grandfathering of residential densities outside of voluntary abandonment. Obviously with the storms that was not voluntarily abandoned. It was something that was destroyed by the hurricanes. Um we promote preservation and redevelopment of residences and lodging facilities particularly to the higher
current standards than um many of these buildings were redevelop were initially developed in the 50s and 60s. They don't meet the current building flood plane fire and zoning standards. Redevelopment um including substantial improvement would allow for those buildings to be
brought into compliance with those standards. That also aligns with rev revitalization of the modern requirements. Um we do still promote parcel assembly again going with that half block. Um it's it's still a limitation on height compared to
a full block consolidation, but we're preserving those incentives to de um assemble some property to allow for a a larger mixeduse development. It also supports decent housing that meets a variety of needs. That's part of our housing element. We have very few modern
smaller scale multif family developments. The feedback we received from this board at the February meeting that was that we did not want to set a cap or a floor area on the residential component of the mixeduse or standalone multif family developments, but especially on the smaller lot sizes we
see here. We're likely to see smaller um maybe thousand square feet developments than what we would see on the east side in the Corey Landings development. So there's more of a potential just not a requirement to see those smaller one twobedroom studio developments um that
the city lacks in in recent development. So in terms of next steps should the planning board recommend the ordinances the following steps are required prior to adoption. So looking out to May and June that would be the first city commission meeting. That's where these requests would be transmitted to both
the state as well as the county for review. June and July, uh, we would hold out for review from those entities. That's for penelis at the county level. The state of Florida, of course, would review as they must review all comprehensive plan amendments. We expect
that what we presented here today would likely be expedited. We're not looking at increasing density. We're looking at working within the standards that we already have adopted. We're not really changing the uses. We're just really lowering the thresholds for those mixeduse developments. So, we would
expect that these would likely be handled by staff in a relatively expedited process. If all goes well, if the city commission does accept this on first reading and we receive comments back from the state and from the county and we make those changes, uh the city
commission would be eligible to adopt this later in summer. We're looking likely at August or September of this year. So with that, um, we do request should you find this cons both of these requests consistent with the comprehensive plan, if you agree with
the changes that staff are proposing, um, we do recommend we do ask that you motion to find them consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend the ordinances to the city commission. Happy to take any questions or make any clarifications.
>> Yeah, I got a couple of uh couple of questions and some thoughts. Um, so I'm trying to think, you know, looking at what the comprehensive plan says that this area what we what we really wanted this area for for years, right? And part of it had a mixeduse
element to it. Right. >> Correct. >> But not not a lot's gone on there even before the storm. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. So it makes me wonder so so why you know and then I think about
and like I've said before about you know the vision of where the city's going and you know what what'll work for the city. Do we really think and and I say think in terms of of um the reality of
more mixed use and we're talking about like shops and things like that underneath. Right. >> Correct. when you when you look at Corey Avenue, you know, that's a perfect little town center that could be a whole lot better. And I know we're trying to work on that, but when you when you
think about that little contained area, there's a lot of promise, right? And I think part of it's going to start here at the end and work its way. And, you know, if it's done right over the next few years, which will include parking and things like that, this this little
town center here can be really amazing. But I think back in the back in the day when they were looking at the comprehensive plan that's the thought process was for you know like this end of Corey Avenue and that end of Cory Avenue and we would have like these two little city centers if you will. The
problem with that, I think, and I think it's bore out over the years that it really hasn't come to really any development in what the vision was is because we got a major highway in between, you know, this side of Corey Avenue and the other
side of Corey Avenue. So, do we do we really expect if we if we want to continue to allow or continue to have a mixeduse criteria in that area, do we really expect it to
actually happen? And to answer that question, I you know, I can't answer that question. I have a thought on why it won't. And some of that has to do with um just the amount of foot traffic and things to support, you know,
businesses, right? And the types of businesses you, you know, like we certainly don't need another um you know, uh dispensary, let's say, right? Or some other thing. So So I see that area is it's very residential,
right? And what I asked you before the meeting was, you know, temporary lodging versus transient lodging and all that. I'm just not sure. We we can change this and I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't think there's anything that's going to stop me
from, you know, um approving the motion or or voting for a motion, but I just I'm just wondering if we're going to get to what we think we're going to get to or we want to. I mean, we're trying to help out like you said when I asked uh a
couple meetings ago, you know, where did this come from? Why are we doing it? And and what I heard you say was the folks that are there now really want us to do it because it will help them. But will it really help the city
achieve, you know, a more mixeduse area there or would we be better served um having an area that was mostly residential, whether that's, you know, transient, temporary, or just permanent
residential, you know, and I I just wonder what our success is going to be in doing this. We can change this. It's not I don't think it's really going to necessarily hurt anything. is very similar to what's already there, you know, but what do we want that area to
look like? And and and when is it going to get there? And what I see is it didn't get there before the storm, so why would it get there now? So maybe we should be asking ourselves, what would be better served in that
area? I think if we think in this city that we're going to have another little town center like we have over here on this side of Corey Avenue, I think we're kidding ourselves with that major highway there. That's no one want to want to walk across, right?
That's that's a nightmare trying to walk across. So, it's not like you're going to be walking from the left side to the right side. You know, making this side here a beautiful little downtown area that we can all enjoy is the right thing to do. It's a smart thing to do. But if
we're trying if we have these dreams of tying in these two sides together, if that's the ultimate dream by some, I I just don't I don't think that's going to happen with this major highway that's dividing us, you know. Um,
so I'm going to switch gears, but if we are also just trying to do this because there's a proposed condominium development that's in that in that uh shopping center that's now closed down, that was bought and now
there's nothing in there. You know, the one I'm talking about right here on the corner, >> PJs, >> PJs. Um, if we have to do this so that they can do that, then I think that's a whole another discussion, but I'm not sure if that's the case. Can you can you answer that? >> No, for that they're not in the same
zoning district, so they would be allowed to have a similar development to what is being proposed for the for the West End. So, it would more or less align the two districts and that smaller scale mixed use. >> Okay. So they can do, you know, this what I'm hearing, haven't seen it yet,
but I'm hearing about this proposed condominium. They're they can press. They don't need us to change this to do that, right? >> No, this this would not help them. They're in a different zoning category. >> I thought on the map it looked like it was in the same zone, but my my bad.
>> Um, so that's really all all I want to say. I I try to think through these things, right? Why why are we changing? We changing for change sake? What's our ultimate outcome? Looks like our ultimate outcome is the same outcome we've kind of wanted for years and we
haven't got there. So maybe we should be asking a different question. And and so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks, >> Brandon. These proposed changes include what we discussed in February where we have
eliminated the the floor area ratio requirement um for a potential multi-residential development. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, I think we're I think we're hearing the people that were there at the workshop saying they
don't want to develop mixed use and they would be interested in multif family. and our our changes, our proposed changes, I think will go a long way to helping them build nice apartments, cuz I agree, I I think residential is probably what makes the most financial sense there. Uh, and I'm hoping this
allows them to have a new option. >> Yeah. I think it will also be the way to really improve, you know, the just the overall condition of our city. >> What I don't what I don't know, and Brandon, if you could just explain the difference between the transient and the
temporary. And in this case, it's only temporary, right? But no transient. Is that the case? >> So, and and if I use the term interchangeably, I I apologize. Or in a way that made them sound distinct, but they're the same under the zoning code. Transient and temporary is occupancy for
less than 30 days. Greater than 30 days is considered residential under our zoning code. So for the lodging facilities, there there's no distinction in our code between a vacation rental and a hotel or a resort condominium. They're they're treated the same under
the zoning code. So the existing lodging facilities could redevelop, but any longer term multifamily product would need to be a 30-day rental or longer. That's just how they're distinguished in the code.
>> So that I'm sorry, David. So, that would bring up another question that I would have. Is that something that we would be okay or should we relook because I I know and I'm not saying I'm in favor of it, trust me. But there is a
lot of discussion about having more um availability for Airbnb type of things less less than 30 days, you know, do do we want to allow a small segment of our city to have that or not? you know, and
again, I'm not making a comment either way. I'm just saying these are the questions that I think I don't think we actually have really thought through and and talked about. >> That's a good point because if there was an area where we would want that, I feel like the downtown area would be, you
know, if you have Airbnb type stuff in this area, they're more likely to spend money at restaurants and support more businesses than someone living here. again. >> Yeah. >> You know, doing like an analysis on the potential throughput
>> and what effect it could have. Those are those are how you should make those decisions, right? Not just carp launch and and all that. But thank you. >> And we we just and there's nothing that keeps it off the table as currently written. It would be a commission
decision on a property bypropy basis. And that could be the case. We kept the only existing lodge and can redevelop in the code because that's primarily what we heard in our our three meetings that we've held so far with the city commission as well as the community. Um,
if that's the recommendation from the board, I don't I don't see any challenge with opening that up. Again, it's just a it's a greater permission. It allows for uh property owners to make that request to the commission. They don't necessarily get approved. There may not be units available in the density pool
for those requests, but it does remove one of the incentives for property consolidation because it's it's one fewer step that someone who wants to develop a multi or a temporary lodging facility would need to go through. they would be eligible on a smaller parcel
size >> and potentially what was brought up by the chair earlier, we could look at maybe lowering the threshold, maybe not down to a single parcel, but we could look at potentially an acreage threshold if that's something the board's amendable to. But, um, I don't I don't see any challenge with amending the code
to allow for that. It just really comes down to what we've heard up to this point. As for the other of the horizontal use mixes, we do have and we have seen post storm quite a bit of money reinvested in getting the restaurants over on the west
side of downtown back up to, you know, occupiable condition. Um, I know that the Willys development currently the property owner is is working on getting that back up to speed and we have the Toasted Monkey, the buoys properties. They're in this zoning. So, that was something we heard from the community
and from the commission. We want to preserve those commercial facilities that are next to residential. We don't really see that elsewhere in the city outside of maybe 8th Avenue. Um it's not it's not something the code typically allows and it's not how the areas develop. So that is something we heard
that we want to have preserved. So we don't want the commercial businesses run out. We want them to be able to coexist with whatever these changes entail. But but there's no interest really in a residential and commercial tied together. >> Not from what we heard. But in the past,
I'd say 15 years, we have heard interest from developers. No one's actually put a plan forward, but we have been approached and asked, you know, can can we buy up three properties and redevelop as a mixeduse development? I don't know if the interest is still there, but
we've been approached. I think that there was a certain density of residential and/or temporary lodging that would increase the interest in multi-use, but they're waiting for people to be there to act as customers
before they want to build it. Um, is is so do any of these proposed changes allow for a greater height on a half block than what had been allowed previously?
Yes. So this would be 37.7 A2 which is the at least 0.9 but less than 1.8 acres. Um they would be allowed up to 50 feet in height whereas currently they would only be allowed 28 feet because the
distinction is getting up to 1.8 allows for 76 feet in height. Anything less than that would allow for 28. So for those halfb block developments, they would be eligible for potentially another two stories if if somebody were
to consolidate that much property at least as written. >> And that is specific to mixed use. That is correct. Right. >> Okay. So this this this would be the carrot to make someone want to do mixed use. We're
going to give you 22 additional feet if you can assemble half of a block and it's mixed use. >> They would also be eligible for the 24 units per acre instead of just the 18. So that less than half a block is is 18.9 or greater is 24
>> and less than half block remains the same height >> as before. Corre um it's it we increased it to 30 feet just based flood zone but it's a twoft difference. Nice. on 377
C1. Do we similar to what we discussed last time, do do we care why we want to limit the size of a temporary lodging room? What is the reasoning behind that?
>> No. Um well, outside of the outside of the large resort district, we do typically limit lodging unit size to 750 square feet. I believe the major concern that we've heard um at least in recent redevelopment projects is that when you
have those larger single unit family rooms that have maybe three, four bedrooms, the just the vehicle demand for a room like that can be significant. So having a limitation can can cut down on the traffic generation from the site. But that's the main main reason.
>> Okay. Um 37.8 the none of the heights reference design flood elevation. So are these intended to be above that or from grade? >> Um it's it's above designed flood elevation and that's that's the
definition of height in our in our land development code. It it references where we start that point. I I didn't have any other questions that I'm okay with what we have here. Does anyone else have questions?
>> So, if we were to make a motion, we would do it as two parts because it's two separate ordinances. >> Yes, we'd ask for two separate motions. Do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to find ordinance,
which just went our way, um 26 06, um to be approved as written. >> A second. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Angelitus, >> yes.
>> Member Kak, >> yes. >> Member Izzy, >> yes. >> Member Perry, >> yes. >> Chair Hubard, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. And we would need a similar motion for 2026-05. >> I'll make a motion for ordinance 2026-05
to be approved as written. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Kak. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus. >> Yes. >> Chair Hubard. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you.
Okay, we are up to and this is still local planning agency. >> Yes. >> Okay, this is uh action item 4D synthetic turf. >> Pull the PowerPoint back up, please. So, this was an item, well, not this in
this particular forum, but we began discussions with the planning board in late 2024 leading into early 2025 regarding regulations for synthetic turf. We' actually gotten as far as queuing it up for the city commission. Um, and then last year the state passed
a new law that prohibits regulation of artificial turf on residential single family property under an acre in size. I'm sorry I said half an acre, but it's actually an acre following publication of standards by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Uh, they
published those standards back in January and they actually become effective today. Um, we are now 90 days out from publication. So we expect at end of day for those to become effective. Uh these are preeemptions again only on single family properties
under an acre in size. It preempts local regulations that are stricter than the state on color, quality, material standards and most locations on the property. They cannot be in drainage facilities or swailes. They cannot be adjacent to ponds or adjacent to the
mean high water line unless a seaw wall is present. They also cannot be located within dunes. So, we're bringing these forward because we are obviously reviewing single family development on a regular basis. We're seeing far more development now than we
did pretorm by by many times. And this is a common question for how does the city regulate synthetic turf. Um, we want to make sure that our regulations are aligned with the state, that we're being consistent in how we apply them, but that we're also preserving our
ability to regulate where we can and where we we feel it makes sense. So, this affirms that propertywide synthetic turf standards apply only to sing single family residences. So, they are the use type and the the acreage that are
preempted by the state. Um, I'll talk on the next slide about these standards as applied to multifamily and to commercial properties. This requires submitt of product specifications and base and subgrade layer details. We're ultimately, especially on these properties that are
100% turf, we're looking to make sure that they are still permeable. We still enforce that as a city. even on properties that um are looking to apply uh turf across the entire surface. We do adopt the state standards under this ordinance. The turf must be
recyclable. It cannot contain added uh forever chemicals. It must be positively graded over a permeable subgrade. So, it still functions to meet our 70% imperous surface limitation. It must be located outside of rights of way without city
approval. It also must be located outside of drainage facilities. Obviously on single family properties we don't frequently see retention or detention ponds but for the few that have them they would need to be located outside of those facilities. What we tend to see are swailes. Those typically
run along the sides of properties and turf needs to be located out of swelles. They they do function as drainage facilities on single family properties. They must be maintained in quality and coverage. They need to look similar to natural turf be in color. they cannot be
located within the path of any on-site irrigation. That being one of the major benefits of turf that it doesn't need to be watered. Um so it won't if if there's any irrigation on site, it will need to be capped. Um if it's going to be spraying toward the synthetic turf areas
needs to be located outside of mature tree drip lines, so within the canopy of trees um without approval from a licensed arborist. It also needs to be located outside of dunes and only installed landward of dunes.
For all other uses, we are proposing to keep the standards that we currently have adopted in the code. That requires that vegetative sod and ground covers be located in all required buffer areas and comprise at least 80% of the site's required permeable area. For example,
this is looking at the postcard in they have some turf at the in the front of their property. Their required permeable surface area is 15%. So at least 80% of that or 12% of the property would need
to remain covered in vegetative sod or ground covers. It allows the city to specify additional water body and pond setbacks during the site planning process when those facilities would be compromised by the presence of turf. and we maintain the requirement to direct
drainage away from areas containing synthetic turf to prevent runoff impacts. So, we had a um we had some items that we presented to the board when this was brought forward originally. Um our partners at the Tampa Bay Reg Regional
Planning Council had put together some information and a meta analysis. Um I believe it was late in 2024. There are some benefits to synthetic turf. Um, the major one is a reduced irrigation use, particularly compared with non-native ground covers and
grasses. We are currently in, I believe, what is the worst drought in 25 years. We're in a D3 severe drought, and it doesn't look like we're going to see any relief, at least for the next 10 days. We also have properties that are not on reclaim, so a lot of the water going out to where these vegetated areas are
potable water. One of the benefits that we hear frequently from homeowners about the use of synthetic turf is that it has lower maintenance responsibilities um over time. Of course, turf does need to be replaced just like natural sod as it as it uh disintegrates, but there is lower maintenance responsibilities
especially when there is a weed barrier underneath it. Some of the concerns um it gets much hotter than most natural turfs and grasses. It's not um usually as beneficial from a heat island effect standpoint as a natural turf or a
natural grass. Um it does have negligible ecological benefits, particularly compared with native covers. Um St. Augustine grass isn't, you know, the the best from an ecological standpoint, but those who decide to use Florida friendly and especially Florida native uh turf
grasses as well as ground covers, the beach sunflower and other natural turfs that we've seen recently. Um those do have, you know, significantly greater ecological benefits in the use of synthetic turf. There can be drainage issues if it's not maintained, especially if the under layers are not
um properly installed. So we have provided some standards in this proposal for appropriate rock and appropriate subb subbases uh that can be used to maintain the permeability of these turfs and there can be runoff issues if improper material is installed. So again
we are asking that applicants installing turf provide the product specifications to make sure that they are sufficiently permeable as a natural turf would be. So in terms of the preeemption um comprehensive plan consistency, it's
largely consistent with element 11, which is a state required private property rights element, particularly the rights for individuals to maintain their property for personal use subject to applicable law. This is now the law of the state or will become the law of
the state very soon for the preservation of standards on non-s single family property. Those are the commercial and multifamily developed properties. This supports our current comprehensive plan promotion for Florida friendly and native landscaping along
with waterway protection policies that are found in the future land use and coastal and conservation elements. So with this, happy to take any questions, but if you do find this to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, if you recommend the changes that are
proposed by staff to make our code and comprehensive plan consistent or sorry, our land development code specifically, consistent with the state law, we do ask that you find this consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend the ordinance to the city commission. Happy to take any questions.
>> I have a it's probably a city attorney question. Um, sometimes the state likes to enact laws that they later realize were not a good idea. Is it possible or does it ever make sense to leave incompatible laws on
our books that express the intent of what we wanted to accomplish even if they become uninforceable? >> Um, no, you don't want to do that because you risk attorney's fees. >> Okay. There's another statute that says if you take actions that's preempted by
state statute, then you're subject to attorney's fees. >> Okay? >> And any action to enforce the state statute. So, we want to keep up. Again, this only affects single family residences of one acre or less. So, it still allows us to regulate the commercial properties and the other
areas. >> Okay. >> But I think most of the areas that we had concerns about were single family. So, I know there's nothing we can do about what the state has ruled. The state has ruled, but it is disappointing. It's just one more time
that they're taking local knowledge and the ability to influence what's happening away from the people. >> Yeah. Place to take this up is at the Florida legislature with our elected state senators and state representatives. Does it make sense to preserve existing
language as a recommendation rather than a shall and incorporate the new language as the requirement? >> You could say that the city encourages natural turf if that's something that you want to do. >> Okay. >> We heard some pros and cons.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, Brandon, I'm curious if do you know the background on why we restrict non-vegetative pvious material uh the footprint of that like shell, rock.
>> So I think the intent was that that you know over time they tend to degrade and also there is especially on non-s single family property they have buffer requirements. We didn't want to want one to preclude the other. So, you know, we we do require a certain amount of
Florida friendly vegetation on on new commercial development. >> Okay. I I I mean more for residential. So, single family home over time shell may be as pvious as grass, but it degrades, you know, as people walk on it
and whatnot, it clogs up. >> That's part of it. And at the time, I don't know if their recommendation has changed, but I believe we worked with UFAS or at least read through their guide books, and their recommendation is not to allow for shell or rock or other
materials to comprise the entire property. We do have several property owners that have done a very good job at installing shell on most parts of their property, but installing vegetation that works within that area, so it eventually becomes a ground cover. But just allowing a an entirely shelled property
without any vegetation isn't really in line with their recommendation. >> Okay, >> those are the only questions I had. Um, does anyone else do I have a motion? >> So I I got a question. I'm sorry.
So at the end of the day, what I think you're saying is we don't really have a choice in this, right? If the state law goes down, right? We do. >> No, you're correct. We don't have a choice. >> So we >> for single family homes of 1 acre or less, the states preempted most of the areas, but you have choices for other
properties, >> commercial or properties greater than an acre. >> There's some some leeway in the preeemption, um, but not a whole lot. I um I would like to hear if it's okay you did both
you and Cindy I kind of got the feeling that you that you would not be in favor of this and I would I'd like to know why because I think then maybe we can craft something for the for the larger properties the
commercial that would help ease some of that. So what what is your biggest what is your biggest trepidation over this? >> I don't have a strong feeling either way. I know member Perry has a definite stronger feeling on artificial turf. Um I just
find it annoying when the state preempts local ordinance and I know many times they they undo it later. So I just I just find it frustrating that I know we put this in place for a reason. Whether or not I agree with it, I don't that
doesn't matter. But we did it and now we're undoing it because the state says we can't and then if they change their mind later then we've got to go through the the hassle of redoing it again. So that was, you know, me just trying to theorize on if there's a way to prevent all that extra work. But it does not
sound like that's advisable, >> right? Member Perry. Well, as a scientist, I look at things from an ecological standpoint and um there were a lot of things we looked at um agency on Bay Management, Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council, um a whole bunch of others and basically the fact that it doesn't support any habitat biodiversity, there's no insects, there's nothing that you know the birds might be able to eat, the fact that it's hotter, so with creating heat sinks,
um which is not something we really need to do. Um the chemicals that they use, I think many of them are carcinogenic. I know it says not to use them, but I think every day there's new chemicals coming out that say, "By the way, plastic's not good for you." Um and some
of the things, for example, the state says that um the turf can go right up to the water if there's a seaw wall. I don't think that's smart. I think you want to have a little bit of space because I know it's not uncommon for water to come over some seaw walls and so you're constantly getting
>> this washing of of chemicals and plastic into um the water. So I guess my my thing would be to try to help the natural world exist alongside the human world. And I think that that's often not a
priority um at the state that just perhaps is looking at uh somebody lobbying for their you know commercial lawn business. So I just think it's it's not in the best interest of our environment. But I also understand that
I'm not going to change it. So, you know, I have to go with the law. >> So far, those properties that are not the single family residential in one acre or less or less than one
acre, we could say no artificial turf. Is that is that am I accurate in saying that >> or or is that what this says anyway? This establishes D rules for properties that are single family residential of
less than one acre. Anything else you can regulate? >> I think part of the challenge at least under this ordinance cover would be adopting a stricter standard. We are still under Senate Bill 180. So just outright prohibiting turf might might be
a little bit of a challenge longer term. We we are not preempted on that. But for >> you have to keep what you have now. If you wanted to keep what you had, we can be more restrictive or burdensome. >> Yeah. >> So the original problem with our ordinance with the turf was that Senate
Bill 180 prevented it and now the state is putting forward their own turf ordinance. >> So we didn't really factor in Senate Bill 180 because I think most of the regulations we came up related more to the product specifications. We did have some standards for single family, but we
held up on moving that ordinance forward to city commission because there had been, I believe it had even made it through the Senate at the time we had it queued up. Um, we had a feeling that they were going to adopt a law that was going to preempt it. So, we didn't want to adopt it and then to the chair's point, roll everything back and then
have to do it all again. So, um, we stopped it because there was a bill going through the legislature at that time and it it was ultimately signed. >> Yeah. So, for the picture you showed, um I think it was the post postcard in >> Yes.
>> It had the it was artificial turf, right? That's why you showed it. >> I guess what I'm get what I'm getting to is forget the residential stuff which where hands are tied right now and things less than Wager. Could could we say and and and for a lot of reasons, one of them
because of the appearance of our city, you know, and how it looks from the road, >> could we say that properties like the postcard in and others that our artificial turf is a no-go for you, period?
>> Could we say that? Long term, I I think we might be able to look at that, but under Senate Bill 180, given that's a that's a preeemption on any stricter standard, and we currently allow turf up to 20% of the permeable. So, I I don't think we can change that, but we are preserving it. We're not
changing that in this proposal. >> Okay, I got you. So, >> would that include limitations on the products they use and the permeability and all that stuff we discussed as well for the turf? >> Correct. So we're we're maintaining the
20% limit on anything that is not single family. So that's currently in our code. And then they're also subject to everything that the single family properties would be subject to. >> Okay. >> Good question though. >> All right. No further questions. Do we
have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Perry, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Angel, Excuse me. Did you say yes or no? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus, >> yes. >> Member Kak, >> yes.
>> Member Izzy, >> yes. >> Chair Hubard, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we will adjourn as a local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board. We have discussion item 5A, height in the Pasigril Overlay
district. Pull the PowerPoint back up. We just wanted to share this with the planning board. Um, you know, obviously we talked about height today and height's a a major consideration in our land development code and comprehensive plan. This is an item that we took to the
historic board earlier this month. We'll be taking it to the uh city commission in the not too distant future. So looking at the Pasigril Overlay district which comprises most properties south of 32nd and west of Vina Delmare.
Um there is a small carve out for the 8th Avenue zoning and then we have a few commercial properties just south of the Venad Delmare bridge but the majority of the other properties south of 32nd are within this zoning. Uh that district was adopted back in 1999 and when it was
adopted it was adopted solely to regulate height of new residential construction. and it was a it was a whole zoning district overlay and that was only put in place to regulate height of new residential construction. So the standard um that was put in place in
1999 and was slightly modified recently but it's always been the same measurement is 28 to 32 feet is the limitation on residential building height in the pasil overlay district. It was originally from the required flood elevation. today. That would be from the
required design flood elevation. At the time it was base flood or 8 ft above grade that was added back in 2021 due to the changing flood maps and several property owners lost multiple feet in in allowable height um because of those flood map changes.
Another standard that does not apply to the Passogill overlay district that does apply elsewhere in the city is that they are not permitted non-habitable overruns up to 10 ft above the roof line. that is permitted everywhere else in the city. So if a property owner in Bina Delm Mara for example builds a home that is 30
feet in height that is the maximum height allowed in that zoning district. They are also permitted non-habitable overruns above that height. That can be an elevator shaft that can be stairs. It can be a mechanical room. It can be a space that is not defined as habitable
under the Florida building code. Those property owners are allowed that overrun. In the Pasil Overlay district, there are no overruns allowed. 32 feet is the maximum height for any residents inclusive of a chimney, a coupa, even
non-habitable features are limited to 32 feet. There's been concern um particularly from uh members of the historic preservation board. We've heard it from the community as well that what is allowed for overruns in that 28 to 32
foot height space on flat and low slope roof structures specifically. So um it's AI generated image but just to give you an example of of what the issue um pertains to you have a uh gable
roof structure next to a flat roof structure and then the horizontal line at the bottom of the screen the red line is in this example the required design flood elevation. So that's where we would start the measurement um if this were to be a development proposal brought to us we would start it at the
required design flood. If you go up 28 feet, that is the allowable midpoint of a gable or hip roof. It's also the allowable top of a flat roof inclusive of the paraped. So in this example, that would be the maximum height. Um, and
that that is clear in our code. 32 feet is the allowable ridge of a gable or hip roof. And you can see in this example, the uh the structure on the left is meeting that 32 foot height limitation. Where there's been some confusion um in
the application of standard is what is allowed in that 4 foot span on a flat roof structure. There are different references in the code to habitable space. There's different references to occupiable space which is defined a little bit more restrictively than habitable. Habitable space does not
include for example bathrooms, stairs, storage spaces. Um occupiable space does include those features. So the concern has been what's allowed in that 4ft span. So we worked with the historic preservation board. This is an item
we're going to take forward to the city commission. And this interpretation clarification was accepted by the historic preservation board at their April meeting. It first of all clarifies what a low sloped roof is just based on various building documents.
That's generally a roof that has a pitch of 2 to 12 or less. So less than a two inch rise um over 12 in in run that would be treated the same as a flat roof for the standard. It would only allow for nonoccupiable
elements. So those elements that can potentially be occupied for maintenance purposes but would not be occupied by a person on a recurring basis. Those are the only features that would be allowed above the 80 uh sorry 28 foot height limit on a flat roof structure. Those
would be features like water tanks, mechanical spaces with elevator shafts, mechanical equipment, not storage rooms, only mechanical equipment, coupas, belfreeze, and so on. It would not allow habitable overruns that are still considered occupiable within the 28 to
32 foot height span. Those would be features like storage rooms, stairs, bathrooms, the other features that I I just discussed. So in terms of next steps, uh this item will be presented to the city commission at a future meeting for acceptance or modification. It will apply only to
projects that have not yet been submitted for review by the city. We are uh frequently taking these items through design review with the historic preservation board. So those property owners that have already put time and investment into generating plans that comply with the interpretation that has
been made up to this point, uh they would they would be eligible to develop under that um that interpretation. With that, I'm happy to take any questions. I just wanted to share with this board. It is something that's found in our zoning code and it is a special standard that applies specifically in
Pastor. Um, we are aligning it more with what we believe um, you know, is a a little bit more of a stricter interpretation, but it does work within our code. So, >> does it run into trouble when if you if you implement an uh if you
implement uh wording that tightens up something that had been granted previously. So, I think our main concern was running a foul of any plans that had already been submitted when there's an expect investmentbacked expectation
based on interpretation. But city attorney, I think we are in the clear for for interpretations that are based on existing code language. We we can make that alteration if the city the city commission ultimately is able to interpret the land development code based on the city manager's recommendation. And this is what we've
come up as a recommendation. >> Okay. >> We're not changing any words in the code. We're just kind of putting some rules of thumb. 2 in over 12 inches for the slope ratios, things like that. >> Okay. give the architect something to work with. >> Okay.
>> Is this height for the design flood elevation is is the design flood elevation >> because I know with the rest of the code I believe that it's either 8 feet above grade or the design flood elevation. Is that the same pass overlay?
>> It's the same standard. So the the starting point isn't changing. It's really just that 4 foot overrun. That's what the interpretation applies to. And this only applies in pastor grillil. It's nowhere else in the city. >> Okay. >> Will this So, I watched the last historic preservation board meeting and
I saw the discussion about, you know, is that wall part of this this uh seating area? Is this railing counted? Is is will this clear up all that confusion? >> It it will indirectly. Um we don't allow
for the building code does not allow for rooftop seating space to be accessed by hatch and there is a minimum clearance for stairs. So indirectly that will regulate the overruns because if the parapet is not up at a certain height it's not considered space that could be
accessed on a recurring basis. >> Okay. Anyone else? Okay. All right. We will move on to 5B, updates to seaw wall standards. >> I just had a few sentences on this. I just wanted to let this board know because I know we've we've discussed
this item in the past that we are working on um looking at potential amendments. We don't have anything to present yet, but that's an item that we'll have ready for either the city commission or the planning board in the next few months. Um, we are looking
particularly at this time at relief for property owners who are elevating but not raising grade to 5t or an appropriate slope based on the 5 foot NAVD standard for for seaw walls. Um, we're looking at how we address that and
how we make the what is currently called a variance process but really is an administrative exception process. Um, how we make that a little bit more straightforward for them. In a lot of cases, they do face a genuine hardship because they have either a living level
or a garage level that is below the height that it would need to be to not be flooded out by a by a seaw wall raised to 5 ft. So, um, we're looking at that. We're looking at some other standards and, um, I just wanted to give you an update and let you know that we are still working through this and we'll
be bringing it back in the future. Okay. I appreciate that update because as you know um I believe that we have to change our our fill requirement and I've pointed out that you can have a stem wall. I mean people were being told that their garage couldn't be more than I
don't remember what it was 13 inches or something from the street which is silly. In my neighborhood there's like a foot and a half difference between one house and another on the street. Um, and then to require or want a five- foot wall where you're going to force people to have flooding into their homes, but
you won't let them raise it. That's just so inongruent to me. Um, so I know this is seaw wall, but it really has a lot to do with the relationship of the seaw wall and the structures next to it and being able to fill so that people don't create
>> a downward flow into their homes. And I I appreciate you bringing that up in the past and we we have been a lot more clear with developers and with homeowners that have come forward and even if they're not using a stem wall construction, if they have a frangible breakaway slab, if they want to raise
that up two, three feet above grade, that is acceptable. They need to, you know, there there will be storm water impacts from that and they need to retain that on site um based on our code. But I appreciate you bringing that up. That has been a recurring question over the last several months. So,
>> thank you. >> Any other questions? No. All right. Um, moving on to 5C. This is the one I added. I This meeting is my three years uh serving on this board, and I just
wanted to express my thanks to Brandon Barry for you're always being accessible and helpful to help me try to do a better job. Um, I interact with you pretty frequently and when I'm stuck on something and and you've always been
there to support me and and this board. Uh, I also serve at the pleasure of the mayor. So, I wanted to publicly thank our our former mayor Petrilla for appointing me three years ago and Mayor Tate for allowing me to continue working and volunteering on this board. It's
it's been really rewarding and gratifying to just be able to try to provide service to the city and our residents. Uh so I just wanted to publicly thank everyone involved. Um does anyone else have anything further?
>> I got a chair. Yeah. Just a um and add it as an agenda. It's just a a question. um for ne for for the next meeting would it be possible um I'm not trying to task you because I I don't know and if if you want a commissioner to to ask you to for
this I'm just I'm kind of curious um in terms of resiliency our our signage in our city uh I'm wondering if there's any uh disconnects with our current sign policy
signage policy and um when we look at resil resiliency specifically, do we have any weaknesses there that we need to look at? And so I'm trying to think ahead a little bit. I think resiliency is is something that the community is really um concerned
about. Um I wouldn't be bringing this up if I didn't think there was some some gaps there that we need to look at. So I don't know. I'll leave it up to you how to like maybe bring that, you know, information here. If if you guys want to spend some time looking at that and going, you know, we we could probably do
some work if you need time to benchmark maybe some other cities that have looked at looked at this. Um, obviously I'm talking about hurricane stuff, right? Um, and in general appearance as well. Um,
I I don't know how to ask for that without asking for it. So, you you tell me how how it would be best to bring that back to look at it and discuss it. Or if you just want me to stop by one day, I can do that, too. I just it's been on top of my mind since, you know, since we've been talking that.
>> You want to give us a couple examples that you to know where you're talking? >> Well, yeah. So, so when I when I think about the resiliency of, you know, let's say a a big storm coming in and the wind the wind and I look at some of the signs that are really high, I I see risk there
with, you know, safety and and that and then I see other signs that are kind of low to the ground or basically kind of mounted on the ground and, you know, there's >> um so I look at that from a res first first is the resiliency piece. are, but
do we have the right uh policies in place to ensure that when if a big storm comes through or big winds come through, it doesn't even have to be hurricane, it can be just, you know, 100 tropical storm winds, right? >> Um, and then I also look at the inconsistency
of the signage throughout the city and I'm wondering, you know, is there something we could do a little better there, too? Um, and there's obviously signs that are in disrepair that haven't been fixed. I know uh our compliance
folks are looking at all that. Um, I just look at it and I I kind of I I like I kind of like standardization. Uh, and I'm looking at our our city and our signs and I'm thinking to myself that we we have some problems here, you know, come a future storm especially.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Where is this? We did a lot of work on a signed ordinance not that long ago. >> So that that ordinance was adopted. There were a few modifications made by the commission, but that was adopted last year. Now it was adopted post
Senate Bill 180. So a lot of the standards that we had added to the code to accelerate compliance. We became a little bit more permissive and our intent was to also accelerate compliance toward that more permissive standard. we had to back that out. I know that was
something that we decided we we might take up once Senate Bill 180 expires, but um certainly I I think we have some space on the next agenda. If that's something the board would like to discuss, we could have that on. >> Sure. Yeah, I would be more than happy.
Uh when we when we drive up through Indian Rocks and Readington, some of their some of those communities have really consistent signage that looks pleasant, not just random thing. one one store after the other. So, you know, when we're allowed to make those changes, that would certainly be
attractive to me as well. >> That's all I got. Thank you. >> Okay. Appreciate it. >> Thing I wanted to check on the scheduling of next month's meeting. I know we had gone over the schedule a little while ago, but that there were
different board members and I wasn't sure I'd still be here. >> Apparently May 18th. >> Yeah. I won't be able to make that meeting, but I was wondering if the board was flexible on
the previous week. I'm out of town. >> Okay. >> I have an issue with the the next month, too. I'm glad you brought that up with Jews. >> If So if you're out May 11th and you're out May 18th and we're going to probably be
down someone either way. Um >> 25th is Memorial Day. So >> yeah, >> that's not going to work. >> So we can probably keep that one. >> We'll keep that. That's fine. I'll I'll try to zoom in. >> Okay. Remember is you have June conflict.
>> So yeah, I did the 15th. I'm out, but I'm I am here on the the 8th, the 22nd, or the 29th. any of them. Yeah, that all works for me in June. >> 22nd would maybe be preferable for me.
>> I'm good. >> That's good with me. Yeah, >> I'm okay with June 22nd. Member Perry, are you >> I am. Does that work for um >> Is this room available if the city's okay with that? >> I'm I'm checking the calendar for which date >> that would be June 22nd instead of
currently June 15th. And there is another meeting in the chambers at 3:00 on the 22nd. >> Okay. Um why don't we So we have a couple months
and a few meetings between now and then we could potentially try to move it. >> Revisit. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'll make I'll make a note and uh I'll I'll just send you an email, Brandon, and try to get that started. Um, >> thank you. >> Okay. >> What did we decide?
>> So, June, we have a few meetings between now and June. So, I'll work with Brandon to figure out what alternative dates in June would work and he can interact with everyone to figure that out. >> And in May, we're down a man either way, so keep it as is.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.