is to evaluate the testimony and the information and draw a conclusion as to whether the criteria that is in your land development code has been satisfied. So just speculation or your opinion that is not based on competent
facts has not been legally considered by the courts to be competent substantial evidence. Um testimony by individuals who have been identified as uh experts in a particular area has been viewed as competent substantial evidence and these
would be individuals such as your planners that are here today. Also, um, individuals who testify based on their personal knowledge and belief, um, and based on fact-based information has also been considered to be competent,
substantial evidence with the courts. Um, so I just want you to keep those um, matters in mind. Also, um, anyone in the public who intends to provide testimony uh, on this variance matter, um, we we
would like that you be sworn in. uh before you give your testimony and I would defer to the um city clerk if she could issue the oath. >> All wishing to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony and evidence you're about to give before the planning and zoning board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. One more question I'd like to ask is does anyone have a conflict of interest regarding this variance item today?
Okay. The record shows that no one has a conflict. So we do have a quorum present and we can proceed. >> Sounds good. We've taken care of the oath, taken care of the exparte communications and now we'll get into our >> No, we haven't done exparte. We did
conflicts. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Does anybody have any exparte communication they would like to disclose? I thought they were one and the same. Seeing none, we will move forward. Presentation of items.
Number 10. A V A R-0000 582-2025111608 Street East. two variances to section 68- 541 to reduce the minimum side and front
yard setbacks to allow the construction of external staircases in conjunction with structural elevation to adhere with current minimum flood elevation requirements. Okay, if the applicant uh could approach the podium and tell us
what you want to do. And if you could start out with your name and address. >> I am Stacy Van Meter and uh my mailing address or my the address we're speaking of. I live I don't live there.
>> Well, just the either one quite frankly. 1160 8th Street East and Treasure Island 33706. >> Have at it. Um, I kind of don't know what to say because
um, we I feel like we've we've I got the review back after the DRC and went over it and spoke again with our elevation guy and tried to make things so that it was the least amount
intrusive on the side and in the front. Um, when we bought the house in July, before we had any idea how this project went, we had already been speaking with AJS about purchasing a house that could be elevated, not realizing at the time to not look for a house that every
single wall is touching a setback. And that's kind of where we are with the house that we now ended up with. Every wall is touching a setback setback line. And our entryway is designed in a way where it's between two concrete walls that make it extremely difficult with the columns that are supporting the roof
to figure out how to make it so that the stairs don't come into the setback to get into the front of the house. And since we are, um, capable of having a six-foot balcony on the back,
um, we were trying to figure out how to get the least amount of setback on the side so we could have stairs off the back of the balcony and switch back underneath the house so that they're the least amount intrusive on the side set back.
>> Does that help? So, in a nutshell, you're going for variance for your front staircase, >> and then you have a rear uh it's actually coming in on the side of your house. In this case, the southern side of your house, and you're
going to have a oh, let's see, a in the front an 11.8 foot encroachment into the front yard set back and in the side 3.2 two. I remember seeing that your sideyard set
back is 10 U and I believe your front yard set back is 25 if I remember correctly. >> I I could be incorrect, but I thought in my paperwork that the front variance was
six 6'8. Well, it's got on the paperwork here at at 11. And the reason why, let's see if somebody can help me find the front yard setback. Maybe the front yard was only 20.
>> Maybe that it's re it's reducing it to that number, not that's how far I want to come into it. >> 25 is right. >> Yeah, the the front. >> So, yes, 11 foot two would or yeah, would be how >> it's an 11.8 8 foot variance for a
proposed 13.2 foot setback. >> Okay. Anyway, any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Marvin. >> Um, your plans look great. >> Thank you. >> You haven't started yet or have you >> the elevation? >> Have you started raising it?
>> We didn't know that we we thought this was the first process. >> Okay. Well, maybe it is >> because it will it will significantly change what we're what we are and are not able to do, >> right? about that. But my elevation guy is here as an authorized agent.
>> Just out of curiosity, do you work with one guy does the elevation, then one guy finishes it out, or is it all one person or >> They're They're doing it all. >> Correct. >> I think we're doing almost everything. >> Okay, great. Um, looks great. Um, I did
you look at trying to get a switch back in the front in the front. That just doesn't work. >> We tried it in many different ways. There's two very large columns holding up the roof, >> right? >> Um there that are not supported on the side roofs. And with those columns, no
matter how we tried it, it was in impossible to get a three- foot wide >> regulation stairway down with the landing switch back and still be able to walk on the sides of the >> house. That's kind of what I thought. And to be honest with you, I don't think it would have looked that great either. It's much more impressive the way you've
done it, but you know, add that to the question. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The um >> he's an authorized I signed the paper for him. >> You're the contractor. >> I am. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah.
>> I was just going to add one of our >> Can we get your name and address? Brandon Smith, AJS Houselifting. >> I was just going to add one of our big obstacles that we're trying to overcome with every lift is the electrical meters. Um, and I think in yours you opted to put it right on the front
porch, right? >> We at one point. Yeah. >> Where's it at now? >> It's back on the side if this goes through. >> Oh, where the back steer will allow you to access that meter. >> No, it's a separate separate stair. >> Second set of stairs. >> Separate. Okay. >> Anyway, third.
>> Um, what I was thinking adds nothing to this conversation. >> Okay. One one clarification before you have a seat and let uh Braden make his presentation. This is a setback for stairways only. If for some reason
in the future you tore down this house, uh you do not get a set back into the front yard for a larger house. That's the biggest important thing that we need to clarify here because a lot of people think, well, I've got a uh 11 ft uh 8 in
setback. I can now build a bigger house. Doesn't work that way. This for the stairway only. If you could have a seat, Braden, go ahead with your city uh presentation. >> All right. Thank you. All right. If I start drifting away from this microphone, just let me know. Uh good
afternoon. My name is Braden Evans. I am the new principal planner and I'm presenting to you case V0000582-2025. Uh the application consists of two variance requests to setbacks uh section 68541 uh requesting a front setback of 13.2
feet where 25 ft is required and a side setback of 6.8T where a 10-ft setback is required. Uh here we can see the subject property an aerial view as well as a uh front angle and rear angle of the surrounding
properties and the subject property is located in the RU75 zoning district with a residential urban uh future land use classification. Um background on the property. Um the structure was originally constructed in
1961 as a one-story slab ongrade structure uh with approximately 2700 square ft of living space. Uh the subject property was um constructed is constructed in AE flood zone um and was
damaged in the 2024 hurricanes. Uh as proposed the applicant is present um proposing to elevate the structure to a compliant capital floor of 16 1/2 ft
above grade level. This here is the site plan of the property. As you've seen in the staff report, um the applicant has utilized one administrative waiver to uh construct a platform and stairway to
the existing location of the Duke meter on the front portion of the property. As we can see in this green circle, the first request for the front stairs is seen here. And then the second setback for this
interior sideyard of 6.8 ft. So um in review of the applicable criteria as outlined in section 70 of the Treasure Island code of ordinances staff has determined that this is an eligible um variance application and request. uh the orientation of the
existing structure with egress available on the sides of the home with limited rear yard depth due the due to the proximity of the pool. Um these unique circumstances in addition to what the applicant spoke about as far as the front staircases are concerned with the
structural beams um all prevent reasonable um I'm sorry present unique circumstances um which justify the variance application um strict application or strict application of these this microphone
sorry um strict application of these regul regulations wouldn't allow for exterior egress as required by building code with the two standard egresses that are required because the property goes fully up to the side property lines as was discussed earlier by the applicant
and then the requirement to comply with these flood elevation minimums are not the result of the applicant. The structure was built to conformity at the time that it was permitted originally in the 1960s. Um so coming up to compliance
is not at the fault of the applicant. Um this variance was considered as a reasonable means of maintaining the existing use of the property. Um and was the minimum variance considered um and staff agreed with that. And then this application determined
that uh the request is uh in line with the ability sorry is in harmony with the general intent of the code. Uh and staff does not believe that this request will be injurious to
neighbors or surrounding properties. Uh based on this evaluation, staff recommends approval of both the front setback variance as well as the variance to the side yard setback for the construction of external staircases in conjunction with the structural
improvements u as shown on the site plan. I'm available if you have any questions. >> Okay. Any board members have any questions for the city staff? Daniel. >> Yeah, I got a question. I just want to clarify on her statement earlier. He
bought the house after the storm. Post storm or pre- storm. Just so I clear. >> Post storm. >> Post storm. Okay. So, you weren't substantially damaged. You bought it after the storm. >> Okay. I just want to clarify what I heard. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Chris, you >> just a question on when you elevate this particular house, did do the plans in the any uh discussion on whether the first level is going to be elevated above where it is today? And was that taken into consideration in
terms of the calculation of how much of a variance in the front step back? Because if the front is if the first level is elevated, there is a formula to offset some of that. >> I'm sorry. I don't know if I understand your question. >> Are you looking at me?
>> No, I was looking at Brandon. Sorry. >> No, I I'm sorry. I don't know if I understand your question. Could you ask >> My question is whether or not within these plans if it's been discussed when they elevate this house, whether or not the lower level, first level, >> correct, >> is going to be elevated or raised in any
way. If it is, then you are also allowed some allowance by calculation for um encroachment into the front setback with the stairs based on how much you
elevate that first level. So, I realize they're asking and it's somewhat moot, but I just want to have full I guess disclosure here in terms of whether or not this home is elevating the first level or not as a part of the plans, >> the first ground level, sorry,
>> the ground level. So, >> they're bringing in fill dirt for their garage to take the elevation of whatever up a couple of feet. >> Yeah. Truthfully, I wasn't there at the time of the development review committee meeting uh when the application was brought in. Um, I was here, you know, towards the end and I wrote the staff
report based on my interpretation. >> Sure. >> Um, so I don't have an answer for that. >> I guess Jesse is here. >> Yeah, I'd refer to Jess. >> So, it looks like it's 4.9 at the entry on what's there today. Could be wrong, Jesse. >> Yeah, I just glanced at the plans real
quick. Um, Stacy, if you could correct me if I'm wrong on this. Um, so it looks like it elevation right now is 4.5. I'm guessing that's what your existing slab is right now. So that's not that's staying in place. U you're not bringing in Phil. So the calculation that you were referring to is not going to apply.
>> Okay, that was that was my question. Okay, that's great. Thank you, Jesse. >> So So Brandon, just future reference. There's a because we're allowing some encroachment if you elevate the ground level, >> right, for bringing in Phil. I understand. >> I have I have a question for the staff and maybe Richard would comment on this
or answer it as well. Can we appro like I'm I get the scenario that we're in when it comes to approving these for elevated homes. Can we put a condition in if the house is ever uh demolished like for a demo permit in a new construction build that the variance goes away? Can we put a condition in
like that to where we don't even have to worry about future staircases? >> I I think you can. >> I'm all right. Yeah. >> Is unique to Richard was trying to say earlier, right? Yeah. I agree. I I mean
>> but even what taken it a step further that if the house is demolished there's no variances in place at all >> start from scratch. >> Yeah. >> I think we should have been doing that from the start on the elevated houses. >> I I did consider that in the way that I and I worded the approvals uh because
from my my understanding at the time I thought the variance would run with the land. That's what I've always considered. Um, but I did my best to say, you know, for the construction of an external staircase in conjunction with structural elevation improvements, meaning that it would be an improvement to an existing structure, not
construction of a new development. >> Um, my consideration from writing that approval was that if it was written that way, it could only be applied to >> the staircase. So, the variance is there for the staircase. So, if the staircase
goes away because you have a new home that you're building, I believe that the variance also goes away. >> Um, >> I think we should be overt and clear. >> Why not put it in the >> Okay. Cuz that's different than what >> You're right. >> How Richard
>> That's different than what I said. Yes. >> Yes, sir. I'm on board with the city attorney's type of mentality when it comes to that. Not trying to be difficult. >> No, I'm I'm You were saying >> because we're going to have many of these, >> right? Well, if the house is demolished, the staircase is demolished. So, it's
>> I think we're in the same >> What I was saying was >> I think we are too. >> Okay. >> If the variance ran with the land, it was for steps only. I don't want anybody to come back in and say, "Hey, I can now build my house 11 ft 8 in closer to the road and build a nice bigger house."
That doesn't fly. >> I understand that. that they could build a brand new house with additional >> steps out in front. Whereas somebody that didn't have a variance that's building a brand new house doesn't have that luxury of putting stairs outside of the setback.
>> Exactly. So, I think we should just be clear and just say that's a condition of the variance and going forward, we'll always add that condition. >> I think staff should just put it in automatic >> or automatically put it in. Yeah. But for now on this one, um, >> is the way that our conditions read today, if we were to approve of the conditions in our packet, does that
cover what we're trying to >> I I need to look at that. Uh, real quick, >> again, not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to have a clerical type of approach moving forward. >> The variances to allow the staircase. >> Okay. For if this structure,
>> this structure, >> not a new structure. Okay. >> Right. So, if they have a new structure, they're going to have to come in and uh get the approvals, but what is the likelihood that the staircase is going to be in the same place? >> This town always ceases to amaze me.
>> Actually, highly I would say highly likely, >> Nancy, >> let's put this way. If you're going to spend a half million bucks to raise a house, >> would that not would that not address the existing condition is that the proposed structure shall be substantially consistent with the plans
prepared by DMD and company? Would that not address this concern? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I do have one question for the applicant. If you could uh approach the podium, maybe bring you a contractor as well because I'm going to I'm
throwing out a hypothetical here. You can do whatever you want. It's your money. But I happen to be harping on this for the last since 2023. We used to have an ordinance in this town that said you cannot bring Phil into this site. From what I am seeing is your finished
floor, your garage currently is 4.5 and what it appears you're going to do is leave it at 4.5. You're not. How much are you going to raise it? >> Um, that's more of a question for >> I haven't read the engineering. I've got so many projects going on. Almost everyone asks us to raise it to whatever
the maximum allowable high is. >> Well, what I >> I don't know what it is and I don't I don't understand the logic of not bringing in filter. the engineer that >> that was the thing. There was no logic to it and we were able to get that removed. So, you can now bring in Phil.
But what I'm looking at and just what I'm seeing on this little tablet here is it appears that the uh finished floor elevation of the garage when you're over when you're all raised up is still 4.5.
I would recommend strongly to go to two foot higher, three foot higher, whatever you want to do, as long as you don't drain water onto your neighbor. We've had a lot of trouble with that. But you're only going to get one shot at this. You're going to spend a half million bucks to raise this house.
>> Spend whatever it is. >> What are the rules of what we are allowed to bring in? You know, >> you can bring in as much as you want. As long >> I noticed one one area I'm working in references the crown of the crown of the street. Like they say, I can bring in some what something relative to the crown of the
>> Well, a lot of times it's 24 in higher than the crown of the street. >> Okay. >> What I just recommend is we're only you're only going to do this once. You're going to spend a half million bucks. And the staff, Mary Ellen, who
just left, was giving me a hard time cuz I tore down my house and built it, rebuilt it many years ago. And I said, I wish I could have raised my house by two additional feet. That way I wouldn't have had as much water inside my garage area during Helen as I did. I'm just
making that recommendation that you might want to take a look at it because right now you're at 4.5. If you went to 6.5, that means you would have had uh let's see, the elevation that it got up to during the storm was about eight. That means you had 3 and 1/2 ft of water in
in your garage. If you raise it up to 6 and 12, you only got 18 in of water inside your garage. And while your house is going to be built for this, it's just a royal pain in the neck cuz everything down there gets wet. So, it's something to think about. I mean, it's your money.
You can do what you want. It's just after 40 years of being a civil engineer, this is what I'm recommending to people because I have talked to a lot of people about doing what you are doing. And and I'm like, raise it as high as you can get it because this will
happen again someday. Maybe not in our lifetime, but you get one shot at this. You're not going to do it twice. >> Well, >> I agree with you, but if we do raise it, um, we might have to come back in here for an additional variance, right? like if we raise it in our starting point of
our stairs >> and that's something to uh you know it's just something to look at because then you get into this formula that that >> you do get some allowance you get some um but you're correct you would be back in here to get it adjusted >> just so you guys know this isn't
specific to your property this is a big thing for our chairman to talk about because he loves this >> telling everybody they should bring their house up so it's just >> Jackie had Jackie had originally sent me when I spoke to her about how much fill dirt and the degree of from how much
space we have from the road to the garage and if there was a you know we don't want our driveway to be a ramp >> right there's always issues >> what what was the you know what were the things and she sent me all the information on bringing in fill dirt and
from the road and all those things and said share this with your engineer and then I spoke with Daniel our engineer and said this is what they gave me from the city about bringing in fill dirt. So these are the calculations you need to include cuz we had discussed yes we're
going to bring in what we can. I did not I'm not an engineer so looking at my plans and the pages and pages I I guess I didn't notice that he didn't allow for that as well. Well, I did, Chris. I did call up that formula because Jesse had sent it to me earlier and it is part of
the uh terrain modification manual and it basically says terrain modification setback adjustment factor. A setback encroachment is allowed for stairs not more than 8 ft wide. This is calculated using the mathematical difference
between the highest natural grade on a property and the resultant base floor when incorporating the requirements of the city of Treasure Island terrain modification manual located in appendix B. This encroachment equals the terrain modification height adjustment factor
divided by 63. So it does help you with that a little bit. You know my my comment is do what you want. Ross will give me a hard time because I want to see every house out here raised up so this doesn't happen to people again. >> I think in your case >> you just love spending other people's
money. It's great. >> There are I think you see the opposing, you know, ideas here then once again and none of them are wrong. I would just encourage you to take a second look at it with your engineer. >> Well, with regard to where you want the
want to elevate the house to if or not. And of course, you're going to have to do all of the engine engineering in terms of submission of the drawings according to that. And if there's going to be a change in the variance, you'll have to come and have that changed as well. So that's where you are right now.
But we'll still move forward with what we're doing today. >> Boss Richard would have to approve it anyway because he's the one that told you to come back and do it if there was. So >> Well, the thing is, I mean, we just filled a lot down here on Gulf Boulevard about four or five blocks south of here. Everybody says, "Oh, it's so expensive."
Well, actually, they hold in 25 truckloads of dirt at $300 per truckload. So, 7,500 bucks. If you're spending half a million dollar house, plan for it. I mean, it's just a just a comment. Do what you want. But, uh,
anyway, with that, please have a seat and we'll finish this up. >> You guys, one sure side note question, not not necessarily just for this one, but have you started are I'm sure you're getting a lot of these variances. Have you started trying to adjust code for things like uh stairs to the electrical
panel st like there's certain things not say I have 25 in engineering right now some of them all have the exact same variances like it might not we might be able to figure out a good way to zigzag the front stairs or the back but every one of them one big obstacle no one
wants their electrical panel on their front porch right >> right we are working on not issued. So can be done administratively >> actually Chris >> a landing for a panel or something >> there's three situations where we've already taken to us into account a 5ft
encroachment on the set front yard set back for steps three-foot encroachment for balcony cuz on a raised house what used to be your front yard is now a balcony 5 foot in the backyard and we're working on raised houses for uh the Duke
Energy platform as well. >> Okay. And uh matter of fact, on the next meeting, we're going to be discussing that a little bit further. >> Yeah. Because that's my hardest thing as a contractor is Stacy has navigated this process better than I I'm lost on it on the variance
process and the and I have so many engineering plans going at one time. It's hard to review every I mean, at the end of the day, what I'm good at is is construction. Well, the city I will say the city staff and this board is trying to work with everybody who's come who's raising the house
>> because if you have a house that's built to the setbacks, hey, I got to be able to get up in it, right? >> And uh >> unfortunately in this case, because of your columns, you're going to have to there are cases where you're going to have to come for variance like the van
meters did, which is fine. And uh you know, we'll go from there. But uh we appreciate the fact that and we appreciate cuz several friends of mine have raised their houses. It's not a cheap process, >> right? >> But uh with that, uh please have a seat
and we'll finish up the uh discussion. Anybody in the audience today to speak in regard to this case? >> Seeing none, uh any further questions for either the applicant or the city staff?
Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. And uh what I'm going to say is another raised house with another front steps and a and a sideyard step. And this is how we help our neighbors. I I support this one 100%.
>> With zero encroachment on the back for their balcony. >> Yep. >> Which I was which was nice to see. >> Y as well. I think uh in this case I mean money does not enter into the as a factor but the factor is that they're
preparing for the future. Hopefully we don't get another Helen in our lifetime but can't guarantee it. It might happen again next year and >> I think that the hardship here is that it's the configuration of the house along with the fact that there was a storm. So that's
>> if they knocked it down we'd be talking a different thing. And the good thing is, and the one thing that I've told everybody I've talked to about these projects is just because you're raising a house or you're dock knocking one down, don't come in and uh try to make a
bigger house into the setbacks. This is for steps only. And I do agree with the condition that Ross mentioned that if for some reason after spending a lot of money to raise it, if the next owner or whoever decided to tear this one down,
they're starting from ground level as a vacant lot. So based on that, any other comments or can we have a motion to approve this with the condition since you came up with it, Ross, why don't you make the uh motion because that way you know exactly what you want.
>> I chairman. All right. In regards to >> Ross, before you make that motion, this just came up. Um maybe a question for Nancy. If the applicant decides to take your recommendation, Richard, and do the fill dirt, would that interfere with the
condition of approval as it stands now? >> They may have to come back um and we could modify the variance that has been arguably granted or they could just um we could void that one out and they could do one that would be sufficient. Wouldn't they
>> having the qualifier as far as um substantially consistent with the plans prepared and dated? I think that is addresses your concern >> because it's an administrative waiver, isn't it, for the calculation if the
steps in the front were to go over? Isn't that an administrative waiver? >> Well, if agree Yeah. If the proposal still exceeds what the administrative waiver would allow, >> then they would have to come back. they would have to come back unless >> and I agree with that.
>> Yeah, >> you Yeah, you would want to see them come back. >> Okay, perfect. >> There is the potential and it's just a matter of you could use that factor that I read out earlier. You could also uh I've seen this done before actually add
a a vertical inch to each step going up. It makes it a little more difficult to go up the standard seven inches for a step, but say you went eight. That way you wouldn't have to go and come back. There are ways around it. So, we're going to let the contractor figure that out.
>> But anyway, just something to throw out. >> I think we should stick with what is on the paper and then >> exactly >> let them decide because there's financial obligations, things like that nature. >> Let's uh if they want to come back, they >> prove or deny what we have in front of us today. >> Is there any additional board discussion? Am I good to move forward?
move forward. >> You are good, Ross. >> Um, in regards to case number, V-00582-2025 at the location 11160 8 Street East, Treasure Island, Florida 3376 as a planning and uh, zoning board member. I will make a motion um that it an
unnecessary hardship does exist pursuant to section 70-221 of the treasuron code of ordinances and has and I move to approve with conditions a variance um listed as number one in our packet uh and number
two along with the condition slated one the proposed structure shall be substantially consistent with the plans prepared by DMD and company dated August 11th 2022 25. >> You got a second. >> Okay. Motion by Mar uh Ross Sanchez,
second by Marvin Shavelin. Could we have a roll call vote, please? >> Gary Patenziano, >> yes. >> Valeria Cree, >> yes. >> Ross Sanchez, >> yes. >> Daniel Billingsley, >> yes. >> Chris Downing, >> yes. >> Marvin Shavelin, yes. >> Richard Harris, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Well, go raise your house and don't
don't pay any invoices. >> Yes. >> That are from the city. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. You can pay your contractor. Contractor. >> Okay, moving on. Uh, public comments for non-aggenda items. Anybody have
anything they want to say? Seeing none, reports and comments of city attorney, staff, and board members. >> No comments. staff. Oh, we lost our We're gonna defer to you, Jesse. Oh, there's there's
Braden over there. Sorry about that. I didn't realize you had moved. I thought you walked out. Um, any comments? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Any board member comments? Nope. >> Okay. We do have an LPA meeting
following this one. Our next uh LPA meeting, let me get my calendar up here. uh in January 3rd Thursday is the 15th. That'll be the
the PNZ. And like we always want to do is have the LPA right afterwards. So, does it look like we're going to have a any cases in January? >> PNZ >> for PNZ. >> If you could if you could come up to
your microphone. Sorry, >> I left you guys too early. I apologize. Um, yeah, we'll have about three applications coming to PNZ next month. >> Are they just what type are they? Site plans, variances. >> Off the top of my head, I believe it's two variances and one site plan.
>> Good enough. We plan on everybody being here on the 15th. And then if we are able to, I would love to see Kimley Horn here for an LPA meeting on the 15th as well because while residential variances and
residential construction is great, our down central business district, our hotel districts continue to languish. Um, with that, could I have a motion to adjurnn? >> If Kim, do we know if Kimley Horn's going to be here in the January meeting?
And if they are, can we have make sure that Joan is here as well? In >> fact, I thought they were supposed to be here at this LPA meeting. >> Yep. >> Weren't they originally scheduled? >> No, I think I think right now there's some discussion going on with Kimley Horn. Um, they're going to be coming back soon for phase one. That's the
remaining chapters. We have procedures, subdivision, zoning, and >> landscaping. So, they will be coming back to present those probably January, February, probably February at this point. Um there's a lot of discussion going on around the master plan so and
how that ties into the phase two of what they're doing. So I think until we kind of have a better idea of that >> the the master plan that we currently have today >> the master plan that the commission is discuss discussing. >> Oh okay. >> So and how that ties into phase two. So I they would I don't think it makes
sense for them to come back until we figure out how that's going to >> So the inference would be that you would not have Kimberly Horn move forward with the phase two until >> that obviously is not my decision how we move forward with phase two but I think there is some discussion going on right
now about how the two um >> mesh I guess >> right so I think until we kind of have a better idea of where the master plan is going I wouldn't want to bring them necessarily here for phase two but it um they could they will certainly be here soon for phase Okay, let's go ahead and adjourn this
meeting. We're going to have an LPA meeting. We're going to take about a fivem minute break. So, could I have a motion to adjourn the P&Z meeting to >> Okay, second. All in favor? >> I hearing none. We're adjourned. will
rec. Okay, miss thing on this time. Welcome to the city of Treasure Island local planning agency meeting for December 18th, 2025. If you wish to speak on a topic which is on today's agenda, a speaker's
card is available on the table over by the entrance and must be completed and given to the chairperson. Please do not address the board from your seat, but rather from the podium where your comments can be heard by all and recorded as required by Florida statute. Unscheduled topics may be presented
under the public comment section of the agenda. Okay, we are not going to do the pledge of allegiance. Please everybody keep their cell phones uh silenced to you if we could have a roll call for this meeting. >> Gary Patenziano
>> here. >> Valeria Cree >> here. >> Ross Sanchez >> here. >> Daniel Billingsley >> here. >> Chris Downing >> here. >> Marvin Chavelin >> here. >> Richard Harris >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Approval of the minutes from our meeting back in July. Anybody have any
comments on that or can I have a motion to approve them? >> Approve. >> Okay. A motion to approve by Chris Downing. Second by >> second >> Marvin Chavelin. That worked. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any oppose? Hearing none. That's
approved. Presentation of items. 6A. Request to approve resolution 2025-14 recommending the adoption of ordinance 2025-37. And uh this is about what we discussed at the last meeting. STRups
and Duke Energy platforms and that kind of stuff. So, Mary Ellen, go ahead with the presentation. >> Correct. Um, as you guys discussed and um you're aware, there's we currently have uh sections of the code that allow allowable encroachments for elevated
structures for both stairs and for balconies. Um, we do not have anything for new construction. So, the ordinance that's before you today is to allow for um the encroachment um for properties with side setbacks of 7 and 1/2 ft or
greater and encroachment to the side setbacks uh is allowed solely for the installation of a new meter to meet the flood plane elevation requirements of the Florida building code. Um so one set of access stairs and the required meter platform can encroach into the setbacks provided all such encro encroachments
shall be designed to be the minimum encroachment necessary. Um I do believe that at your last meeting and and we can talk about this if you want. Um there was discussion about the HVAC systems, >> right? Um, and I I believe I was out of town, but I believe he talked to Jackie
and there was some concern with requiring the HVAC on there because the the um Duke platforms can be at a lower elevation than the HVACs have to be. Um, so and there's also a I think it's a
30-in clearance from any meters from any HVAC systems. So that we had some concern with requiring the HVACs on there. Um, however, if you guys decide that you actually want to require that, we can amend. Um, I just checked with the >> I can understand the the conflict there
and both from electrically and just on practical basis because it's the level that you're needing to elevate that electric meter isn't as high. >> Well, let me ask you this, Mary Ellen. I mean, you're talking about a setback
variance automatically. What would be the maximum? Let's just say I mean sideyard setbacks in this town are either five, seven and a half or 10. >> What would be the maximum that a Duke Energy platform could go to into a
setback? >> That's a good question. >> I mean, >> how wide are they supposed to be? >> Uh, >> the steps are supposed to be five. The the actual platform is supposed to be 5 ft, >> but the steps can be three.
>> Okay. But and I think there was concern if we allowed this to occur in areas where the setback's less than 7 and 1/2 ft that um it's going to be a safety issue for fire personnel to get around the house. If
you only have a 5ft setback that uh you know that's available >> between the fence and the house and then you put three ft of steps you've got two feet left. >> Somebody's platform could be hitting a fence line. >> That's right. I mean, from a practical point of view, I think that's why we restricted it to 7 and a half and above.
>> Well, the thing is, I'm going to bring up this uh heating and air conditioning situation. It's just for the condension units, and I did leave a voicemail for Jackie. I think she was in the mode of I'm out of I'm out of here. Uh anyway, I never got a call back. There is a way to
incorporate both. And being as in my childhood I used to work on condensing units. It's a pain in the neck to work on a condensing unit off on the ladder. It just is. So what she was saying was, okay, the platform is down at this level
with the meter at eye level. So you can pull that meter out without falling over. But the thing what I was saying is usually a condensing unit is on the side of the house or the rear of the house. But this would be for sides of the house where you could come up, have your meter
platform, and then have another set of steps up to an HVAC. And Daniel, you're the uh heating and air conditioning contractor. Am I out to lunch on this? But you got to admit, I'm >> It's unsafe when they when they put them
on the side of the houses with no access and you got to put a 15 or 18 foot ladder to get to them, carry your tools, work on them. It's unsafe. Um, >> when you're designing a new house, >> you should be able to design a platform >> with your meter. I mean, you should be
able to design one. If they did it right, you can get to the whole unit. >> Well, even if you had a situation, >> what you could do a second landing, but I mean, they still could design it properly where you could get it all >> where it become you could bring the meter height up a little bit more, too.
>> Well, that's the thing. The Duke Energy actually wants a certain elevation, >> but I mean, you still could bring it over because I mean, that beats the whole point of having an extension ladder on the side of the house. When some of these houses, you don't have enough room to get the ladder off the house on the angle, the proper angle to
even be safe. >> Yeah, cuz at my house, you actually come up parallel to the uh to the house. I mean, you can actually get to the AC unit, but still, I've been up there on a
and you're climbing 16 feet up. Well, 16 ft above sea level, I should say, but it's still you're working off of a extension ladder. And when you're changing out a a a compressor that weighs 50 pounds or more, it's a pain in
the neck to carry that up an extension ladder. So what my idea was to incorporate a situation where okay even if necessary you have one set of steps a platform your Duke energy platform and then on the other side of that another set of steps up to your AC platform it
could be done that's what I was aiming for to >> or I guess you could just you know have the intent to have since it's a new construction to have the platform extended so that you'd meet the space requirements between in the meter.
>> Yeah. But the trouble is, Chris, usually >> it's two elevations. Yeah. >> The AC unit has to be above the 100 >> up at elevation more or less 13 ft above sea level >> where the meter itself will be lower. >> I mean, it's it's almost like
>> from an HVAC perspective, you it's almost like you could or you should demand that the platform for just the HVAC just be bigger if it is unsafe. I mean, because it is at different levels. >> Yeah. How my question, how the way that we have it today, how how long have we
had it set up that way within our code when it comes to the Duke meter needs to be inside the setback. We've had it for >> do you know how >> since existence, right? I mean since I've >> Yeah, since I've been on code enforcement and planning
>> it was just it was always just viewed as a structure. >> Correct. >> Okay. And this is and we're now looking into this because this is something that you would wanted to talk about, right? Or >> it this was a motion I made and that was brought forward and that we had a
consensus that we would move forward with allowing encroachment into the setback for a set of stairs to go to the meter in new construction with the caveat that we also include
access to the condensing units. So on a on an only this is everything around new structures. >> Yeah. Was it like residents like in your district that were just asking for it? Like where where is this like coming from? >> Well, it it came from one person who called me about the fact that they
already had one in process. They had plans approved and then that was getting turned down at the last minute. Had already been built. And I not not sure actually what the status of that one is today, but it caught me that well this is a bit crazy because it's a Duke power requirement that we're now forcing
people even on new construction to lose a significant amount of a available building space in order to um accomplish without putting the meter on the back or the front of the house. that was where you would be forced if you want to
maximize your lot for a new build, you would have to put the meter on the front or the back of the house. And this was from a practical point of view with everything else going on with elevating. Um, we had, I think, consensus on the board that yeah, it was okay to move forward with making an amendment here to
our to our ordinance to allow that encroachment on the side setback. And then um our chair Richard added the additional provision that at least we had to look at HVAC units. But I understand what you're saying there from the practical point of view we may not
be able to do that part of it. >> I'd still be in favor of us just passing it as is just for HVAC just for the meter because that's a Duke power requirement. And the problem was in the past back when I first got on the board was architects were
considering the Duke Energy platform as an afterthought. Oh hell, we'll just go ask for variance. And we were getting one every month. And it got to the point of no, we're going to turn every one of them down. Don't even bother to come in. And
the message got across. Nobody came in. And while it's back, it's it's somewhat a situation for new construct. For for raised houses, I don't have a problem for new construction. These architects need to sharpen it up. In the old days,
you'd have a meter reader walking around. He'd have to climb that ladder. They don't exist anymore. The only reason you need that uh platform is so when the guy muscles that corroded meter out, he doesn't fall off his ladder. And
uh that's the reason why they're asking for these platforms. >> I think it's a it's somewhat arbitrary ask by Duke Power, but we're stuck with it. And that's why I guess I I felt it was reasonable and I think the board at the time we had consensus that um
>> it was reasonable to allow this >> um one going up. I I have to mention too since I mentioned the one the person that called me, I just happened to notice one other one in my neighborhood that I know their permit's not complete yet, but they actually have it already,
you know, built on the side. they've maximized and there's no doubt that um they'd be in violation of the setback and they'll probably not be able to finish uh their you know final co on that house. I haven't ever spoken to that particular person even though they're on my street.
>> I have one in my neighborhood too that's like that. I just >> I mean I'm struggling because part of some of the residential areas that have 10-ft setbacks like that's an amenity to those properties or to those to those residents. Like it's nice to have a
10-ft setback and encroachment on that because of something that we're trying to change. like it seems like our current rules or codes I I understand that it's a Duke thing, but it still applies to us, you know, from a thinking
of, okay, well, if new construction is having issues with to build something new within this city and we're trying to change it, I mean, then we should be applying that to some of our other downtown areas or gators areas because
it's the same type of concept. the way that we have it written. >> I'd agree. >> So, okay. Um, I just I my heart is from all the people that I think I made a comment to Jesse before when it came to the the amount of applications that came through for new construction builds in
the last I don't know 12 months, 14 months. They were all told get that Duke meter platform inside the setback. Is that I mean that's a I mean because that's the way it's written today and they were clearly able to do it because I know that new construction permits
have been filed and homes are being built. >> Okay. >> In years gone by Duke Energy or Florida Power did not want to have the meters on the back of the house. Now it doesn't matter cuz you don't need to go see it
any longer. So the situation is is I like the idea still and Daniel being an AC contractor can appreciate this. I like safety. I don't want one of my neighbors died falling off the ladder.
So to get the poor old serviceman AC serviceman something to work off of. I'm all for that. I'd be I'd be able to say hey let's administratively do that. But just for platform itself, I think it was around 2015, 2000. Yeah.
When I first became chairman, we said, "Hey, sharpen your pencils." >> Yeah. Do a good design. >> I'm not saying I mean, I I'll say this because I I want people to be able to build and treasure on. I don't want people to have hard issues. Is there Chris, is there any potential chance
that we could just pen this for this meeting instead of taking it to a vote? And at the next meeting, I know of three or four properties that have a different way of getting their Duke meter into compliance without going over the
setback for you to look at to say, "Oh, wow. There is three or four different options. Whether it's in the front, whether it's in the back, whether it's um you know, I've seen one where a house the stairs actually are part of the house inside the setback and it goes up towards the front and in the front of
their home they have air conditionings and duke meters and generators and things like that. And I'm like that's a good option. Everything's inside that 10ft setback. It's safe and it's accessible for maintenance. So, I just >> No, I'd be I'd be happy to take a look at that and I'm happy to take >> I think that's a I think that's a good I
mean I know three or four properties >> inly, you know, the only thing I would add is I did speak to that one person. I think they're they're on either eth or ninth >> on Isa Palms. I don't know them personally. They contacted me through the commissioner. Um, and I know in
their situation it looked apparently it just got through the system and that meter was put on at the last minute in terms of the wasn't on the original drawings and now they're probably in a situation where they can't get their CO and I know my neighbor a few doors down
who I haven't spoken to him about this because I kind of thought we'd probably put it to bed. Um, they're going to probably be up against the same issue um that it was somehow it slipped through. So, we may have a few of these that have slipped through and it would be pretty costly now to move that meter. And I don't know what you have to do in a
situation like that. It's it's obviously mistakes are made and I agree that you could use some innovation in most new builds. You should be able to do it. >> I mean, I'm not trying to like cause litigation for any other residents or builders or contractors, but I would think that that would be a civil dispute
between the the owner and the contractor/archchitect. Like I I mean I'm not saying that's a fact but >> right it it may be that you know I know in the first case it and I don't know the details they were it apparently the city had approved the drawings as is
whether or not there was a meter on there at I mean a platform on that particular drawing or not I don't know the specifics. So again you know you're right it is a >> it would be between them and their contractor and I know the city doesn't necessarily they can make mistakes. I
think a lot of people know me as a trying yes in progress. Let's get things going. But on this one, like I've said, because of everything that has been applied for recently, as well as the options that are out there to accommodate a Duke meter without stairs
inside the SE like, >> well, let's take a look at it next time and let's table it. >> If you're okay, I'm okay with that. >> I just feel like it would set you a little can see all what whether or not, hey, this is practical or this is just not practical. I know. Um is it who was
not here today that Gary um not Gary but Mark um he was made a lot of comments in terms of his opinion as being a builder that this all made sense to do. So be maybe give him a chance to weigh in as well next >> and maybe the resident that's in your
district, you know, maybe they're an outlier. Like I >> I think those are I think those are outliers. >> And I agree with you. I have one that's on Dolphin Drive that I looked at it and I'm like, "Oh boy, like they're going to have a problem." I even, you know, told Jesse about >> have to get a variance. You know, that may be the >> I just don't think it's not okay. Well,
anyway, that's where I sit on it, >> you know, and I really don't like after the fact permit uh variances, but I mean, it might be a situation that occurs if they've stuck a uh meter box up there or they pay to relocate it. I
mean, there's lots of solutions to this. So any questions for Mary Ellen or should we just continue with this to so we can have a few more eyeballs look at this table >> if Marielen if I send you three or four
addresses via email can like that I know of would those plans be able to be pulled and then sent to the board or so it could be prior to next LPA meeting so >> Chris Downey can review or everyone can review >> it's just idea it's just ideas.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Acceptable. >> Yep. And I can send you the address of the addresses of the two properties I know that are probably going to be at issue that are in process that already built. >> Okay. Okay. >> Send them to me. We'll shoot them out to you. >> Okay. Sorry that you put it together and
I'm deferring it. >> I mean, I'm guess I'm going to bring it back. So, >> yeah. >> Sounds good. Can we have a motion to uh continue this to our January LPA meeting? I'll make a motion to continue this to the January LPA meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion by Ross Sanchez, second by
Gary Patenciano. All in favor? >> Any oppose? No. Okay. No. None against it, I meant to say. Anyway, uh based on that, uh let's talk about
the future of Treasure Island. I mean situation being is once again we're at an impass and not much what happens is when an impass happens and like the Thunderbird did get voted down and
there's a lot of reasons behind it and some I agree with some I don't but the thing is what happens when uncertainty occurs is nothing happens nothing is going to happen until we get a plan development ordinance on the books.
And that is the only way forward that I can see right at this point. If somebody's got a better idea than I do, go for it. But I tell you, the Fargo and the Buccaneer for us longtime residents sat vacant empty lot for 10 years. We
don't want the Thunderbird to do that. I mean, right now, he is not going to tear it down, but it looks terrible sitting there vacant. And you know, the Sands is now total vacant lot. The Tahesian is sitting abandoned. Uh
we all know about the Krabbies on the past property. It just has looked terrible for the last 12 years. Uh I mean, it's in compliance codewise, but we need to come up with a methodology to get some of this stuff
moving along. and a plan development zoning category is what we're looking at. And what I'd like to see is, you know, Kimley Horn's working on phase two. They're under contract to do phase two. I used to do plan developments back in 1993 down in Lee County. All they got
to do is cut and paste Lee County's ordinance. Uh it just says the site plan is the zoning. There are a few brief guidelines that the city has, but it's a presentation that the developer presents to first the LP or
the P&Z and later to the city commission. But those brief guidelines would be a height in my mind, 80 ft, and a density, whatever they need to make it work. Right now, we have a
commissioner who is looking at increasing the density for our central business district to 60 units per acre. It's currently 22 units per acre. So, it will match the
current comprehensive plan. And at 22 units per acre, hotel units per acre, nothing's going to happen on that property. What I would like to see and if you guys can figure out any way to do it is move uh Kimley Horn in here and
let's see what we can do on a planned development zoning category. You actually have to and this is what we were going to do back in 2016 2017 when it was defeated by referendum and mis information. But you actually have to
reszone that property to a plan development zoning when currently we do not have a plan development zoning category. We only have 11 different ones. Four of them are institutional. Um and I believe
>> what can we do to uh get them moving? >> And I believe you have to um edit or amend the LDRs to accommodate. And that's what we're talking about >> and and have you know the you mentioned
about the height and density that LDR would have to include that change and I think you know all of this goes to all the questions that everyone's been asking and I you know I certainly support us moving forward to have the ability to have PDs within um some
constraint around what the LDRs uh require in terms of height and density. So, um, you know, this board doesn't really can do nothing more than just make that recommendation at this point. >> And that's what we do. And but it I think it carries a lot of weight for
this board to say, "Hey, we're tired of looking at uh vacant lots and abandoned buildings." I mean, you know, the the the thing was what was so obvious after the storm was the Treasure Island Resort, the Ocean Club, Crystal Palms,
and the Fusion were all back open for business in no time. The reason for that is they're all elevated. They hosed out underneath in the garage. They p fixed whatever electrical uh needed to be fixed and they're back in business. The Bill Maher is back in business, but
heck, the sign is still blown out and but they're at least welcoming uh guests. There's some other mom and pops that are welcoming guests, but you know, when the Sands is a vacant lot, we just need to do something to uh get things
moving. I will point out this one interesting fact. The property tax that the Thunderbird was paying prior to the storm was $242,000 a year. Their tax bill for 2025 is $11,000
per year. I know that not all that money goes to the city. I think the the percentage I heard was 23%. >> That's true. 23%. >> And uh you know, so the school board gets the most, the county gets some, but
how can any municipality take a pay cut to that effect? And it's just not the Thunderbird. I mean, obviously the sands totally vacant. If we had a nice development of some type on the Krabby's property, can you imagine the the
revenues that would be based in off of that? You know, so situation is is I don't want to be sitting here at the age of 75, 5 years down the road saying, "Wow, we still got the same vacant lots." I mean, >> so
>> what do we do to get this thing moving? So, this this board, you know, approved a change to the LDRs that allowed an increase in density and height in a couple of the zoning districts and it subsequently went, you know, to the
commission and was rejected for a number of reasons. So at this stage I think you know this this board could certainly make the motion to um that having PDS as an option is a positive thing to do and
we could make that motion be kind of clean in terms of it it doesn't specify height and density at this point restrictions. Um that would at least give the commission some direction. um the question of increase in height or just increase in density possibly in
certain areas. I'm not sure today we we can pin what that would be as a recommendation and I think that's why others have asked for master plans and I know that you know disagreement with that in terms of how expensive and how much time that's going to take. Um I'm
not in favor of how much time that's going to take either. So, I don't know if this if if this board could do some work to come up with some level of recommendation of reasonable increase in density and maybe no increase in height. I'm not sure. I I don't really, you
know, I want the board to have the ability to weigh in on how how can we get this to a point where it's acceptable to the public and acceptable and get support from the public, but and support from, you know, majority of the commission. Um, but certainly that's a
that's a route we could take to maybe have some make some difference here, which Richard is what you're trying to do. >> Why can't we just make a recommendation to the commission that they reconsider the Thunderberg project? >> These guys are ready to do something. >> You can't do just that because that's
called individual zoning and you just can't do it. It's just not legal. >> Let maybe I'll rephrase what I was thinking Marvin was is it just every >> not just Thunderbird just the whole >> bull just every month. Do we just keep sending something up to the commission to say like keep banging on the door
like hey this is what we want to do. This is what we're hearing. This is we think this is the best path forward and every single time and then does the commission just say no every single time? I mean that then that's at least we're doing our job. >> I think if you took the vote today it may be different result to be honest. >> Well let me let me ask you this. Part of
the problem here is that we went from very low density, keeping height at 60 to that change that was made took it all the way up to the county standard with with for density and some restriction on height to 80 ft. I think that's where it
went, you know, it was a bridge too far for many people. So, how do we pull pull back on that to make something that's works that would also be acceptable? Well, five over one work, we'd see cranes out here in construction and we don't see anything. Situation is is this
board sent to the uh city commission at a 5 to2 vote the recommendation of increasing the height to 80 ft to increasing the density for and I'm not going to get the
for for acreages more than three 150 units per acre. I think between one and three 100 units per acre and less than one 75 units per acre. We approved that already and made the re recommendation. They got uh I had a nice conversation
yesterday and find out why some of the uh commissioners voted against it and uh there was some confusion along the way. must just say, but I think it would be a situation where I would say, hey, let's
go back and revisit it again with a quick followup with a plan development because Gators is not included and Gators is the biggest undeveloped property in this whole city that's privately owned. And it's kind of a
shame that it sits there paying $100,000 a year in property taxes and it could be paying a million dollars a year in property taxes if something was there. I think I might have brought it up to this board. I uh went to Savannah and stayed at the Marriott, a beautiful hotel that
would uh fit real nice on that piece of property. But will we ever get it? No. there's certain certain uh individuals that have decided that five over one is the maximum this city should have. Well, you know, I would like to see
justification for that, but my main justification is, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, is I'm not seeing any construction at five over one. You know, just plain and simple. But Marvin, I think that's actually a good idea. >> I think you got a good idea. Let's add
on the Gator's property and send it back to them. just keep sending them stuff because nothing's happening. >> Nothing. Nothing. >> It's just awful. >> Well, the biggest thing >> I I would just recommend that if we're going to send something up that we don't send up what we sent before. And I think
you >> density to be >> Well, I'm not saying we shouldn't increase have some level of increased density. I've always supported that. I think it's a matter of not letting it go to the county level which is what was you know brought to us that we had to be
in com you know I guess compatible with whether or not we had to be exactly there and that's where some of the confusion ended up we can as a board make a recommendation that look for our particular zoning areas we can say arbitrarily 70 ft is the max and density
you know at 100 units whatever ever whatever is the right number and I I don't profess to have that right number in front of me right today. That's where I think you know either we need that's where the compromise didn't happen and why it got shut down. So that's why I guess some the only thing I would say
Marvin is we got to have some thought to this >> I'm glad that we're talking about it. >> Yeah. >> When it comes to where we currently have today whether it's Mansions by the Sea or whatever that building is across from Middlegrounds like that we already have taller buildings in the city of Treasure Island. they they already do exist. Um
so I think that we need to kind of use those as baselines because we're not trying to exceed that. But one of the things that you do have to think about is that right now the way that all of our comprehens excuse me our LDRs right today is the downtown zoning area has a
height restriction that is lower than the golf parcels. Mhm. >> That in itself is a problem. If you there's some stat me all met like what 98% metro downtowns or just downtowns in
general is where the tallest buildings are. >> Right. So that is something that as we are proceeding to look forward or trying to talk to Kimley Horn whenever they're here or not, we've got to press on that to get that in front of the commission to get the mindset going because like we've all sit here and trying to say
like something's got to happen because nothing's happening outside these glass windows. >> And I think, you know, we have to sell it, you know, if it's if it makes sense. I'm I'm in agreement that some level of increase in height in the downtown areas needed. >> Yeah. And the comprehensive plan has nothing to do with height. I want to
make that very clear. Right. >> So, a lot of times people are talking about comprehensive plans. A comprehensive plan has nothing to do with height. Your LDRs are what restrict your height. >> Well, there are 13 buildings in Treasure Island that currently exceeded our code. Most of them are in district 4. You
know, uh I went and inventoried them all at the request of the mayor and mansions by the sea down where I live. 12 stories over parking. you know, uh, this one up here, Treasure Sands, which is the tallest building on the island, and I am
not condoning something that high. What I was saying, and I've maintained my statement, is 20 ft additional height is not that much. Make it profitable for these guys. They cannot, if they can't make money, they're just going to do nothing. And I don't know if these
anti-development people understand that or not, but oh yes, we won. We defeated the Thunderbird. Congratulations. All you did was delay it because what they will do is okay if I can't make money I'm not going to do anything. We all know that we don't go to work for uh
charity except this board but uh >> and then what happens to our millage rate in two years. >> Well the prime example Ross once again is look how much the Thunderbirds taxes >> I hear you and how many more are like that. How many vacant there's 67 vacant
lots on Sunset Beach now. So from a viable tax income to >> yep >> dirt, you know, to uh whatever that dirt value is. >> I think a a lot of what happened is, you know, the public rightfully so got
skittish and scared based on making that large of a change. Didn't know what the ramifications of that would be. And that's why this has to be sold in a way that um actually says in reality this is what it's going to look at like what it's going to accomplish and is a
reasonable thing to do under the current you know envir economic and environmental situation that we have and and so maybe the 80 ft is a good number maybe the density is slightly lower than what was allowed. Um, but s it has to be
something that can be sold and and depicted and and and get support by the commission because you have the public support. >> I just think the public support you're talking about, you're talking about 5% of the population because nobody else is paying attention. So, I don't think we
should focus on the 5%. I think we need to focus on what's right, what will bring developers to town. We need to get something going here and they need to make money. There seems to be this thing about greedy developers. God forbid they should make a profit.
>> Well, the thing is tax base is what you're talking about, Marvin. And the situation is is I you know, Marvin, you gave me an idea. I would love to just put it back the our let's say resort
facilities high >> 50 back to what it was again and let it let it run again, right? because there was some misunderstanding >> but I would not do that >> about the uh with Thunderbird and that's the reason it was defeated. >> I don't think I don't think it needs
sorry I don't think it needs to be labeled the Thunderbird like I have made that very clear >> needs to be the RF >> it's every property that falls within that because a lot of you know I think that the the Thunderberg got siloed into
greedy developers this that and the other. This is for all of those parcels. And by the way, this is for the city of Treasure Island. That's the biggest thing for me. Like >> I just wouldn't do that in isolation of not looking also at the um downtown area
>> because I'm with you. I just don't think >> parcel of it. >> If if if if people are going to get on board with 20 more feet in the in the in that zoning district, they're going to need to get on 20 plus more feet for the downtown area,
>> right? because it's the only thing that makes sense. >> Yep. >> You know, I've been I said in that joint meeting, the the taller that you go, the more you got green space you got below. Like it is very clear even. >> So then it's a question of how much on the density issue,
not going to the max density that >> Well, just because you can doesn't mean you have to. >> Well, right. And I think the thing is needs to be I think where the voice of the public at this point has said we need to have that throttled to a degree.
>> Voice of the 5%. >> It's not I really disagree that it's I don't think the thousands of those yellow signs out there is 5% of the population. It was a lot more people. Um and that they're looking to have reasonable growth, not unlimited.
>> I think it is reasonable. You know, the bottom line is if you can't make money, you're not going to do anything, right? >> The what we're doing is we're we're forgetting history. So, we're going to relive it. The Buccaneer in the Fargo, I don't know how I've lived here for 40
years. I was amazed it sat vacant for 10 years. The Treasure Island Resort asked for 20 additional feet in the way of a variance and they didn't have a hardship. So, it was defeated cuz they went before the city commission and
it was defeated. Let's put it that way. They settled on 77 rooms and five stories over parking. I don't know how they do. The BRGR is the restaurant. It would be nice to see the Thunderbird come back with a
fullervice hotel. Very few hotels on this island are full service. the Bill and BRG I mean Treasure Island Resort about the only ones. I mean how many of these mom and pops have >> restaurants? Very few.
>> But the thing is what John Doctor had told me about what the Thunderbird wanted to do in the way of open space was as you come down 107th you're sitting at that light and you're looking at the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, nothing in the way. I thought it was a terrific
plan and due to a little bit of confusion and some miscommunication and some changes that were unfortunate, >> you got defeated. But I think uh it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring >> the Thunderbird to pull their building back and then you get the Bill to pull
theirs back and you're going to have this huge thing that get the Billmore to pull theirs back. Why not? >> They're not going to do any dumped a bunch of money. So, how what do we got to what do we have to do? Like what's >> Can we have staff come back with a
resolution basically mimicking what it was >> just maybe for the RFM50? >> Can you talk to that? Uh, Mary Ellen, >> she's like, "Oh, geez. >> I guess I would recommend that it not just be the RFM50. It would include downtown."
>> I I did. Well, >> we just think it confuses. >> I I'll give my two cents. Um, it sounds like what the LPA is is proposing is that they revisit the prior resolution that you had. I think that might be your starting point at your next meeting and
then you can tailor it in any way that you would like. >> Maybe we could in the meantime research this density part and come up with something that's maybe more acceptable. >> Well, you know, >> you'd be modifying what you had before,
right? based on maybe new information, but I think that that's kind of the starting point. You know that what you um asked the city commission for was rejected. >> Yeah. >> So, you're back at the drawing board with what was rejected and modifying
that and then if you decide you could send it back up. >> I'm on board. >> You know, the the arguments are always the same. >> I'm include the idea of PDS within it. >> Let's do it. If nothing else, it sends a miss a message to the commission that hey, >> let's do something.
>> Yeah, down be a twostep process. >> The our resort facilities high50 district is one issue and plan development. And I'd love to throw uh well, regardless, the Krabby's property has to be reszoned. It's mostly
>> they asked for us not to call it Krabby's property. No, it's not. >> It's supposed to be not called the >> gator the green leaf property. >> Green leaf. Okay. Green leaf property. Whatever you want to call it. Just don't call it gators. >> I don't want to upset the uh I don't want to upset the investors. >> But anyway, the developers, Mary Ellen,
since we called you up here, what what process do we have to do? I know Nancy just uh gave us the idea. I mean, I'd be willing to have a straw vote right now to send the same proposal back to the city commission. I mean, I would I would ask Nancy about
that, but I mean, that was a private amendment submitted that they're referring to right now. >> Amendment to a specific project or >> It was a private amendment. It was submitted by an applicant. Um, >> but it wasn't affected the entire It was the whole zoning. >> It was the whole zoning area, >> but it was private. It It wasn't a city
initiated amendment. It was a private one. So, you would not be bringing back an amendment for a specific project. Um it would be basically a recommendation from you um sending a message to the city commission
>> and well and first I think it's to ask the city to draft a change that could go to the city commission. Correct. >> I think that we need a little bit more to the LDR. >> How about this? How about Sorry. How about this? How about we come up with what we want today for them to draft for
them to then send up in the next meeting include downtown >> and separately include plan developments. >> I agree. It's really three items. >> So really three items. >> The whole issue of zoning of the green leaf project is >> however I would suggest that um that you
provide guidance to staff um and >> as to what your your thoughts are. Sometimes putting things in writing is different from when you're just discussing and then bringing that back to your January meeting so that you can say yes this is what we want right
>> to send to the city commission. >> I can I think we can use the previous applicant right >> requested amendment as a starting point for you to draft this >> but it would not affect that specific property. >> No, this wasn't a this wasn't a zoning
district. It affected the whole zoning district. >> This was not a problem. >> This just said one applicant in that district brought it >> in that district. >> It was just an applicant submitted initiated. >> So let's walk this through. Last time when we had approved it at this level, it included the 50 and the 30. >> Yep. Don't do the 30.
>> We're going to X the 30. So then we're showing up differently. It >> on that one. We're showing up differently. Coming with the same thing but doing it differently. >> Right. >> That's item number one. Item number two is that we would is the downtown. We want to look at
>> same issue of within that zoning district allowance for what we would change the LDR to height and density. >> Yeah. I mean, >> well, the thing is, let's think about that for a minute. I've already talked with one commissioner who says he wants
to take it to 60 60 units per acre. That's fine with me for the AR resort facilities high 50. I think we should continue what Hill Ward and Henderson was doing. But now, like you're saying,
include the downtown and go to a 60 and don't include anything on the height right now. >> Right. That that's fine. then and you know it gives us at least a shell to work with then to >> I think if I think the height for the RFM the 50 has got to line up with the
downtown just out of the gate >> I >> just just out of the gate if we're going to do it the other >> I'm fine to draft it that way we can discuss he means make them 80 >> just just to start this conversation >> I think it's a starting point >> and then the third item is PDS >> and then third is PD >> and if we have this in front of us at
this meeting and Kimley Horn is here it'll also give this board the ability to talk to Kim Horn and say, "What are your thoughts about this?" >> I agree >> because they've worked with other municipalities. We they've know the history here. They're currently working with us in regards to that. And we could say that now we're showing up to the commission
with something different that could work for this city >> if the commission would just get on board with it. With all the knowledge that we've had, with all the stuff that we've heard, I think that this is a great action plan in regards for the next 30 days. And and not to get in the weeds here, but with reg regard to the
downtown district, if we're going to make a proposal of change on the LDRs to the heightened density, the setbacks that we have today probably aren't appropriate. And I know if we go if somebody, you know, considers it a PD, they have to bring that forward. But we
may get ourselves in a little bit of a pickle on this. We have to make some adjustment. >> Are we doing too much? I mean, >> I don't think we're doing too much because this is what we've all been trying to collectively. I don't want to speak for everyone just because of how efficient is this going to be? You just got so much. >> I don't think it's so much because it's
already has a foundation like we've we've already talked through some of the basics. The commissioner gave their feedback on excluding 30. We're not showing back up with 30. Then we're coming in with we've got to get something going. It's official. And something that also that has changed previous from the last time we talked
about it is that the Thunderbird basically got told to go away which obviously is an anchorage to that zoning district. So in our review of a local planning agency or authority we are reviewing that zoning district to say how can we make this better for maybe it
to get in front of the commission and that's what that next meeting would do. >> Okay. And you should have some kind of analysis or um background in support of whatever you decide to do. So it's just not arbitrary and you know you're pulling numbers out of the air.
>> Pulling numbers. >> Well, yeah. That changes you're proposing there should be some kind of analysis or background in support of it. Uh whether probably from Kimley Horn because you mentioned that you would have them here at the next meeting. I
mean, I would just go off of the foundation that we've got no applications coming in for any of these districts. It's proposed. We have a parking lot that's proposed for downtown. The Thunderbird basically has said that they're not going to do anything. The Sands basically is has
there's I think that there's evidence that that's behind that. Um, that would be the way that I look at it. >> That should be in support of whatever recommendation is going. >> And I do bring it up again. if Joan was here in this in these types of meetings
that I can basically ask Joan what are the green leaf people saying what is the Thunderbird saying and I would think that a city staff member who has met with applicants over the course of a year and a half are all saying the same thing that they need planned development or they need the or they
>> I can tell you that Ross I'll tell you that >> I think stands behind it >> they want planned development Now, you know, this this thing this >> but for the city attorneys asking asking what analysis if I would think that if
our economic growth and development leader was in as a city staff employee saying yes, this is something that would be needed by the city. That's all the analysis that I need when it comes to like hard facts >> and plan developments by themselves. I aren't going to cut it because if we
don't change the density, >> we really aren't going to get much activity around a plan development. >> This is what a plan development is. It is a very loose guideline like maximum height, maximum density. Other than that,
>> everything else is determined by the developer. I mean, >> I'm just saying if in the downtown area if you were to allow PD, >> it doesn't and given that fact that the density has a restriction on it that's
pretty severe. Um, probably nothing would happen with >> Yeah, but but Chris, maybe I'm not saying this is impactful, but maybe you don't even need a PD downtown because >> if you updated the if you updated the comp plan to or excuse me, if you updated it to 60 >> because it's currently says 22. Hey, 60
is a start. Like, that's a good thing for downtown. I 10,000% agree with you in regards to >> what do we do about that setback? Because if you're gonna take away that setback, which we all think that we should because we don't want a cave valley, >> right, >> you're going to have to give them something else.
>> Well, that's in the part of it. We have to modify the two zoning districts in our central business district is plan redevelopment mixeduse core and plan redevelopment mixeduse Gulf boulevard which includes even up down to the uh
public >> right >> but that zoning those LDRs have to be modified to get rid of that zero setback and and get rid of the canyon effect which I think we can determine >> it's not that complicated really >> it just takes Are we good, Mary Ellen,
on the three items? >> Well, I want to No. Um, hold on one second. So, for the planned um developments, my understanding is that the commission asked the city attorney to work with Kimley Horn on that. So, I would be hesitant to move forward on
anything like that with the direction of the commission to work with the city attorney. Um, >> did they tell him that? >> And I don't know. They did. Oh, sorry. >> Well, it could be something in terms >> I believe so. Yes, cuz I talked to Becky and she was planning on reaching out to Kimley Horn. >> But if we do it in three items, if we do
it in three items and we leave the PDS as item three, when Kimley Horn isn't here next month, then we can have that discussion on pushing that item along with the other two that we have separated to the commission. >> Let's just and all we're saying really
as a board is that we would support or not support PDS. Can we the >> specific question to you guys? Are you asking us to prepare um a type of recommendation letter to the commission? You're not asking me to come back with resolutions and ordinances and changing
LDRs and all that. >> Just a recommendation letter recommendation letter. These are the writing it up. What's the easiest for the staff? >> The recommend. >> Oh, absolutely. A recommendation letter. There's no way we could get turn all this around by January. >> That's fine. Yeah, let's go. Recommendation. But we could say that.
So the LPA is recommending that you revisit the RFH50, >> right? >> At the same >> But the RHA50 it we've already that's already written up. >> It is. >> Couldn't we take I know you guys want to do all this. I do too. Let's just we can
start working on all three of them, but let's focus on the RF50. It's already written so that we can get something sent to them. I don't want to wait. the the timeline would be the same. The >> No, because this thing's already written. >> It would still have there's So, basically, the way that we're doing
this, Marvin, is it we would come back in three different items, right? Let's just take the item >> three different phases. >> Three three different three different phases. >> Three different times. >> It would still come back to us in January. We We could actually in the next meeting say, "Send item one, hold back item two." We could sit in the next meeting. We could sit in the next
meeting and say, "Send back two." >> Or we could say, "Send all three because we're good with the recommendation." >> We're just not. And we might say send number one. But hey, it's not at >> 80. It's at 78 ft and it's at this number one. And if the other two can be
done in time, great. If not, then we'll do it the next month or the month after. But we got to get something rolling here. >> That's I'm on board. >> I like continuing to knock on the commission's door. >> Great comparison. Since you used to live in St. Pete Beach, look at Corey Avenue and what Corey Avenue used to look like
to what it looks now. The restaurant chill was the catalyst that got that going. Now they got Corey Landings that's going to happen after 20 years. I just And then you compare that to our central business district where everybody sits there and goes, "What's
there to do for the residents? We got Foxies and that's pretty much it." >> That's depressing. >> Got a couple tattoo places, maybe a bakery, a cigar shop. >> That's awesome. My 5-year-old see a whole lot of tattoos on this board. Anyway, can we
>> So, >> just to finalize things, can we come up with a just a recommendation like Ross was saying >> except for the first one >> with those three. >> Well, even even the first one would be a recommendation. >> Well, you could have a recommendation, but we can also give them We've got all this all the work is already done on
that. >> Yes, it is. >> If we want to change a number or two, we can. >> We have to change the number because we're excluding 30. We have to change the number. >> No, I get it. But the rest of it >> So you want me to come back with a resolution and an ordinance >> for the first item? For the first item
>> identical to what the Thunderbird presented? >> Yeah. And then we may tweak it a little bit, right? >> Yeah. I mean, >> the other two, we'll do the re the recommendation that you're talking about, >> Tia. What's the um public >> to go through all the other stuff with the other two? That's a that's a lot of work. >> I think
>> I agree with that. Thinking about it, >> downtown has got to be included. I get I want to get there, but if if we get there, great. Send them both. >> Okay. >> But if we don't, let's send one. We know we're going to send one at the next meeting. >> You got to do it once at a time because
>> it collapses under its own weight of being too much. How many >> if you include the RFH and the Central Business District? Yeah. It would be too much to process. So, you just do them one at a time. and uh you
know so first one RFH 50 second one plan redevelopment mixeduse core which is our downtown and the third one a plan development that would in pretty much include everything else except for the residential areas
which will not change whatsoever. So in the case of the Thunderbird they they I know they were making a I know but in the CA I'm really now I'm saying in the case of the Thunderbird they their actual plan that they wanted to submit had a density of X and I I don't know
what that is in front of me. >> It was 100 units per acre. >> Okay. So it was 100 per acre. We were changing but the proposal on the LDR was to allow it to go to how much per acre? It was 150 for acreage over three.
>> Okay. So, it's 150 >> over three. >> Over three acres. They only got 1.84 acres over there. >> No, there's there's two pieces of property, right? >> Well, no, that's only for the what's west. They own east of Gulf Boulevard. This is only >> They're not talking about that. I'm talking about
>> But west of it is 1.84 acres. That's it. >> So, they >> that's how they came up with 184 units. Let's assume that Thunderbird figured out that economically it worked at 100. >> That's well below the 150 that was being
allowed in the LDR for other properties >> if they had three >> if they had three acres. So this is where I think we got push back and and so this goes to okay what is that right number if you want to just
get it enough maybe 100 max is the right number per acre. >> Well tell me how many pieces of property are three acres or more? >> None. But but you could put them together. The >> gators you know I'm okay with >> I'm just What's the other one? Ross
>> sounds better probably doesn't affect properties, but it might help sell >> club at TI >> or even the downtown. >> This is just this is just west of G Boulevard. >> Oh, yeah. Then it's then it's just that one. >> The only thing I just want to >> downtown there is um the Brown family
owns three acres. >> Downtowns are the heartbeats of a city without question. Ours is fluttering a little bit. That's okay. a lot of people like I would think that the Thunderbird would like to see some type of heartbeat get regenerated in regards to if they're going to pull the
trigger and go. I don't think if they see other things happening along the city, whether it's Green Leaf, I think that they kind of sit put because you got to have them going together. >> Which goes to your point that we should really we need to get that input from some of these developers through Joan. I know that
>> you can't get over here. >> Marvin, can't we >> I'll ask them again >> in the next meeting. In the next meeting when they bring item one, I really think that we should be looking at just reviewing the recommendation as like an item two for the core district. >> No, I I
>> mean, if we're going to send if you want to spend five hours at the next meeting, no problem because that's what it'll take to get and you may not even get it done then. So, I think my recommendation would be um and I will defer to the attorney here too is because the
amendment that we would need to that you're referring to for the RF50 is also a comp plan amendment. So, these aren't necessarily quick things that happened overnight. So, perhaps we can bring you back a draft of both the comp plan
amendment and the LDR the ordinance for the resolutions. Um, we also have it's a tight timeline with the holidays and publication dates for the agendas. So, for the first one, I think we could do our best to get that back to you as a draft, not as a we're going to approve
it today and take it to the commission in January. >> Basically, you're going to pretty much copy this the last one, right? And we may tweak it, >> right? But then it needs again, it has to go back to the county. We got to go back to the state. So, there's there's a lot of steps that come into this
particular or this one over here. Um, so I mean we could certainly take a look at it, but I just I don't want you to think that I'm gonna have everything all the tees crossed by the next meeting. I just don't think we can. >> Well, let me ask you a silly question here. It's already been to the state.
>> It's a new application. It would have to go again. It was denied >> and it would Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify unfortunately. Well, >> about does the city are you familiar with what we did on that or not? >> No, I'm not. Not on that specific one. What does cause me uh concern is that
yes, you are giving direction to to staff to come back with something, but there's a number of you and you guys may not be on the same page. >> I think we're on the same page. >> We're on the same page. >> I think Well, let's have a vote to determine that then because
>> because when they come back in January, we want to make sure that you have something that you can discuss and you can say, "Yes, this is what exactly what we wanted." um because we don't want to put the burden on staff or or me to try to make sure that we have hit everything
that you guys have in your in your minds. >> Basically, we're asking number one to come back with essentially the same thing and >> right you'll change a little bit but it's pretty much done right. I mean >> I think that's the main >> he already mentioned.
>> Maybe you know we have to change it because we can't show up with the same thing. >> Yeah. Let's put this way. Ross, >> yeah, >> why don't we have a vote here so Mary Ellen has some specific direction and I will try to summarize what I think I've
heard. Correct me where I'm wrong, but for what we're calling phase one will be ordinances and resolutions for reintroducing the modifications to the resort facilities high district 50 district. That'll be resolutions and
ordinances. Phase two will be our downtown area. That will just be a recommendation. The recommendation that we increase the density on that one to 60 units per acre. That's what the county comprehensive plan is. So, it's 60 units per acre. Leave the height
alone. And the third one is just to copy and paste Lee County's plan development ordinance and get it going and change the name to Treasure Island and get it going. I did uh plan developments in Lee County in 1995. So it's been 30 years that these things been on the books. So
let's make that as a recommendation as well. And that way we might be able to move something forward in the next five years. >> I'm in agreement with those three. >> Good. >> I can live with that. >> Same. >> Okay. Can we have a just a straw vote? >> Can I ask then on the very first one? Um
bringing back the RFH50 >> RFM. >> RFM. Sorry. >> RFH. No, it's resort facilities 100. Do you want the initial draft to be 100? And then you guys can discuss that and and say yes, that's what you wanted or >> I'm good with that because it's lower
than >> and we would have background information um working with our economic uh developer development uh staff member to to have support for the 100. >> Right.
>> So what I mean I don't know what support you're looking for. Well, the thing is from what I remember, anything over 3 acres was 150. Okay, we'll drop that to 100. That'll be a change. So, between one and anything, but anything bigger than one
is 100. Anything less than one. You're going to have a hard time squeezing 100 units on on >> I think it was 75 anyway. >> It was 75. But you I mean like like Arthur Zan's hotel over there, it's got 36 units.
Does he have an acre there? I don't know what he's got. But uh the only way you're going to get any more units on his piece of property is to go higher. And uh cuz he's pretty much wallto- wall over there. But yeah, I mean, but the thing is I
kind of like that 100 for everything above a >> an acre, 75 for everything less than an acre. >> And and I I don't have any preference at all. I'm just saying um we need to work with staff to have some um documentation
to support the reasoning, the rationale for that. I did hear some comments earlier about the fact that at 150 that was rejected. you were not able to get any um >> I think we didn't get public support so at least this is a compromise. >> Yeah. >> And it
>> I want to hear I want this stuff to go. I mean Kimy Horn's going to be here. I'm glad we're putting it back. I want because I know Kimley Horn is going to say you're going to need more >> for I I know that I know they are going to do it. I mean because it's it's math the mathematics of it doesn't support >> make sure they're here then.
>> Yeah. And I want Joan and the same thing with Joan. Like I mean if if everyone wants facts and analysis like I will trust a city staff member to say like this is what we need to get moving. >> It would be fantastic if Joan could from as an economic development person be
able to bring some evidence that what are the typical densities required to do successful projects in coastal areas in the United States. Um I suspect there's data like that. >> I think Kimley Horn has that too. >> Kimberly Horn may have that.
guaranteed they have it. >> Yeah. And that's part of what has I think we haven't seen and it's what the commission hasn't seen and it's what the public hasn't seen. >> There was >> what will support the ordinance. >> We're given too much responsibility to
Kimley Horn. They're an engineering outfit. There was an outfit that Joan Goodrich and Gary Volenac were looking at called Raffalus and they are a financial consultant that would come and study a phantom parcel here on on
Treasure Island and say this is what you need to do to make this profitable and then all the experts can disagree over that because there's a certain element of this city who has decided that five over one is all that's ever going to happen. Yeah, but I don't think
Green Leaf is gonna if if someone comes to Green Leaf and says this is what you should build for it to be profitable, Green Leaf is going to be like cool, thanks. Like they're like beat it type thing. >> We're going to build >> Green Leaf come in. >> I think having input from them would be a good thing.
>> Well, here >> I would love for them. I told them previously, I said, I'd love for you guys to attend an LPA meeting and show us what you want >> about this conversation that we just had. We are trying to make things happen. Right. Okay.
>> Maybe you can call Bobby to that extent and get her to talk to them. I think that's >> She's on vacation right now. But anyway, can we just have a vote about the three phases that I just outlined? >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Can you make a motion to that effect? >> Do you want to do them all three as one
or do you want I'm good. I will make a motion that all three recommendations that Richard Harris put in front of us, our chair, um to be directed for city staff in our next meeting. >> Second. >> Okay, we got a motion by Ross Sanchez, second by Marvin Chavelin. Can we have a
roll call vote? >> Yes. >> Patentiana, >> yes. >> Valia. >> Ross Sanchez? >> Yes. >> Daniel Billingsley? >> Yes. >> Chris Downing? >> Yes. >> Marvin Shavelin? Yes. >> Richard Harris? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Hey, that was pretty unanimous. How about that? pretty.
>> Thank you very much. Should we wind this up today? >> Thanks, Mary Ellen. >> Thank you. >> Anything else from anybody based on that? Could I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor? I
>> We're out of here.