We will start with a roll call, please. Gabrett? Here? Mohamed, here. Floyd, here. Gertis, here. All right. Thank you all for being here this morning. Before you, we have an agenda. I would entertain a motion for approval. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And we have our August 8, 2024 minutes of entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Move approval. All in favor? All right. We'll get right into our new business. We are going to start with a presentation from Joshua Johnson from our housing and community development department. He is going to bring to us the reappointment of two of our St. Pete Housing Authority board members, Kimberly Brown Williams and Angel Carlton. to ask the reappointment of two of our St. Pete Housing Authority Board members, Kimberly Brown, Williams and Angel Carlton. Good morning, Joshua. Good morning, Chair and members of the Housing, Land, Youth and Transportation Committee. The city brings forward the mayor recommends appointment of Miss Kimberly Brown, Williams and Miss Angel Chalton for another term at the St. Pete Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. I was spoken with the executive officer. He said that they have both provided exemplary services and would like to see them continue. We have a situation. We caused this meeting was taged Miss Angel Charlton could not make it today. She tried to reschedule. She could not but Miss Kimberly Brown Williams is here. So I'd like to bring her up. I think she was expecting that part, but that's okay. Welcome. Thank you for being here with us today and thank you for your flexibility on the schedule. We appreciate it. Did you want to say anything? Just a little pleasure to serve on the Housing Authority Board. I've learned a lot. I think that brought a lot of value to developing that new board. So long. Yeah. Yes. And it's an awesome experience. Well, thank you so much for your service. Thank you for being willing to continue to serve. We are all very familiar with struggles of the past. Thank you so much for your service. Thank you for being willing to continue to serve. We are all very familiar with struggles of the past. However, it is a brand new day at the St. Pete Housing Authority, and we're very proud of the work that you all do in your partnerships. So thank you so much. Council members, any questions? Move approval. All right. Very good. With that, all in favor? All right. All right, very good with that. All in favor? All right. All right. We will take it upstairs for final confirmation. Thank you so much. All right. So now we're going to move into our residential land development LDR regulation update. This was actually a staff request joining us today. We are with Liz Abernathy, our Director of Planning and Development Services in Cory, Milischa, our zoning official. And so we are going to go ahead and get right into the presentation. There is a lot to discuss on this item. So we'll go through the entire presentation and then we'll take questions at the end. Great. All right, Cory, go right ahead. Thank you. Cory, Milischa is only official with the city of St. Petersburg. This is Scott Bollyard deputy. Oh, Scott. Thank you for being with us. Good morning, Liz Abernathy. Just a quick background and then I'm gonna let Cory get right to it. So some of you maybe we're here. I can't even remember in 2017 we did a major code update. Okay. None of us. None of you. None of us. We really overhauled all the regulations in our single family residential districts. I think we had 85 changes that we brought forward. And that's when we brought forward the FAR limits in the traditional neighborhoods with the bonuses. So part of this exercise was really going back and looking at how are those bonuses working. Were they working as intended? We did a presentation to Council in 2019 as kind of an update. And then this is again another update again, looking at those bonuses. And then looking at anything else that we know, we might need to modify in the code. So we really aren't looking at any substantial changes here. There really it's kind of cleanup items. But as we hear from Council, if there's anything else that, you know, Council wants to kind of add to the list, many of these items came that are on in the presentation today were committee new business items that were brought over over different, different items over the years. And so what we're trying to do is kind of group everything together in one code amendment package to address things that we've heard, whether that was in a new business item, whether it was from stakeholders, whether it's from staff. We try to do this kind of comprehensive look at the different sections of the code on a regular basis for that reason. So would that all let Cory take the lead? And in 2017 when I was the zoning official, I took the lead on that package. So I'm handing the baton to Cory, your zoning official to kind of be lead this time. And I'm just here as his bank. Lucky you for it. And also Braden Evans who's sitting behind me as a planner too. this time and I'm just here as his bank. Lucky you. And also Braden Evans is sitting behind me as a planner too. He actually works in Derek's division. He has helped us as well. That's a problem issue. So moving forward really quick. As Liz explained in 07 is when we did the citywide rezoning. That's one NT and NS zoning districts were created. We did an update in 0 in 17 with the FAR, which is a Florida ratio, Maximums in the NT districts, which was something that was never done in the city and not really done throughout the country. Very few communities actually had this. And this was an outcry after the recession. A lot of big houses were coming into, especially the older neighborhoods, the historic districts like Kenwood, Rosa Park, historical northeast. And as Liz said, in 19, we kind of just did a general little cleanup. And we're back again. So since 17, since we adopted the FAR bonuses, we've had almost 2,000 new homes constructed. And of that, about 356 houses used the bonuses that we established. And so for this update, what we're looking at is the bonuses, are they working or not working who's using them the most and Scott will get into that. And also just from as Liz said, against we heard things at council committee meetings such as walls over six foot tall, artificial turf using metal as material too for the fun scene. And also just looking at cleaning up some of the code language than the lot of gray areas that we have in the code. So again, things that come up, we asked and we had our stakeholder meetings, we had two meetings, one in May and one in June at hospice. So we talked to them about artificial turf, the fence regulations, Hayman-Alufra sidewalk construction, screening of equipment, also like bay windows, also domestic equipment in front yards. And again, we kind of just briefly went through this history about where we are at today. And so I'm going to hand this off to Scott where he's going to go into kind of the permitting process, what's been approved and the bonuses utilized. So as Cory mentioned, since 2017, we have had about 2,000 permits issued for new single-family residences. 356 of those utilized FAR bonuses. And since 2017, a total of 396 building permits have utilized FAR bonuses and these include permits for additions to existing homes and accessory dwelling units in addition to the new single family residences. The FAR limit and bonus are only applicable in the neighborhood traditional zoning districts. The next several slides will provide a summary of each FAR bonus and how many times they were used. The first one is FAR bonus A. It grants a .08 bonus when a one-story cover porch with a separate roof structure spanning at least 60% of the front facade is provided. This was used on over half of the new homes that utilized FAR bonuses and was the most utilized bonus. And if I can interrupt you for just one second, that whole concept behind the bonuses is allow a bigger house but not have it feel so big and bulky and out of character with the neighboring houses. So how can you take a big box and make it maybe look and feel a little smaller through these design and these FAR bonuses and help these houses to fit in better. So just kind of a background as you look at some of the architecture that we've been getting through the bonuses and just kind of the underlying reason for those bonuses. Thanks, Scott. Ulyss. And the top row here shows homes that have the front porches across the entire front facade with. The bottom row homes are the front porches which just met the 60% threshold to obtain the bonus. The next one at FAR bonus B requires a minimum of one third of the second floor to be stepped back from the front facade on the first floor by at least six feet. Additional bonuses are granted if the entire second floor facade is set back. A maximum of 0.10 and bonuses can be obtained with this FAR bonus B. FAR bonus B was used 29 times, representing 7.3% of the bonuses used. So I think you can really see in those photos how kind of breaking up that second story makes it not feel so big and bulky and I think that that and the porch. Because again that full porch kind of brings your eye down. It helps make it feel not like such a big house. So I think both of those have been pretty effective in meeting the goal of having the houses be more consistent. Bonus C grants a .01 additional FAR for each foot that each side facade of the entire second story is set back from the side facade of the first story. So it can't just be an additional setback that providing that to actually step that second floor back from the first floor. And they can get a bonus of maximum 0.05 for that one. This bonus was used 19 times, or almost 5% of the FAR bonuses utilized. FAR bonus D also deals with the second story. It grants up 0.05 bonus when the total floor area of the second story does not exceed 75% of the first story. This one was used 33 times at a rate of 8.3% of the FAR bonuses utilized. FAR bonus E requires a reduction in the height for both the peak of the roof and the beginning of roof line from the maximum allowable height. A 0.02 FAR bonus is granted for each foot below the max side allowed for the peak of roof, which has a max side of 36 feet in the beginning of roof line, which has a max side of 24 feet. So they need to be below both of those numbers in order to get the bonus. This one was used 134 times. It was about 30, just over a third of the FAR bonuses utilized. This one is used quite often. Bonus F grants a .02 bonus when the peak roof line is parallel to the front property line. An additional .02 bonus is granted if they have dormers along at least 20% to front facade. This allows the house to present to the street in a very traditional manner. Bonus F was used 26 times at a rate of 6.6%. The FDR bonus is utilized. Bonus G deals with side facade articulation. This one gets a .02 bonus. Supplied per side, if an offset is at least two feet deep and at least 12 feet in length and provided within the front two thirds of the structure, that way you can see visible from the right of way. Bonus G was used 15 times at a rate of 3.8 percent. The bonus is used. Bonus H for front facade articulation grants up to 0.10 in FAR bonuses when at least one third of the front facade, excluding the front porch, features an offset. There's at least six feet in depth. This one was used 18 times and it rated 4.6%. Bonus I provides a 0.03 bonus when all windows have true or simulated divided light buttons on interior and exterior windows surfaces. If the buttons are between the panes of glass on the window then it does not claw up high for the bonus. They need to actually physically be on the exterior and interior surfaces. This one was used 70 times and at a rate 17.7% of the bonus is used. Bonus J grants a 0.15 bonus if the principal structure is one story. With this bonus they can still construct a two story accessory structure in the rear and receive the bonus. This one was used 24 times, that's 6.1%. Bonus K provides a 0.2 zero bonus, which is the maximum FAR bonuses any site can use if all buildings are proposed to be one story. This one was only used six times. Bonus L will grant a 0.1 zero bonus at the architectural style, building materials, and detailing are all consistent with an architectural style provided within the St. Petersburg design guidelines for store properties. The bonus was used 75 times, at a rate of 19%. These are typically we'll see craftsmen. We've seen a few Mediterranean revival, mostly craftsmen, minimal traditional or that that bonus was added just because I've lived through all of that towards the end of the process because we had some of the neighborhood stakeholders who wanted to limit architectural styles to just those styles that are in the neighborhoods and concerns about modern styles not fitting in. So rather than restrict, we gave a bonus if they did choose a style that was consistent with our architectural patterns. So that's how that one kind of got added to the bonuses towards the end of the process in order to address some of the concerns we heard from neighborhood stakeholders throughout that process. In bonus end, we're going to say point zero one bonus for planning a larger shade tree between the front facade of the home and the curb. And that shade tree has to have a minimum four inch caliper eight to ten foot spread and must be at least 14 feet tall. Applicants can plant up to two larger shade trees for a maximum of 0.02 bonus. This one was used 55 times at a rate of 13.9%. And we have bonus N, which grants a 0.05 bonus for constructing a home in compliance with lead or floor-to-green building council standards. Only four homes have utilized this bonus. And then we also have a bonus for being solar ready, 0.02 NFAR bonus. If it's, they have to, you know, they have to have a minimum 200 amp panel. They have to prove that the roof can sustain the load, and they also have to run the conduit from the electric panel up to the roof. This one was used 27 times. Okay, I'm sure back over to Corey. Thank you. So we've had this discussion not too long ago, but a year and a half, not even with artificial turf. And so many of you are aware of, you know, this has come up by TBBA representatives about adding this. We've had some code cases. At this point, staff hasn't been making any changes to this. But basically, how we look at the front yard on corner lots again, we allot 25% impervious interior lots and the front yard is 45%. The remainder would have to be permeable in those yards. And then we have a site ISR which ranges You know depending on the zoning district you're in you know from 50 to 65% And we had a cub Real quickly and again the committee has not given staff definitive direction on this item yet But we're including it because we were going out to stakeholders and we wanted to get feedback from the community on these items. So that if this was the right time to make code changes and we could report back to Council on what we're hearing from the community when we're doing this overall discussion of code changes that affect the residential neighborhood. So that's part of why this is in here. If you're wondering why is this in here now, it's because we wanted to get stakeholder feedback during the process on these items. If I may, I think I'm gonna pause right here for a second because this item has been on our referral list quite a long time. I mean, to your point, a year and a half, right? So Council Member Gertis, this is your item. I would like just to kind of pause and give you a moment because you know we can't talk to each other so I've been very interested to know like what kind of behind-the-scenes work is being done on this item. I'm confident Councilmember Gertis has been continuing to work on it so I would personally love and update if you don't want to share with us. Thank you very much, Sher. Yeah, I've had a couple of meetings, a handful of meetings over the last five or six months, most of which with people that install turf and deal with this every day, and then also with the handful of residents, and then also a bunch with Claude as well. And so I think where we're at and I don't think cloud is here so. I thought I saw him pop in. But we have kind of overcome the permeability issue to where if it's done correctly, it can be considered a permeable use. What we're trying to figure out now is what type of change we want to make. And so my suggestion to staff, or at least to cloud up to this point, and I think the next step was to meet with the cloud and Liz. And then bring it back here was to start in the backyards, increase the area of opportunity to turf your back yard, have it permitable, so you'd need a permit, and then there would be some requirements about that. The type of turf that you use and how it was installed are the two big ones, in order for us to make sure that it's permeable and to make sure that anything that any runoff you did have was drained correctly. And so those were the two big things that we needed to overcome. I think I've got, I won't put words in Claude's mouth, but I think we're in agreement of starting in backyards, starting at smaller, increasing the space and if it works and people are listening and they're doing it the right way then we could then explore bringing it to front yards. But that's kind of where we're at at this point. I'm happy to answer any questions or is about it too. Okay council members, any questions on this particular item for either staff or council member Gertis? I mean, we're going to go through the present. We are, but it's always gonna just cause. Maybe we table this. Table is already separate item. Yeah. We'll be bringing it back to HLUT as its own standalone item. Right, and it's still on the referral list. If the timing works and we get direction, then maybe it'll be part of this LDR package. If not, it can just travel as it sounds to read item. Okay. Yeah, I think we were hoping to do it. Also, we were creating more work. And what is the timing of the LDR right now? Hopefully before the end of the year. So we were hoping to workshop in October at DRC, and then DRC public hearing in November. So if we come back potentially with the artificial turf item to you in October, it could still travel and I'm sorry I didn't finish the timeline. So DRC in November and then Council in December. So that was the goal. But there's also, like I said, we could separate them if needed depending on the direction we get. But the purpose for having it in this package right now is to get stakeholder feedback. Which I appreciate. OK. Because I didn't want to then have to say, oh, well, then now we've got to go out and get state call. Let's get neighborhood feedback. And Corey's also going to be presenting to Kona. So that this topic will come up to Kona. We'll get their feedback as well. OK. Oh, I'm sorry, Chair. The other thing I would say is I know there was a question about PFAS and like water runoff. That would be part of the permitting process. There are turfs that do not have that problem, and so we would make sure that as we created that permitting process that would be included in it to make sure we didn't have that problem. Thank you. I appreciate that. That was one other one. I knew there was one more I was forgetting. So I don't want to sidetrack the conversation too much, but I do want to be respectful of my colleagues. So Councilmember Floyd, do you have anything that needs to be addressed now as part of the process going into us bringing it back in October? You know, the only thing that jumps out about me, jumps out at me about this is that it came from situations where you had people installing it and, you know, I guess illegally. And I mentioned last time we had this conversation about, you know, it was an elderly resident, I think, that honestly, it felt like they got taken advantage of by the company. I'm just, would encourage staff, and I know clause not here, to really take a strong view over how we can regulate this, because I'm not comfortable with it right this second. And so I hear Councilman Brigadier is talking about the permitting. I would need to see a lot, but, you know, and I've spoken to the industry group pushing this and staff over it as well. And I think there's still industry group pushing this and the and staff over it as well. And I think there's still some questions to be answered. And I also want to also get everybody oh, make sure everyone's aware that there's also like people coming to us talking about more sustainable and native vegetation and lawns as well. And these things are juxtaposed completely. And so just be aware of that as we go forward with this conversation. Well, that's funny that you mentioned that because that was gonna be my only comment. Was I was going to ask if staff has been exploring because we have had residents come to us. There aren't any new business items filed right now, so I don't know what council members are looking at. That's what I'll say. I am working on it. You're working on this. You're working on this. Okay. I think I'm meeting with Dean Hay about some of the stuff that they've been going through. And so I can say like, I don't know when I'll be bringing anything forward, but I will be bringing some forward pretty soon. Yeah. forward pretty soon. Yeah, perfect. Because I've kind of put this to the side, but in my like, don't forget about pile because I think it's very much something we need to look at. So I'm happy to hear that you're working on that and just kind of wanted to make sure we while we were all having this. This is very helpful to prepare to bring it back. Exactly. Exactly. And that was kind of my plan. I want us to bring back. Right. Appreciate the feed. Okay. We appreciate that. And correct. I'm actually we met with Dean yesterday and stopped the chopped folks that you're aware that spoke with you as well. Perfect. About a couple of things that we're adding into this code that they were pleased with. Okay. And also Dean's division he's going to be looking at landscape code holistically where we're looking to set a couple little pieces and we'll get into that in this presentation. So yes, that will probably be coming. We'll be back again. All right. Perfect. Well, that is all very good news. So I'm very happy about the way that worked out. So all right, let's move on. All right. So I already saw all these images before and the history and where this has kind of been through. Nettle fences came up to you as one. This came before a committee meeting a while ago where people were getting cited for installing corrugated metal fences and using different building materials that you would see as siding or as roofing materials. So we brought this out to the public as well for any comments and concerns. And I want to conclude at the end of this where a lot of the neighbors fell on this. But this is kind of what was seen out there. And they were cited by codes. This is like roofing material from the far away. It looks fine, but up close, you can tell it looks like roofing material. And this is just some other ones where they dressed it up maybe with the top rail and side rails. It's not as reflective but then this piece you can see. So it's have some of the issues too is the appearance and the reflective nature of some of this material. This is close up. All right, so we discussed with materials, framing, what would the neighbors and the residents like to see. We also came before PSI. This was about two years ago. This was about the tall fences. As well, we brought this to the stakeholders. And again, some of the concerns were raised on larger properties of 150 feet in length, brought this to the stakeholders. And again, some of the concerns were raised on larger properties of 150 feet in length, having a six-foot wall. And we looked citywide, and this is about 435 parcels, which equates to 2.005% that would be able to do this. And of that, we found 73 parcels in a single family. The other part was multi-family developments. And then 35 of these actually have walls or fences that met this. And these were just examples again of what we saw out in the field. The big one on the left-hand side that was the serpentine drive that was where the started from. And then so we have a mixture of transparent OPEG, walls and fences. And this is the kind of what we found out in the field. And then what we can see is decorative. On a wall, it's finished with Stucco primarily. Fences, it's either a PVC, raw dire and wound ticket. Then you get the stain, shadow box, reward and board fencing. We do require some landscape in front of the fences as well. And that will depend on its length and the height. We're also looking one thing we've had is not to say this, but you know we do have developers that take advantage of some of our encroachments that we have in the code, such as Bay windows. So we don't have a definition of what a Bay window is, and a definition of Bay window is a Bay with glass. So we've had folks come out to get a three foot encroachment, so they would extend out a whole room for the majority of the house. And that's a huge encroachment on the neighbor, especially if it's on the second floor. So we're looking actually at some other communities and what they did. And so we don't want the Bay Window at ground we want to elevate it above the ground 12 inches, especially if it's an elevated home, because Bay Windows typically aren't slab-ungrade. They're going to be a little elevated. 12 inches, especially if it's an elevated home, because the bay windows typically aren't slab-ungrade. They're going to be a little elevated. But then you might have a two-story bay window. If you have a two-story house, but also looking at a minimum percentage of glazing in that bay. Now, some communities did limit the linear frontage of that bay window as a third of the linear foot of the facade, or some just looked like lasing, especially in Florida glazing if this is in fact great of glass, it's gonna be very expensive and would also limit how much of a bay someone will do, as well as ASP can't leave it off of the house as well. And also we looked at payment and loofers sidewalks. So as you see, many of your neighborhoods have sidewalks, some don Looper sidewalks. So as you see, many of your neighborhoods have sidewalks, and I don't have sidewalks. So recently, there's been a couple sidewalk variances that we coordinate with our transportation folks and engineering folks. The one that we recently denied was the church first street and 60-second Avenue because it's across from the new school and the YMCA. We also had a couple where we did a partial variance because there are a corner lot, but they're also leading from a major street 38. So we didn't want to wave a sidewalk leading to a major street. But then we have neighborhoods where there's no sidewalks at all, or if that we put a sidewalk, it's just in the middle of a neighborhood connecting to nowhere. Or we have some of our historic neighborhoods that have no sidewalks. We've heard from Hona, for instance, where they asked for this, instead of requiring some of the go through a variance process, because they had one street with no sidewalks. And it would change the character. And we also have had issues with trees. We've also had issues with gradient and slope. So we've heard from actually stopped the chop actually liked that we have this option to maybe save a grand tree in the right away. We've also heard from of course the builders associations where it's a sidewalk that goes nowhere. And what we would do is the city's transportation department is actually working on a comprehensive sidewalk plan. So this would be a fun that would be set up that a developer would deposit money into it just like we do for our open space, art, workforce housing, and then the city could take that money to implement the sidewalk plan. So that's something we're putting out there, and this is in lieu of going through a variance process. A variance process costs $350, and then there's that opens you up, because there's a lot of criteria on that. And so also domestic equipment, we did bring this forward to the neighbors about potentially what is allowed now to, if there was amendments made, such as parking in the front yard and what equipment could and could not be parked in the front yards. You know, and we show them this picture of what, you know, the front yard could look like depending. So some of the ideas that we looked at is that we received some feedback from the meetings. We had two meetings, one in May, one in June. We had about 13 people show up, total. We, and this was just the citizens, we had some that came from historical northeast, historic Kenwood, Kenwood, North Kenwood as well. And they're looking at extending maybe one of the bonuses to do preservation of existing chaterees on the property instead of just having them say, install larger trees may be preserved a specimen tree Which is tree that's 12 inches in diameter larger that is on our chateree list like a live oak also looking at Doing different bonuses for increasing the elevation of the foundations This was brought by a few architects in historical Northeast where some of the older homes were actually elevated higher at 18 inches and not what we require at 12 inches. So having had the consistency of the porch. We also heard about removing the bonus A, which was the bonus for, if you do this historic design, you get that. And also looking at relationship of, you know, F.A.R. regulations to the local district. So we did have some folks from Kenwood who aren't here today. They were going to provide us some information, but they do have some concerns about bulk demand still. So the overall size of the house. So for instance, one of the residents talked about the two story house goes all the way back through the yard where a lot of the older homes didn't. It's not as much as necessarily about the style, there could be a modern home. And then we have some where the two story house today compared to a two story house back when the neighborhood was being built, there's a difference. And so there's a significant height change because they're maxing out maybe 10 foot ceilings instead of eight foot ceilings. Or, and so we did for ask for some feedback and some examples and fortunately, I didn't receive that from them about what the physical concerns where staff could have went out and done site visits. We actually could have measured the height differentials. So that was expressed by them. I told them that we're not looking at changing the permitted FAR at this point, but that could be a discussion, because that would be a long-term discussion, where we'd have to actually involve a lot more stakeholders, because that wasn't really the intent of this, and put that out to the community on its own. And then that's, if Council's direction, if we did that, there would be probably another year process and that piece. And then of course, oops. They also didn't like the domestic equipment in the front yard of the neighbors. So that was a big no. Some of the pavement and blue option, really no feedback. Artificial turf really no feedback. The metal fences, they said, if they're nice, decorative metal panels. Not roofy materials or siding materials, something that's non-reflective, they didn't have an issue with that in the code. Let's see what else. So yeah, those are the big three. Then we also met with Tampa Bay Builders Association, as well, and that's the really the only private sector that we actually heard from. We did provide notice to preserve the bird. They did show up to the one meeting as well as the Reelers Association. But preserve the bird. Again, they would like us to look at the fenestration transparent requirements. If there's a potential for reducing that, potential for not having that requirement on the rear of a building, also expanding architectural styles that we could use on our bonus L, which was, is that the, that's the historical on our homepage. Because we do have another resource we use that's not just the same Pete historic design guideline book that we use around, because that limits us to only a few architectural styles. And also you're mending the repetitive design requirement. Some of this, what they're looking at is not the same house over and over, but we get maybe a similar architectural style, but the massing of the house is different. It might be an L shape instead of a rectangle or a box. It might be a one story instead of a two story, but how the design regulation speaks, it says architectural stuff. So expanding that meaning into you, it could be the same architectural style, but if the massing is different, proportions of the house are different than that's fine. Because right now we also say it can change the roof line, you know, porch columns, things of that nature. So kind of clarifying that a little bit and providing a little more opportunity. Also, they wanted to do, right now we allow a porch to encroach into the Southback, especially in the historic neighborhoods. Portses were there. And so you could do a second floor of balconies open to the air. There's no roof on it. They would like us to actually allow that roof structure. So it could potentially be more impact, which could be counterintuitive to the neighbors that are thinking some of those are too big. But again, TBBA was going to provide us documentation. We haven't heard back from them either. So some of these things staff isn't looking to change because we haven't received contact from those groups. And also the one about that we do have minimum porch requirements, but we do have some architectural styles like colonial's which don't really have a porch. They have a stoop. So we're looking to clarify that as well. So like yes, the stoop would be fine, but that's normal, but it wouldn't be fine on a bungalow. So, that's a little clarification. And we did, of course, the TBBA didn't have support for that. The sidewalk payment eliu. Auschins, that are going through the variants. And then we also, let's see. I'm also looking at, we have some in the flood zones. We do have issues with Duke Energy and their platforms. And, you know, a lot of the times these platforms aren't used at all, but they're required by Duke Energy. So, if someone had to go there to look at the meter, they could. A lot of people are actually taking them off after they get a CO on their house, but a lot of times they encroach, but they're usually only maybe two, three foot off the grade, and so our code would say it would have to meet the setback, you know, seven and a half feet. Well the house is already there, and they usually put the meter on the side of the house. So is there some relaxation for Duke Energy platform that's never used, but is required by Duke Energy. Because typically we have these setbacks as the potential encroachment of privacy from your neighbor on a deck looking over into your backyard. And also look, like I said, we talked about the fenestration requirements as well. And we already talked about two about the ADU and the NS District, which we're going to do a little tweak to that and Liz has a little more information on that, but you want to discuss that. But that's, and that was it. And again, we didn't receive any emails. When we talked to you, residents, we have a web page for the timelines. And so that was just some of the feedback we got. All right. Well, thank you. Any final before I go to council? So there's a lot here, right? A lot of things. We knew that coming into it. Yeah. So I think what will be helpful for staff today is just to get a sense of are there things that need more conversation or more time the discussion of base FAR if we are going to go back and look at changing that we would want to bring forward more data. What went into establishing the base FARs was really an analysis of overall citywide. What's the FAR of existing homes? We did an analysis of what's the FAR of what's been built in the last 10 years? So what's the market building now? How does that compare to what's existing? And then we made a recommendation to counsel at the time of what the base FAR should be. And there was a lot of back and forth between neighborhood stakeholders who wanted a lower base FAR. Staff at the time was suggesting a .5 FAR in the NT2 and NT3 and the neighborhoods wanted a .3 and the compromise ended up being a point four. So I kind of feel like overall, the base where we landed, the FAR bonuses we have are really doing the job we intended with making the homes fit in better, and we're not seeing a need to revisit those base FARs. But if there's an interest in doing that, We're not seeing a need to revisit those base FARs. But if there's an interest in doing that, I would like the time and opportunity to bring more information and data back to council on that matter. And then I think that means then we're looking at maybe this package pushing to the first quarter of next year and we're gonna have new council people that also are probably gonna wanna weigh in. So I would then suggest we, if we're gonna look at a substantial change like changing the base FAR, that we would push this package into next year and kinda readress these things. But if they're, and that also can happen separately. We can move forward on some of these things and knock them out this year and still come back, again, in the future and address-based FAR, if that's the desire of council. But that's kind of a big, that's kind of a big more substantive change. And then whatever we wanna hear from you on what feedback maybe you have on these individual items. And if there's also an interest in coming back to committee again. So there's a lot going on here. We don't want to rush you or make you feel like anything has to be done this year. If there's anything that needs a little bit more work, we could also pull it out and maybe just get some of these items off the table. So I just want to give you flexibility, and we want to hear your thoughts kind of generally about what you're hearing, what your feedback is on these. And some of the concerns about the FAR actually came from historic kind of wood. So you're probably well aware of it. And some of it is that's why a lot of it, they did do local designations. But then some of them, I guess, from what the neighbors are saying, some of the neighbors that decided to designate locally, now they're thinking of getting out of it, because I get to see the C-O-A process, which is through, you know, our historic division, and it's another layer of red tape, we'll call it. Yeah, so it's a quandary, and then we also heard, do we go to a form-based code instead of FAR or is there additional setbacks on the second floor in that district? And the thing is, we have NT12 and three in that citywide. They're all the same. It doesn't really go to the neighborhood. Otherwise it would be like, either historic preservation does that. Or there would be a lot of overlays having to be created to be wide, which is just another layer of review, staff time, things of that nature that would be involved with that, or do we look at additional setbacks, depending on, you know, but again, as Liz said, you know, this would be something that would be a longer discussion, and we'd have to bring the builders and the community together as one which we haven't done. Well, we didn't say they could and they just then come together to the stable of you. All right, so committee members. I think other than the artificial turf, we can kind of start to go through everything maybe systematically and you're questioning. So we'll start with Councilmember Floyd because I saw you jumping on something earlier and I was like hold on one second. So Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. I will start with the easy thing that I was jumping on earlier. Sidewalks. Yes, very much like the idea of payment in lieu of. You have a neighborhood that doesn't have any sidewalks Now you're gonna put a sidewalk there that goes to nowhere makes a lot more sense to pay into a fund that could possibly Be used to go into a neighborhood that does have sidewalks everywhere And there's a block that doesn't and we can make our sidewalk system more logical We can maintain what exists now and then once then once we're in a good place there, then we can talk about expanding and what that looks like. So yes, I like that. And I'm glad to hear that it seems like everyone is interested in it. Everything else is about FAR. So the first thing is that there's a lot of bonuses. And I'm going to show my ignorance. How many bonuses can you use? Like I'm assuming there's a limit to how much you can get up to. Yeah, what is that? Right. Point two is the most bonus you can get. So, you know, NT1 is 0.5, as it has a bright, FAR, and then you can get a bonus to go up to 0 a right, FAR, and then you get a bonus to go up to .7, NT2 and NT3 start at .4 FAR, and you point to bonus to go up to .6 FAR. Okay, great. Thank you. What about, or so, what is getting built? Like what size are the things getting built? I know different bonuses are utilized, different places, like, let's see. Well, the numbers help tell us that, right? So we know how many use the bonuses. So those are going to point six and how many didn't. So they're staying at their base. I just didn't know if there was like an average or something. Yeah. I think we could start with me at the back. We'll back to the beginning, because you have the numbers. Start. A lot more slides in here I thought. Because we have the numbers of how many were used, right? How many homes we had built? But how many were used in the traditional neighborhoods? That's a different number, right? Well, we don't have bonuses in that. Right. How many homes were built in NT and what percentage used that? It was, uh, yeah. It's on the first page if I can get to it. So, you know, almost 2000 new single-family residents, and 300 of those 356 used the FAR bonuses. So, what? In the traditional, in the traditional residents. You're pushing like, well, one out of every six. One out of every six in the traditional neighborhoods That I know we had that number outside. We'll move on. I'll find that That's that's fair. I mean if you just say that each one used a point to Totally then like we're still not growing much about it. They're not all going. Yeah, not all maxing out I mean, you see a fair share that do max it out but generally it's you know maybe they're like an extra 0.08 and then they are 0.03 yeah we'll see sometimes they'll combine I think I've seen at least four FAR bonuses used on homes in several cases I don't recall haven't seen one that you had to use five bonuses because once you start recording together usually with that front porch one, this point 08, usually only another one or two bonus that might get you to the whole point two. Yeah, it sounds like, you know, on average what we're building is not much more than the base. So, okay, that was really my only thought. OK, well then, I'm going to be pretty quick actually. I have also talked to people in historic and wood a lot. And I've encouraged them, and I think that they are accepting of it, to not focus so much on their neighborhood and focus on what you know, what changes they would like to see that could be digestible to everyone across the city. And so, because I think, you know, it's difficult to like start having a conversation about what we want to happen here specifically. But I think we can come up with things that, you know, are good for everyone. I think there's unique complaints there, but there's things that I hear from every neighborhood that that neighborhood cares about a lot. So I'm optimistic that we can work in that direction instead of like overlays or anything like that. And I think that a lot of people there think that that would be probably the smoothest path forward. Having said that, they also did bring up like an envelope or form based. I am interested in hearing y'all's thoughts on that like and if that's feasible. I mean, that's what this is. We already did it. We have that. That's what an FAR is. It is a size limit. It is a form based code. I always describe our code as hybrid, even before we did this in the neighborhoods. I mean, with that said, only in the traditional. And we had a discussion of, do we want FAR limits in the suburban neighborhoods in the discussion? We had to counsel at the time was, no, we don't want to go there in the suburban. We made some other design changes at the time, but we did not do an FAR base because we wanted a lot more flexibility on the suburban lots which tend to be bigger homes, right? And we don't tend to have as much conflict in those neighborhoods or here about compatibility. So, um, and the form base would probably rid of the bonuses totally and just be this is your box. That's it, which we already have previous to the bonuses, but there was really no size limit where this might limit the size. And then the form base we would have to almost do, you would do additional setbacks, you know, as the house rises, like we do downtown, is there additional setback? Or like some of them claim that the house won't all the way back. Is there a separation between the garage and the house or is the second floor that has a set of six or 10-foot setback? Is it a 20-foot setback? No second floor. I think that's kind of what they were looking at too. But like Liz says, yeah, I mean, with the FAR mix with our setbacks, you're kind of, you're getting into that kind of form. there's different ways to look at form-beats. I'm trying to figure out what we're trying to solve. So if we're trying to have, instead of one big building, two separate buildings, and is that a bonus that says that if you have a yard, you have two separate buildings, you get a bonus. You know, so what are we trying to solve that we aren't already solving with the FAR bonuses, And can we tweak those in a way that is going to get us what there's an interest in getting? So I guess the question is, and I know some of the interest from the neighborhoods are, we don't want to story homes. We only want one story homes, but we really, that's not something that staff is going to recommend because that takes away a lot of property rights that people have now within expectation of being able to build a two-story home. So again, that's just kind of what these bonus wars were helping to do by we give a really big bonus if you build a single-story home and you don't have to do anything else. So that, or if you're going single story home and you don't have to do anything else. So that, or if you're going to have two story that you push the second story back, or you break that box up so it's not one long, continuous wall. So I think it would be helpful and maybe we can reach out to them again is give me some examples of the homes that you feel are in conflict. And go out and look at those in the field. And is it okay? Is it one that was built before we had this regulation? Before we adopted this? Or did it come after? And what bonuses did they use? Because really part of the sex or size was looking at, are the bonuses working the way we intended them to? A lot of these bonuses came directly from neighborhood stakeholders. They wanted these added. We didn't start with quite this long of a list until we met with. There was a kind of a design stakeholder group that had representatives from Old Northeast and Kenwood that sat on that group and worked with us on these bonuses. And we also ran them by builders, but some of them were architects. So they suggested some of these bonuses, and that's how we got kind of as many as we did is because we were getting feedback from stakeholders to add some more of these bonuses that they thought would be helpful in addressing the character question and compatibility. So I feel generally like it's really working and maybe we can get some more feedback. I mean, if it comes down to this question of one story versus two story and are we gonna adopt a prohibition and a certain neighborhood of no two story homes and that's a bigger, that's kind of a bigger question. I'm not sure I haven't heard anything about that. I think people know that that's not going to happen and not something that people are questioning. I mean maybe they are but no one's brought it up to me and because I think that the people I've talked to have been trying to find like reasonable solutions and that one seems quite drastic. But I have heard things about like the second story not going so far into the backyard. I've heard concerns about that, which I think that that's a thing that we could work out. So that's maybe that's a bonus that we create and we give it a lot of points. Yeah. So that we don't get that, you know, we incentivize somebody not to do that by giving that a higher point ratio. Okay. And then the last thing that I'll say is the base FAR being lower, I tend to be on that side of things. Just trying to limit the size of how homes, I think you can build quite a large home on quite a small lot right now. And it's not just about like the environment, or like built environment aspect, but it's the environmental aspect as well as the cost aspect. People are selling homes by the square foot and they're going to try to get, you know, if I was a builder I would do the same thing, try to build as big of a home as possible, so I could sell it for as much as possible. And it's impacting the cost of homes here and impacting our environment as well. So I just would be interested in that broader discussion. I have no idea where my colleagues are on it. But I, and I would be reasonable and just like to know what the trade-offs are there, but I am interested in the conversation. That's all, thanks. All right, Council Member Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions. Can we go to bonus D? Emma, and a couple of these I just might be silly to be honest. This is the most complicated thing I think I've ever done here. More complicated and engineering things, yes. Well, I mean, I have a a technical background but it's not like this okay I'm trying to figure out does this home have a second floor okay can we go to the next page I did the same thing I'm like and the one on the right has a second floor okay I was so confused. I'm looking at it. Look, look. I'm looking at it. Yeah, I guess maybe that's what it is. Right? I'm looking at this and I'm like, this has got to be a different bonus, right? But OK, sounds good. I'm glad go into these. I'll just kind of quickly state my opinion. I mean, I know this committee has already discussed the domestic equipment. I was against the change that we recommended, but I'll just, I'm still there where I don't, and it would have helped me. It will help me if we end up implementing that. And then turf, we'll bring back. It sounds like, and we end up implementing that. And then turf will bring back, it sounds like, and we've got feedback on that to come back to committee. I don't want to increase, I'll just jump where council member Floyd left off. I do not want to increase the base FAR. I am always willing to have a conversation about lowering it, but I kind of like where it's at now. It's neat. This seems to be working. So I don't, I'm not interested in increasing the base. I'm for the payment in lieu on sidewalks. I think that makes a lot of sense. As somebody that lives in a neighborhood and district one, in general with its suburban nature does not have a lot of sidewalks going through neighborhoods and so even in the traditional neighborhoods that we do have, I'm all for the payment and lieu. I do have a couple of questions on a couple of the additional comments that we got. Can we talk about, I'm all, actually this is just a comment I want, for bonus M, the preservation of existing trees, I really like that comment. Yeah, I really, really like that. I think that just makes sense. One of the things, frankly, that one of the phone calls I get most often in District One is when a home is being redone or in addition or or or leveled and then build a new is there was this beautiful tree in the front and now it's no longer there. And so I'm all for for that recommendation. If we want to have a conversation about it great, if not, just I'm supportive of that. The only other two I want to talk about are when it comes to ADUs and there were some additional comments about decreasing the existing lot requirements to permit accessory dwelling units on corner lots with NS zoning districts. Can we just talk about, and really it's the next point too, which frankly I don't really understand. My brain gets a little confused. We reduce the increased interior side. So I get a little wrapped up around there, yeah. North East Park is all-zoned suburban, but they have alleys. So the idea was, and we said you could only have an ADU in suburban on an alley if you met the minimum lot with an area requirements. The minimum lot with the 75 feet and most of those lots are 60 feet wide and they have an alley. So we wanted to eliminate the minimum width so that those lots would qualify. And we meant them too. That was kind of an oversight because they're on an alley. But also because they're NS, they have the suburban setbacks, even though their form is really a traditional form because they have alleys. And so what Corey was suggesting is that we allow the traditional ADU setbacks to apply to that area where you have the alleys. I think in general I'm supportive of that, but I'd love to have a one-on-one, because I think there are some in district one that are NS that have alleys that are similar to that. I know we had an exhibit from when we did the 80s of... Like I'm thinking about right on 9th Avenue that have... There's a couple of thoughts in the city. Northeast Park and I think there's like two other neighbors, one of which is here. I just want to make sure there's no unintended consequences that they're from a district one standpoint. But I'm obviously always in favor of making sure somebody can do an ADU, but I want to make sure we're intentional about when we spot it like that. So I would just love a, again, doesn't need to be a full committee conversation if we could just talk it over. That would be great. Yeah, we'll pull up that map and... And then can we just talk about that next bullet point real quickly and then I'm all done and I really appreciate all the work. This is a bunch of stuff on the reduced, reduced the increased interior side step back for 80 use an NS. And again, this is, I use NS jumps out at me always when we're talking about this because it's mostly. And NS to get support was we said that an 80 you need the 10 foot side step back because of privacy concerns. So again, I think we said what we were looking to do was if it was on a corner lot, mind me of what we were trying to accomplish there, or was it because if it's NS with alleys that we not have the 10 foot side yards up back because again with a 60 foot wide lot, you're not gonna fit much. That was it, right? Yeah, because we had to require six foot in the NT districts with V6. Instead of 10, if it's a 60 foot wide lot. So really what we're looking to do is use the NT rule scheme and dimensional standards in an S, where it fits, yeah, where it fits with Ali's. Okay. Yeah, I think if we could just do a overview with that, that would be super helpful. So if we make that change, I can communicate it in a non-cannigar or matter. Yeah. That's it. Thank you very much, sure. All right. Before I go to Madam Chair, do you have anything, Council Member Mohammed? Just quickly. Okay. Not a lot, but I just wanted to weigh in on the base FAR. I would not be looking to increase the base up there. I'll sign with my colleagues on that. Also supporting sidewalks, payment in lieu, and you lifted up to preserving existing trees. We're hearing that as well. But other than that, I do need to schedule a round of one on ones because this is a complicated topic. And it's bringing me back to when we opened, you asked about those who were not here. But I remember in a prior role when the FAR conversation was had, we used to meet over at the Hall, Rob, and I, we would talk through some of these things. And there was a lot of conversation. I mean that was a two-year package. Yeah. Now time I started till we got adoption. So I think we all were in different roles at that time. Yeah. And so just appreciate the work and the update to see that it is working. I did have that same question because I'm seeing a lot of those homes with those pitch roofs. And I've had the question to like, is that a two story house? Because we're seeing a lot of those also in neighborhoods and districts having so thank you. Perfect. Madam Chair, big sanders. Thank you. Mine are going to be quick. I just wanted to, and first of all, I don't know how you all keep this all together. It's a lot to remember. Can you go to the 4 to six foot tall opaque background slide for me please because I just wanted to Leave my case as to moving some of this You can get all your slides Okay, all right There you go. I might do it. I'm absolutely cheek cold I'm sorry Madam Chair. I couldn't hear where we going with this. Oh, to the 4 to 6 foot tall defense. Oh, okay. Was that your new business item from PSNI back in the day? Oh, yeah. Okay. It was a right at the beginning. Yeah. So I just a couple of questions on that one. This major issue for my colleagues understanding is we talked about the fencing and it being completely across the front yard which completely took the views from like five surrounding houses that were sold as waterfront properties and so that's where this came from and so a couple of issues that I want to see if you can answer and then we'll do more one-on-one on it. That particular fence, that opaque fence, was said that it's not more than six feet, but it really is because they were saying that they were adding backfield dirt to the fence to measure the actual height, but not the outside appearance of the fence. You know what I'm saying? The fence was like seven feet eight feet. There was a complaint that the grade was changed in order to allow a higher fence, but we did not substantiate that in our field investigations. So how will we move that going further with this being one of the LDR changes? Because not only do we have a two-story house, but we have an opaque fence that really edges the water, that totally took the homeowners' views of the water completely. How do we outweigh one and I hate to, I don't know, infringement over the other? How are we going to do that with this LDR change? Or has that even been a consideration? So I think we were talking about was potentially allowing four foot solid and then the next two feet the transparent open. So you could have a solid wall and then use like a metal or another number to get you to the top right? Yeah, like the one you see over to the right. Right, like the, or as the over to the right, right? Like the or as an option as an option. I mean right now they have to have columns every 10 feet in landscaping right if they want a solid. It's like columns every 24 feet and they're 2 feet wide and then the landscape being in front of that in front of it in order to kind of break up the mass. Break up the mass, but we could add a requirement for transparency to make it not be solid at six feet. So that was my next question. So is this going to be grandfathered in with the current LDR? Yes, it would be. Yeah, we don't make people go back and remove there. Okay. Bring them to the line. So I am going to, I'm dealing with my other colleagues just saying in regards to the other issues, but this was one that we've been working on now for quite a while. And so to answer your response list, when you say that we want to just move it all together at one time, that'll be like going on, you know, what, three three four for this one so if we can move some I would like to move some but you know I'll go with the majority but yeah this one is better man this one has been a really long time so I just want to give my two cents on that one thank you chair all right very good well I will quickly kind of run through and I'll try to keep them in order of the presentation I got numbers here so hopefully I got it right. Let's start with FAR. So in 2016-2017, I wasn't here, but I was on the advocacy side, right? And I was running for office. So I was very, very tuned in to what was happening around this issue. I know what the issues were, and as a real estate professional, that led us to that conversation. And I understood the rationale because people were building these big, quite frankly, ugly boxes in the middle of our beautifully historic neighborhoods. They weren't designated yet at the time, but they were very much changing the character, right? But then it was this balance of how do we make sure that we keep that character while still making sure that we're allowing infill development. And to that point, there was a big push at that time because so much of our housing stock was the two bedroom, one-bath homes that really were not fitting what people needed to continue to make St. Pete a viable place for people to live. So there was this balance that had to be struck. And from what we're seeing, what I physically see when I am out in the neighborhoods and what I see from the data that you have brought, there is no reason to go backwards. There is no reason for us to go into this exercise of re-exploration, because what you guys did worked. That is not happening anymore. And while there may be some nuanced issues here and there with things like, are we taking up too much green space, things like that, I do think that is really, really specific to certain neighborhoods, and it's really challenging for me personally to create new LDRs around something that is such a localized issue. So I am not in favor of sending you guys down that path of exploring the FAR again because I think what we did worked. So I'll just leave it at that with that particular issue. Wanted to ask some questions around fencing. Okay, this could be my ignorance, but do fences require a permit? No, not residential. I didn't think so, okay. The walls would, but not the walls do, but not like you have a wooden fence now and you want to put up a PVC vinyl fence, you don't have to get a permit to that. Is it not? So we talk about the non-traditional materials when it comes to like the metal fences. It only makes sense to me that we would require traditional materials on fencing period. I don't know why we would allow, but if we don't have a permitting system for that, how do we monitor that? How do we work on it? It's code's complaint. Code, okay. So that's what the metal fences were. Yeah, that was a code's issue, okay. Certain come owners who were advocating Yeah, that was a code tissue. OK. Certain. Yeah. Some owners who were advocating for us to change the code to allow the metal. OK, got it. I mean, for me, I just feel like if we're going to go down a path, I agree it should be traditional materials across the board. That just makes sense. From an aesthetics point of view, from even the point of view, like you think, like we have hurricane coming, right? And these are windboard. Oftentimes fences are the worst windboard debris there is. And if you have non-traditional materials, they're not made to withstand that. So I look at that almost like kind of that sort of danger issue as well. So I want to move then just real quick on Bay windows. That popped out at me because in my district, there are like these 1960s neighborhoods, I live in one, where there were design standards at that time that Bay Windows were very popular. And so I just want to make sure, and I understand the desire to create that in the code. But if somebody goes in and they need to replace that Bay window, to the same point as what we were talking about with the retro fitting on the fences, we wouldn't require them to come up to what we're looking at. So there's already a provision in the code for Bay Windows. What it doesn't do is define what that is. So OK. And so what the builders have been wanting to do is it's not just what you think of a traditional Bay window. The little Bay window. It's actually popping the entire floor out for three feet, falling that a bay because there's a window. Bay window because it's a bay. There's a window. So, it's not that there is a better define what it is that can come out how much got it how much window does there have to be in order for it to be a bay window. Okay. Um, as opposed to just a projection of extra floor space for a room that is going into the side yard setback. So developers were using something that was missing in our code to be able to expand their footprint on sale property. So we're having a lot of back and forth about our interpretation of Bay a Bay window. Okay. What they were saying was a Bay window. God. That our code to be clear on what a Bay window is. Understood. What they can do under that provision. Okay. All right. I just wanted just because I know there's so many neighborhoods that were kind of built. They're going to eliminate the ability to do it. We just want to clarify what it is. Because they fit in in the suburban neighborhoods that were built in that era. So I just kind of wanted to clarify that. Just for my own knowledge, I agree with, I think Councilmember Floyd was the first one to say it and the comments here about creating the fund around the sidewalks. Sidewalks is an issue. We've been trying to figure out for a long time how to continue to pay for more sidewalks, repaired sidewalks, expansion. I fully, fully support exploration of that. So I'm hope to see that come back at another time. Domestic equipment, not surprised. I agree. We shouldn't be parking that stuff in the front yard, so I'm glad to see that the residents were on that. Existing trees, very supportive of all of that as well. And then the ADU changes. Councilmember Gertis brought that up and I'm very supportive of us exploring that as well. And would also like to request a one-on-one for that. So the last thing, committee, there was a question, do we need this to come back here? Seeing as how it's so complex and there's a lot of moving pieces before it goes to full council at some point later this year, early next year. I'm saying a nodias, anodias. Yeah. I miss a lot. And I mean, I think they're pretty nuanced issues. So, I mean, we wouldn't have to have this full package presentation, but we could get an update on these kind of highlighted issues that it seems to be we're kind of all in consensus of interest on. Yeah, I think we got a lot of feedback today that's going to help us finish our straight through underlying that we've been working on. Yeah. And then if we can maybe get another committee meeting in November, we get that on the calendar then we can potentially come back in December for adoption versus if we push to next year we're going to have some new council members that we're going to need to educate them. But to start over. So we were hopeful to get something done this year. Okay. The council that's familiar with these issues and then we've gotten feedback from. Okay. So real quick, Brian, did we have anything already lined up for November? I don't think we did, did we? And what is the date for the November meeting? I guess I could pull up my own calendar, I apologize. And we could, you know, maybe we'll be, we'll be a little more drilled down and we can share if there's something else. It's tick. November 7th. So it's early in November. So would that be enough time for us to be able to schedule this for early December council meeting? Yeah. OK. All right. Well, we can commit to that. I can get the one-on-ones and the next. Right. Yeah. We'll do the one-on-ones. Yeah. OK. in it back then in that November meeting, that's not a problem. So thank you all so much. This is a super like, it's not complex necessarily, but it's just a lot of moving pieces. So really appreciate all of your hard work. I echo, I don't know how you keep it all straight, but you do thank God. Liz and her spreadsheets. So thank you. Because I know there's been lots of conversations, especially over the last year of like, hey, I want to talk about this and you're like, that's the LDRs. I want to talk about this, that's the LDRs. So I'm glad that we're here today. Thank you for kind of bringing it full circle. And so what we'll do is we'll still take the strike through underline package to DRC in November. Absolutely. We'll come to you the next day. It would be the day after, OK? Then we'll be able to report on what we got, and that will help us to refine the ordinance. So you have the workshop in October, the DRC meeting at the day before bring us the... Then you'll have a strike through underline. You can give us more feedback on this. So we prepare the ordinance then you'll have a stretch to underline you can give us more feedback on it. So we prepare the ordinance for you. Yes. Or December we will have gotten more feed will have another round of feedback from you. Perfect. And then we will plan on hopefully this going into December because they're going to have to go back to back got it. There's only one week to count the end of the year puts. That'll give us the ability to get it done. All right. With that strategy. Well, thank you again. Thank you administration and legal. We appreciate all of your help and support. Thank you colleagues. And with that, meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.