Okay. >> Do you want to call it to order or anything? >> Yeah, you can just call it to order. >> All right. We're calling the uh June 24th work session of the Planning Commission to order. And we'll start with going and we're recording, so we'll go around the room and just identify who's here. >> Sure. >> Um Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator. >> Quincy Smith, Planning Commissioner. >> Erin Wetherell, Commissioner. >> David Alker, Commissioner. >> Uh Asad Mafoud, uh City Management Fellow. >> [clears throat] >> Ryan Day, Planning Commission. >> Krista Harper, Assistant City Planner. >> And um on Zoom, Michael Stein uh with Zone Co consulting on this project. >> All right. So, we're continuing discussion on the zoning code update project. Um at the last work session we had at the end of May, we covered the residential districts standards and uses, and tonight we're going to talk a little bit about the non-residential districts and uses. Um but first, just wanted to give an update on the work session that we had with City Council um just last week. So, at that meeting, we talked with them as well about the residential district standards and uses. Um presented some of the kind of the opinions of the Planning Commission. And got a little bit of feedback. So, you may recall one of the things that we discussed at our last work session was about combining the PSR-4 and the PRD-5 zoning districts into the assisted residential district. So, PSR-4 is primarily for just senior housing. Um and then PRD-5 is more like assisted living, nursing home type facilities, and um it sounded like the the general opinion of the Planning Commission was that [snorts] those should not be combined, they should be separated. And if anything, that there maybe was not a need for a separate senior housing district, that that could just be combined with um the high density residential district. Um so we presented that to council as well and it it seemed that that was their feeling as well. Um that PSR4 PRD5 should not be combined. Um but that if we were to merge what is currently PSR4 into the the high density residential district that that would probably make more sense. Um so I think we're going to proceed um under that with that plan. Anybody have any questions on that? No. Okay. The next big thing we talked about was um the planning commission suggestion to potentially combine the R2 district with the mixed middle district. So mixed middle again is what's currently PRD1 and PRD2 Um so this would be combining that with R2 to then allow um for some more variety of housing types in that district. So it would allow um you know duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, but um up to eight units an acre. So whether or not you could build you know, more than just a duplex would depend on on the lot size. Um I think Michael, is it 5,445 square feet >> Yes. >> per unit is required. Um you know, you'd need to have three times that for your lot area to be able to even do a triplex. Um so I'm going to do a little bit of analysis and you know, the the majority of parcels that are currently zoned R2 today would not be able to do more than a duplex, but there are at maybe a third or more that um would have the potential to add an extra unit or two or more um depending on how large they are. So again, I think we'll since there was kind of it seemed like agreement among the planning commission and council, um we'll plan to move forward with that as well. Any questions on that part? >> So, if you combine the PRD1 and PRD2, but not a lot of homes or R2s could even meet that capacity. Does that mean that the PRD1, PRD2, the missing middle would just be lost and then they may have to find a different code to create eight-unit multi-housing? >> Um the the point we were trying to make there is just that, you know, there's um a certain number of R2s on properties today, and the only thing that you can build on there is two units, right? A two-unit home, okay? Regardless of how big it is. Um and since the the whole premise of the mixed middle is um you know, you can build up to eight units an acre, you can potentially do more than two units if your lot is bigger, but the existing R2 properties um you know, most of them you can't You would They're not big enough where you could do more than two. There's some, so we are opening up um some potential for more housing on those properties, but a lot of them are not going to be bigger than um you know, 16,000 square feet uh required to be able to do more than two units. >> Got you. >> So, it's not going to be a big change. It's going to be a modest change. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> I mean, any of the R2s, we do open up a few more R opportunities in the existing PRD one and two are still in there. They're just >> Yep. Yep, exactly. So, I think if anything, it just kind of simplifies things a little bit from having you know, two districts, now we just have one. They're guided for the cuz they were they were going to be guided for the same amount of density anyway. They're both all allow up to eight units an acre. Um So, this just kind of simplifies it a little bit. I think council thought that that made sense. Um there were a couple other suggestions. You know, we talked to them about the proposal for like a green space requirement and how that would kind of be just the inverse of what we currently um regulate for impervious. Um And there was a suggestion to consider increasing the amount of impervious we allow or I guess decreasing the green space requirement for small lots in the R1 district. Um >> So, that'd be like the A8 or >> Yeah. >> country club. >> Yep. So, we could consider for the A8 subdistrict having a different impervious surface requirement. Um when that impervious surface requirement was first adopted, staff analyzed like the existing impervious surface properties and actually recommended 60% um to be the standard instead of 50% because there were so many parcels that were over 50%. We were going to make a lot of properties nonconforming. Um and I think it was mostly those smaller properties. Um So, this would be a a way to make those conforming and give a little bit more breathing room to >> Wouldn't some of them already be >> [clears throat] >> nonconforming to setback requirements and stuff like that given their position on their smaller lots? >> Um They may be nonconforming for setbacks, but this like this wouldn't change anything. If we increased how much impervious they could have, that wouldn't change anything for setbacks necessarily. >> Just wondering what the motivation is like did to make them noncon- make them make more properties conforming. >> Mhm. >> But how many could actually still conform to that? Right. >> It it would be to allow them to have more impervious surfaces. So like if someone wants to add a patio, right? So like if someone wanted to do that right now, they'd be subject to 50%. So like right now they might be over 50. They might be at like 56%. >> Yeah. So they can't add any more. >> Right. >> If we went up to 60 then it would give them a little bit more opportunity to add some impervious. >> What is the square footage of the property again? >> 8,712 sq ft. >> And below? Up to 8,000. >> Um 8,712 is the minimum would be the minimum lot size. We do have lots that are smaller than that. But that would be the new minimum until or if we make it the change in the comprehensive plan to allow greater density then. Five units an acre. >> Yeah. Yeah, there was a discussion about the six units. >> We did. Yeah. >> a comprehensive plan. >> Yeah. >> So let me two data points here. I know when we had that one case with the residents who lived in Morningside and they wanted to add on to their patio. And we said no, right? Because they were going to be much larger than what was allowed. This would make it possible if they were to come back again with that request. >> And [clears throat] how big was their lot size? >> Yeah, it was a really small lot. He just wanted to increase it by like I think 3 ft. And it would it would it >> he would have been over the percentage allowed and it was entirely his own creation. >> Right. He just wanted a deck of that size. >> Yes. But if we increase it to 60% impervious then that might be possible. >> Might be. >> Well, if that was a deck that would have been kind of as building coverage. >> Right. >> Not impervious. >> Right. Well, both. >> Well, both. True. Both. But it wouldn't have solved their problem, I don't think. The one you're thinking of. Um so we would have to also increase building coverage. >> Building 25%? >> Depends on the lot size. It's 25% >> Because the limit is 25 and you wanted it like 25.8 or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Well, that that's in more than say where everybody's really sensitive to the really the houses that built up to their maximum. >> Yeah, a lot of them I think are. >> So, if you go back and open up could open up a can of worms. >> It could. Yep. >> But that as building coverage that's not impervious surface. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And then the other point was um I know we look at impervious surfaces to help with water mitigation, flooding, stuff like that. Was there any feedback from city engineers on that change? >> Yeah, so they actually did not have a lot of input on it. Um the the percentage of impervious does not play a big factor is not a big factor in terms of storm water management um because when we have more significant rain events [snorts] the water is just running off the property typically like into the storm sewer system. So, they actually they they said that when we adopted the impervious requirement for R1, it's really more of like an aesthetic requirement, right? Of like the community did not want people to just completely pave over their lots. They wanted more green space. Um so, it is really more of an aesthetic requirement than it is a a storm water benefit. So, they did not have an opinion on whether we adopt this green space requirement or what the percentage should be. Um they said they did not feel strongly. >> Another suggestion that was made at council was whether to have a minimum driveway length requirement um to prevent you know, vehicles from to to just have enough space for on a driveway to park a vehicle without the back of it kind of overhanging the sidewalk and into the right-of-way. And I think staff's initial reaction to that is it probably isn't necessary because um, with setback requirements for a garage, typically that's going to be more 20 ft or more, um, at a minimum. Like your front yard setback is going to be in most cases 30 ft or more. Um, and in the cases where you have a garage facing a corner side yard, if the garage door faces the the side street, the required setback is 20 ft. So, your your driveway is going to be 20 ft in that case. Um, so, it probably wouldn't hurt anything to add it, um, but I don't know that it would do a whole lot. It would probably end up being kind of redundant. >> Well, there's also a provision in the parking portion of the ordinance, which has nothing to do with the zoning ordinance, that you can't park a car on your driveway any closer than 15 ft to the travel portion of the street. Usually, that would involve a sidewalk. >> Mhm. >> So, you're you can have a drive and you can also have a driveway all the way up to the lot line, but you technically aren't supposed to be parking any closer than 5 ft to your side lot line. So, >> that I don't know if that would just cover that issue in terms of parking. But, do is it enforced? Do the Does the city go around and enforce where people park on their driveways? >> No. >> Right. >> I wasn't aware of that. Um, so, if I park in my driveway, am I uh, am I it the back of the vehicle can't be closer than 5 ft from the edge of the driveway? From the lot line? >> Any part of your vehicle can't be any closer than 5 ft to the side lot line, like your interior side lot line to your neighbor. >> Mhm. >> Um, you can have a driveway right up to the lot line cuz there's no setbacks required for it. It's really so I think I think that you could have a driveway go around the side of your house and then access a detached garage. So you're just using it for access purposes, but if you're actually storing or parking a car on the driveway, you're technically not supposed to be any closer than 5 ft. >> And what's the 15 ft that you mentioned? >> That's to if you're parking on your driveway and that's the distance from the travel portion of the street to the to the back of your car or or side of the car if you have a you know, like a side loading situation. >> So I had a car, would I be able to pack uh park all the way to the back of the driveway or all the way to the head of the driveway? Is that what that uh what was that regulation meant to do? >> I guess I'm not sure what you're saying. >> So like uh if the edge of this table is the back of my driveway, if my car's all the way parked up to the edge of that driveway, like you can't do that. Is that what it is? That's what >> Yep. >> Has to be like a 15 ft gap, right? >> 15 ft from the street. 5 ft from the side lot line. >> That's it. >> The one one property that comes to mind is that one on Valleyview, the uh townhome where the garage is like on the street. I mean, like any kind of a car parked in front of it, they're out in the sidewalk right away. >> Yeah. Yeah, and I think in that case um well, I think there were variances granted for that and so yeah, I don't think that that garage is probably probably less than 20 ft from the property line. >> Yeah. >> There's some variances that we granted for where the garage is much closer. >> Yeah. >> Right. There's some I think right on There's one right on the street up here. >> Yeah. Yeah. So there could be cases where we, you know, grant variances, but in general, the code requires at at a garage to be at least 20 ft from the street to mitigate that issue. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> We let people park on the street all the time. It's just not looking at 6 hours. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll block Blocking the sidewalk is a ADA issue and then it creates a problems for people. So. >> Yeah. >> But that's in the R1 district. Doesn't apply to other zoning districts. >> The garage issue? That >> The 20 ft. >> Okay. >> That's That's a setback in the R1 district. >> Okay. Yeah, that was kind of Did you have any other thoughts from the council meeting? Okay. That was kind of it. >> [snorts] >> So, okay. Um Michael's going to walk through some of the proposed changes to the uh the non-residential district. >> All right. Thanks, Addison. Can everyone see my screen okay? >> Yes. >> Does it need to be bigger? >> A little bigger. >> The text is a bit >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah. >> How about that? >> Yep, that's good. >> Yep. >> Great. Uh so, like with the residential districts, these are largely rebrandings of the existing zoning districts. Uh you'll see the the CMU 1 or we're calling the commercial mixed-use 1 is a rebranding of the PCD 1. Uh it's kind of hard to see where this is mapped, but it's like 44th and France, Valley View, Wooddale. Uh I'll zoom in. It's like a light tan color on the map. So, uh the proposed district is, you know, same thing with the maximum floor area ratio that we discussed with the HDR and MDR, where uh it's a 1.0 maximum floor area ratio, but after that if you comply with the sustainable building policy, that cap is removed. There's also a proposed maximum minimum green space coverage. That does not apply to lots in 44th and France. Allison and I were That's not in your draft, but Allison and I were talking through the standard last week and and thought that if we exempted those lots, it would make compliance significantly easier. A lot of those lots are nearly entirely covered at the moment. So, requiring provide 10% green space could make redevelopment infeasible. And then there's also a new standard moving multi-unit dwellings from a conditional use to a permitted use provided they comply with the comprehensive plan designated density for that parcel. Similar logic with the comprehensive plan designated density that we've employed in the high-density residential district. >> And I'll just add there that in this district, it's it's true today that residential is allowed as a conditional use, but it has to be above a commercial use. So, that that would still be the case here. >> [clears throat] >> And it has to be above a commercial use. >> So, to recap, that is there will be no green space required for those that most of them go up to one and and we're for permit by right residential on the second floor and above. >> Yeah, so the the green space requirement just would not apply to the 50th and France and the 44th and France commercial areas. >> Just those two? >> Just those two. Yeah, so like 70th and Kenilworth Avenue, all the other CMU1 parcels outside of those two areas, it would apply. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yep. >> Do Do know how many >> Yeah, in the CMU >> Sorry, potentially would not comply today? Like 70th and Cahill etc. >> Um >> Would create non-conformances right away? >> Well, we shouldn't cuz I don't think any of those really have buildings that are like lot line to lot line in the same way that 44th and France and 50th and France, too. Um >> I'm just thinking >> of that district is like um especially 50th and France. I mean, the buildings take up almost the entire parcel. >> And and they're quite a bit smaller, too. That's the other thing is we're like some of those parcels at 50th and France, if you were to say that 10% of it had to be green space, there's not like a lot of room left. >> Are there setbacks for CMU 1? >> There are, yep. It's >> Um so, those should be in the draft. >> wasn't, then the green space coverage percentage would be seems silly. So, it's curious. >> Like if you can go lot line to lot line. >> Mhm. >> But now then the city says, "No, actually you need to put in a strip of grass or something." >> Right. >> The the front setback there is is 35 ft, but that's subject to a few um a few exceptions. And specifically for our 44th and France, but I don't have it all off the top of my head where each of those exceptions apply. CMU 2 district is pretty similar. There's that same uh multi-unit dwelling permitted by right if it's above uh commercial use or uh some institutional use or some similar use um and matches the comprehensive plan designated density. Uh the minimum green space coverage is going to be 15%, so a little bit higher recognizing that these lots are a little bit larger than the lots in the CMU 1. And then there's also an individual maximum individual use area of 55,000 square feet. This is a issue that Addison and I would appreciate your all's feedback on. Um not entirely sure how we want to apply this, if we want to apply this to offices or just retail uses. Uh I think the original intent of this provision was to limit it to ground floor retail uses to try to limit uh big box stores. But as currently written in the draft that you have, it would apply to all uses. So uh it's worth considering if we want to pull that back and on and only apply it to ground floor retail or ground floor or commercial or some similar uh subset of uses rather than all uses. >> Can you walk that through again? >> Yeah, okay. So Yeah, sure. So in the code today, like the one that's in place today, um in the in the PCD2 zoning district, um like a retail store can't exceed like a big box store can't exceed 40,000 square feet, right? That's intended to just keep big the big box retail stores out of um the PCD2 districts. Um initially we thought that Jerry's might have been bigger than that, um but it turned And so that's why we were considering to increase to 55,000. It turns out it's maybe not. Um so we actually think that it's very possible that everything in the PCD2 district today is 40,000 square feet or less, at least on the ground floor. Um so again, the the purpose of it is really to prevent like a somebody from like having one use, one large use occupy a parcel, right? Yeah, I mean the the The is to encourage more smaller businesses, right? Um >> [clears throat] >> So, we were just kind of thinking through how that should be applied. We kind of thought, well, it might make sense to apply it more broadly so that like um you know, cuz it's not just retail that could be like a big use. You could have like an LA Fitness or um some non-retail commercial use coming in that could be a a large user. >> Pickleball court. >> Um >> [snorts] >> potentially. >> So, why why 55,000 from the current 40,000? >> initially we thought that the Jerry's grocery store was a close to that, but then realizing that, okay, there's multiple tenants in there and probably just the grocery store portion alone um and kind of getting some some data from our assessing department, just the grocery store probably is under 40. >> Okay. Still quite Like if I was imagining what a neighborhood oriented facility was, Jerry's still seems large to me. I don't know what the right number is, but it doesn't strike me as a cozy neighborhood neighborhood. >> Mhm. Sorry. >> 55,000 seems large. >> Well, it's supposed to be Yeah, I mean, it's supposed to be a step up from, you know, CMU 1, right? Where there's a 12,000 square foot limit, right? Um But like a I mean, a Target or a Walmart or something like that is going to be like well over 100,000 square feet. >> Right. >> I think I would say that Jerry's is if you if you go My daughter's dentist used to be in there. And they started kind of going into that other part of the ground floor. And I [clears throat] did kind of find it pretty friendly. I mean, it's a it's a commercial kind of building. >> Mhm. >> And it was designed for a helicopter to land on top of it. >> Do you think 40,000 is the right number to keep national big box brands out, but still leave some latitude? >> I think it's worked so far. I mean, I don't think we've had an issue with it. Um >> And I would imagine big box stores are only getting bigger in their general sizes, so keeping it at what it is or 40 or 55. I I don't see modern big box stores getting at that area. I mean, there's I don't think there's an appetite for their corporate uh brand to go smaller. >> Well, when we were talking about the Salvation Army, there was only two that I could find that were that size. It was Container Store and Tractor Supply. >> So, they're probably more than [snorts] that size. >> I'm not going to lie. >> I mean, just think Tractor Supply stores. >> Well, yeah. >> It says medium box or junior box stores typically run from 15 to 50,000 square feet, right? >> It's a junior box. >> A medium or junior box. I think big box is up to 100. >> So, I think um just as another data point, right? I know Target had a strategy of creating a smaller Target footprint store. >> Yeah. >> If you guys remember in Uptown, they >> And by the way, >> experimented, right? >> Yeah, there was one on Ford Parkway. >> Yeah. >> Dick's Sporting Dick's Sporting Goods has one. >> So, when we say big box retailer, right? I think what we're saying is is is more the size of the retailer, not so much the brand or the company, right? So, Target could come in with a less than 40,000 square foot uh store model, and that would work in in these districts, right? But maybe not their flagship big retail store like what they normally have there. >> Yeah, and that would be fine. >> That wouldn't suit me well. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, but we We want to limit people I'm I'm not saying >> But like But like when you say we want to limit big box retailers that was the intent. Right? >> Right now department stores are limited to no more than 40,000 square feet. If they want to locate in um you know what's currently the PCD2 district. >> Right. >> So we could we could just keep it as is and have it just apply to like a retail user and just limit it to 40,000 square feet. Um or we could apply it to other uses. >> And where did the 55 come from? Michael did Was that your suggestion? >> That That was an estimate we came up with um thinking initially >> 55 is if you take if you take the area all of Jerry's not recognizing that there's component uses within side Jerry's and there's mechanical equipment areas and other parts of Jerry's that don't apply to the gross floor area calculation. So you get to 50 It's like 54 something if you just measure the area all size of the building. >> So you're saying what if practically practically this was much larger, right? Instead of 55 it was at 100. Then a retail would have to tear down a bunch of stores to add up to that space, right? So they have to like buy a whole bunch of neighboring >> Right. >> businesses >> to do that and that's probably not so practical. >> Probably not super likely. >> Yeah. So I would agree. I think you know if we just kept it at a 40,000 seem like we didn't really have an issue in the past with that, right? >> Yeah. >> That would work. Now the other part of your question which is should we extend that to not just commercial but for other uses like um I know some gyms can be you know that size take up that entire space. There's different kinds of commerce that can occur within 40,000 square feet besides that kind of retail. What do you guys think about other uses besides retail uses? >> I think any use that fits in there in center 40,000 square feet would be okay. It's already permitted. It's already allowed. I mean, it's not just Do they say just retail space on the lower level of State U? Two? It can be offices. I think it's just Is it just retail? >> Um so, current like so currently it just applies to department stores. What we're kind of asking is do you want to open it up to have it up because like um you know, I don't I don't know the square footage of the Jerry's office building, but like um >> And there's the hardware store in there, too. >> Yep. But like for example, if there was a multi-story office building um well, like the Opus One, right? >> Yeah. >> More than 40,000 square feet. >> Yeah. >> Um that's that's maybe not an issue. So, maybe we don't want to apply it to office. Mhm. >> I think it's fair, but I also think that because we end up being so limited so often by the code that we need to work toward you know, flexibility. >> Yep. >> You know, within these >> Mhm. >> you know, so then I would opt for the larger number. I don't probably, you know, not going to happen very often, you know, particularly in these districts. Um but I would still as long as we're considering it, I think we you know, we have have a big tent. I don't mean that literally, right? >> Yeah. >> I'm kind of for flexibility, too. >> Okay. So, I would say like the most flexible thing that would be like I guess in of the things we're talking about, increasing the number and just only applying it to department stores and not applying it to like offices and gyms cuz then you have more flexibility with those. Is that >> How you guys feeling? >> It just seems arbitrary 55,000. >> Yeah. >> Right? Like what's the reasoning right? Is because we thought Jerry's was bigger. >> Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> So >> I guess the question is is Jerry's kind of the biggest retail use you would want to see in this district in this district. Like would you would you want something bigger than Jerry's to come in potentially? Even if it may not be likely. >> Well, I think what are what are the things we're not thinking about in terms of say like an LA Fitness it that's just a unique use, right? I mean in in I don't know you know, what other unique uses might come up that you know, could possibly fit. >> Yeah. >> Along those lines are gyms allowed in the PCD, too? >> What's that? >> Are gyms allowed in the PCD, too? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yes, they're primary. >> I mean there's a snap fitness at 44th. >> Yeah, so any kind of indoor recreation I mean did you say pickleball? I mean those VR experience things. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, bowling is still in the middle of our making. Um where do daycare centers fit in? Um in terms of zoning. >> Um they're allowed in most districts. I think yeah, almost all of them. >> Okay. That was a side question. Thank you. >> Right, they're allowed in residential, too. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> They have different standards they have to meet in residential districts than within the commercial districts or at least in the R1 and R2. >> So remind me the CMU to commercial mixed use districts we have now are in red on the map here. >> Yeah, I can try to zoom in and >> Because there's more than >> I think it's only comprehensively mapped in in at 50th and France and Grandview, but there's a few other parcels scattered throughout. >> Is that Is that like the the hockey place in the No, that's Bloomington, right? >> Starbucks and like Taco Libre. >> Yep. >> Oh, okay. >> I was just looking at it. >> Oh, and there's a Caribou there, too. >> Yeah, Caribou. >> And there's cannabis shops. >> Marijuana store? >> And a cannabis and a cannabis [laughter] Minnesota cannabis there, too. >> Does that meet the impervious surface? I keep going back. >> The The Taco Libre that Well, there's parking >> There's a lot There's a lot of parking on there. >> There's a lot of parking. >> Yep. >> I was wondering if it has 15%. >> And there's a little green space. >> A little green space. >> Very little. >> A little green space. >> Okay, so it really is just 50th and France and Grandview. >> For the most part. >> [snorts] >> I think biggest parcel at 50th and France is Jerry's. >> At Grandview Grandview. >> At uh >> Grandview. >> [snorts] >> At Grandview, I'm sorry. Is that the largest parcel? >> Yeah. Pretty much. >> I want to say it's the largest parcel in the whole CMU, too. >> So, what Okay. >> For an eyeball. >> What if What if Jerry's tore itself down to the underground parking and took up the whole space? >> And it was one retail use. >> Yeah. I mean, that's what we're talking about. >> It's like Are you comfortable with that? Do you want that? >> So, the four plate of Jerry's now is 55,000, but the Jerry store is less than 40,000 cuz it's the Jerry store, it's the hardware store. >> So, it's not not including the the hardware store and the other stuff, just the grocery store, the way we calculate gross floor area >> Yeah. >> um because it excludes things like mechanical rooms, restrooms, um we we don't have an exact number, but we believe it is closer to 40,000. >> Okay. Okay. So, I mean, 15,000 square feet would be another third of that. So, it wouldn't take up that whole lot. >> Yeah, probably. >> So, can I just leave it at leaving it leaving it 40,000 square feet? Keep it the same. Um that's how I'm thinking about it, right? And if a different retailer comes in with a big idea of something that's more than that, we take a look at it, you know. Um I just don't see a need to change anything here. It's been working fine for so long. >> Okay. >> I would debate that. >> Yeah, I also >> Why hasn't it worked? What's come in front of us that's needed to vary in size above 40,000 >> I don't know that that one has specifically. I think we just are continually getting, you know, tripped up on Well, this I think the code is specifically, right? I mean, is it this district type specifically? All the principal uses are allowed to go above 40,000 feet except department stores. So, I'm just [clears throat] asking, you know, clarification on how it's not working here. Like, I agree with Quincy, it's working fine for this district type. And so, I'm just curious. >> I'm just thinking in general terms. >> Yeah, if I were looking at this, I'm like, there's only a few partials in the CMU 2. Why do we even have it?" That's what I would do. I mean, it's all all the little, you know, what gets fussy for developers is coming in and saying, "What can I build here? What can I build here? What can I build here?" And having to like learn 10 different zoning uses and 10 different sets of standards. I mean, the whole goal is to kind of simplify this. And so, it is easy for people to kind of develop because if people develop things, our tax base increases, and we don't have to individually pay more taxes. You know, so if everybody's upset about their taxes, like, bringing people in here so they can develop and build things so we can grow. As long as we're a vibrant community, and we are, and people want to be here, I think we make it um incrementally easy for them to do so. We're not talking about a huge change. We're talking about 10 20% larger. >> We might want to look at CMU 3 and then come back to this to see what we're stepping up to and stepping down to. But I don't know. Do we have similar >> Sure. >> Well, in in in CMU 3, there is no limit. So, you can have a you can have a big box store as big as you want. >> So, you're proposing eliminating or consolidating our planned commercial districts? >> No. >> Right. Well, that's you're saying it's there's too many different types for people to waddle through or to decipher. Right? So, should we get should we consolidate CMU 1 and 2? >> up to 55,000 for department stores. And then they're You guys were proposing to bring keep it as it is cuz it has been working for us. But I think there are a lot of people kind of pushing back at zoning all over the US and saying it's too difficult to build things. So, I think we are considering how we can make it easier. So, I'm saying we should consider how to make it easier. That's all I'm saying. >> Okay. And I was just saying this district in general, which we're talking about, how is it making it harder with there is no cap for the other uses except for department stores? >> Well, I think David is suggesting we look at the next one, come back to this, which I think is smart. >> Just want to see where the CMU 3s are. >> Okay. We'll come We'll come back to that topic. So, we'll go ahead and Michael and go to CMU 3. >> CMU 3 is is mostly in the Southdale area. It Same standard with the floor area ratio. The floor area ratio maximum isn't changing. You can see that in the table below. Except for that, it gets removed if the sustainable building policy is complied with. And then the maximum or the minimum green space coverage is 20%. So, yeah, there's no maximum use area here. The standards for multi-unit development are are more flexible. Really, just a much more flexible district. >> Can you zoom in? >> Yeah. Next district is is very difficult to see on the map. It's the automotive commercial district, currently the PCD 4. It's scattered throughout, and this is intended to provide development standards for auto body shops, if there was a car dealership, car dealerships, car washes, automotive focused uses, recognizing they're going going have smaller building footprints, but probably higher impervious surface coverages. We did still propose a minimum green space coverage for this district to try to prevent lot line to lot line impervious surface coverage and try to get a little bit of greenery in landscaping hopefully between those automotive commercial uses and any adjacent residential or mixed use properties. Next development districts I I won't go to into too much detail with. There's no proposed changes on the dimensional standards. They've been carried forward pretty much one to one. Green space coverage would be 25% in these districts. The EMP district is a rebranding of the planned industrial district. It's same dimensional standards, but the minimum green space is being proposed at 15% and then there's a few changes to these permissions. We've combined use permissions that were listed out and kind of enumerated unnecessarily specifically into a light industrial use to try to recognize that these industrial uses like warehousing, manufacturing, assembly kind of shift quickly and it's hard for the code to keep up with exactly how they operate. So, if you have them in a broader use category, it defines them better and controls new uses without requiring complex interpretations from city staff. And then we provided a use standard allowing retail sales to occupy up to 10% of a principal buildings floor area. That's trying to allow industrial uses to have an accessory shop to sell items produced on site or with a bakery allowing a bakery to sell the baked goods produced on site. on site. >> Can you talk about that a little bit more up to 10% of the >> Sure. Sure. So, it would allow accessory retail sales for uses permitted uses in the EMP district. So, light industrial or manufacturing uses are allowed in the EMP district. And so, anything produced by that use could then be sold in their 10% accessory retail sales area. >> Would we keep the current language around the accessible [clears throat] from only from the interior >> No. >> of the building? >> No, we're proposing to get rid of that to make it more flexible. >> Okay. Cuz that's kind of a deal killer for a lot of retailers. >> Right. >> So, so the wooden the brewing >> wouldn't be allowed. >> Yep. >> Is that in this? >> So, that's kind of a separate deal cuz they are like they're specifically allowed to have um like a tap room is specifically called out as a permitted use. >> Okay. >> Um so, that's a little bit different. >> Okay. >> But like the Drunken Moose is kind of a good example, right? Like they were a you know, chocolate company like manufacturing warehouse distribution facility and then they wanted to have a small >> Yeah. >> retail component to their site. So, what we're saying is yeah, you can have that up to 10% as long as you know, the primary use is still some kind of a industrial >> So, they wouldn't need the variance that they used. >> Correct. Yep. >> So, like the sales floor can be [clears throat] 10% >> of the building, yeah. >> of the use. >> of the use. >> of the footprint. >> Um of the floor area. >> of the floor area. Okay. >> So, a multi-tenant building could have 10% of the 10% of the each individual tenant space? >> I Yeah, I think we Yeah, we kind of have talked about what made sense to do that and I think we landed on that like each individual use could have 10%. >> Okay. >> Does it become a commercial district? >> Well, right. So, that would So, so that we don't have like a multi-tenant building where like let's say there were 10 tenants that you couldn't just have like a stand-alone retailer that's unaffiliated with the other uses. You know what I mean? Like the retail component has to be affiliated with the the principal use. >> Like a pretzel factory would have to have their pretzel shop in the front. >> Yeah, right. >> Yeah, so good. >> So, this would go into effect for most of that Cahill >> industrial. >> Mhm. >> I think not that. >> Are you talking about creating like a strip mall? >> or something. Like a strip mall, right? >> [snorts] >> 10 10 10 >> Well, yeah, yeah. All these individual tenant spaces cuz there's a lot of multi-tenant industrial buildings. >> Right. >> So, there's not for each. Or Yeah. >> A lot of you kind of you branding of employment district. Like I mentioned it a couple times. Um from industrial, I think we could use different language. It's a little bit confusing. Cuz we have employees across the city. To call it an employment district seemed like it's kind of conflicting with employees work. A lot of spaces, right? Um since we're on this one and then I think we have to go back to the ones that we just skipped over. Um Jimmy wanted me to share with you guys that uh from a from a branding perspective, he likes to to consider enterprise district. Um industry or industrial. Keep it industrial or call it enterprise or industry. And not employment. And I'm kind of on the same page with that, too. I think I mentioned that a couple times. That calling it employment district is a little bit confusing. >> Michael, is this a trend that you're seeing kind of across with other clients and it's >> Shifting away from using the term industrial for the for the district name? >> I'm going to work >> Yeah, yes, that's Yeah, that's it. Uh so, we often will see it either employment, flexible, like in flexible industry, flex district, innovation district. Uh the branding of the district kind of kind of runs the gamut, but it's shifting away from calling them strictly industrial, rec- recognizing that a lot of cities want less and less like heavy industry. And then um also that these spaces, these like multi-tenant industrial spaces have flexible usage. You might have a warehousing use next to a chocolate shop, next to a uh CrossFit studio. And so, try- trying to broaden the use permissions and recognize that some types of industrial uses are actually okay to have >> Yeah. >> retail or similar uses next to. >> I think yeah, our intent we're I don't think we're married to you know, the term employment district, but I think we were just trying to get at the fact that there's a lot more than just industrial there, right? Like the hockey training facility, you would not think of as industrial, right? There's a church There's churches there. There's schools in there. There's a post office, you know, there's lots of different types of uses that are not >> We have we have paved into lots of uses in there, too. >> Yeah, right? Yeah. So, medical office is fine. So, what's >> Well, cuz most of these districts around, especially the one that's south of South Dale on the east side, right? There's so many different things in there. That one seems more like a flex space or employment space. But, Kate Hill, you went through that whole process and some of those, you know, so it's it's Uh-huh. How it How it lays over affects that quadrant >> Yes. >> is what I'm wondering about. >> Yeah. Well, we don't >> [snorts] >> allow residential there and we don't really allow you know, like retail as a standalone use. So, I mean, we could do something like business park district or I don't know. >> I like enterprise. That's what I'm trying to pitch. Enterprise zone. >> I don't really have a problem with industrial. I think if people understand what it is. But if we want to change it, I struggle with employment because I when I look at employment [clears throat] and office, I can't tell the difference. So, I feel like I need a different name than employment and maybe it's enterprise or maybe it's flex. I don't know what it is. >> I'm perfectly fine keeping it industrial or something like enterprise, which is feels different than office. Anyway, this to me doesn't feel any different than office cuz people are in office and offices too. >> Right. Well, an office is allowed to be I think it was meant to be more broader than office, right? Like office is more narrow. >> And I also And I also get the kind of going away from industrial because people do think of heavy industrial. But this is all a lot of smaller areas. I mean, there's no place in there for a huge rubber tire factory or anything anymore. >> Maybe flex is right because it it kind of notes that there's a lot of stuff you can do there. >> I think flex is good. I think enterprise gives people the idea that maybe there's a tax break in there or something like that, which we don't want people to anticipate. Um and I think industrial, you know, is for people with corded phones that are attached to the wall. You know, so So, I just think that's that's taking a giant step backwards if we're looking at things like branding. So, I I in the flex camp. >> So, I'm hearing flex or enterprise as two potential brands. >> Flex or enterprise. >> It could be flex enterprise. >> [laughter] >> All right, F E X is good. >> [clears throat] >> Earth fix it district. >> Flex surprise. >> Yeah. >> When how does the green space coverage get triggered? Like if a building's not in compliance now, >> Mhm. >> I'm assuming it doesn't get triggered when they sign a new lease. >> Right. Yep. It would just be like if there was a complete redevelopment of the property. >> new like a building permit? >> Um >> Construction permit? >> For No, not >> Not not even there? >> No. If they like completely tore down the building and we're like starting over. Like they totally or if they were like let's say they were non-conforming today. They didn't they didn't meet the requirements today and they wanted to decrease the amount of green space even further. >> Sure. >> try to >> Yeah. >> So once it's not it once it's not conforming it can continue >> Yeah. >> as long as they don't make it more non-conforming. >> If they did a a small addition to the building it would probably trigger the green space >> No. No. >> Not even? >> No. Not if they're not making it worse. >> Yeah. >> If they're putting that addition into their limited green space they have then yeah, [clears throat] that would be a problem. They can't make it more non-conforming than it is today. >> Got you. >> And we would only look to bring them into compliance if they were like completely doing like a new building. >> So maybe if they're decreasing today's green space coverage that's when it would you would say no. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. They can't make it more non-conforming. >> Sure. >> Similar to residential with just more than 50% of the primary structure it becomes a new building and then a different formula. >> I don't know if they have that provision in the for commercial or industrial buildings. >> But that's yeah, you're right. That's the trigger we use when we call it a new house. If they [clears throat] remove more than 50% of the exterior wall of the house >> have that trigger for >> Okay. >> anything else. >> Yeah. >> [snorts] >> You know, just a quick question on the on the commercial 10% uh If you think about it long term, what does that do if we allow that commercial uh 10% to be retail, you can sell what you make. Um would that just draw more people into that space like to buy ice cream or buy chocolate or um I don't know. Would that be a an issue, right? Having more cars driving through to buy stuff. Um What do you guys think there? >> When I've seen it really in action is in Europe and all over Europe. In Portugal and Spain and in France. And in areas where um So, allowing more mix and allowing people to see more activities, it means there's activity always happening kind of in some places besides having restaurants. And so, it just makes it a busy street even And when I see a busy street in France, it's people walking up and down the street. Um >> Yeah, when I when I think about this let's just call it the flex zone. Um I think trucks, I think heavy equipment coming through. And now I have cars coming through, people wanting to grab an ice cream or buy chocolate, right? So, you have that mix of different kinds of people. If you're a biker, there's not a whole lot of bike path, I would assume, in this zone. And so, if you are on your bike, you want to ride to to pick up something. Now, you have a biker coming through. Right? So, now you have a lot of different kinds of activity coming into an industrial space if you create retail. >> I think that was the concern why we did that in the first place, right? Certainly. Well, not commercial as industrial districts too much. Cuz I mean, there are the reason we segmented that way is, like you said, wider roads, truck access, etc. Right? There are provisions that we make for industrial areas that are different than commercial. Um I think when we had the Julie Moose discussion, I think I remember Carrie saying like that was the intent was to try to keep it a bit more segregated. >> Yep. >> Rather than have active storefronts in that area, right? Cuz it's near railway or near, again, areas where you'd want access for semis to be able to turn around and all that kind of stuff for these districts, right? So, I mean, it's a interesting discussion point. >> I wonder how many I'm sorry. Well, there's residential across the street from the Julie Moose. There's a lot of residential. >> Mhm. >> There's a lot of apartment buildings. It is a lot of people kind of moving around now. And I think if people can kind of move around more freely, the more people are actually walking on the street, the safer the street feels. The more we kind of reduce cars and and kind of slow down the trucks, the more safe it feels for our individuals to kind of walk around. Um so So, once again, it's giving more flexibility. We no longer have spaces in America where things are built in a box and then shipped everywhere. You know, people are just buying things out and they're coming straight from warehouses where you're kind of walking around in your community. And I So, in that Southdale area, it's becoming more of a community. You know, people are in their apartment, they walk down to the um uh the Lifetime Fitness um You know, so what? The more we give people opportunities to walk within their community, the more livable it's going to feel. And there's a lot of people living there. And I wonder how many potential tenants in that area um consider it important that they have a place to sell whatever the stuff that falls off the truck or, you know, the the seconds or the um you know, whether how important is it to the tenants that they have um a lot a little space for um you know, for retail sales. I mean, is is that a is is that a deal breaker for somebody that that's going to say, "Well, you know, I need a little bit of space here for the stuff that, you know, doesn't fit or whatever that is completely legal and completely fine, but it it's an important aspect of business that they run?" >> That's why I would point to um the Kehoe report, right? Because you guys would have interviewed a lot of the business owners there, right? And get their perspective on what they wanted. In In those conversations, did you hear a lot of I need to sell what I make or I would love it if retail existed here? Like, what was that conversation like? Anything to that direction? >> it's more I mean, I don't think it's it's more niche-y than that. It's like jewelry booths or it's like a particular kind of retail. And a lot of businesses that are down there are they're making widgets and gizmos for business. So, they don't need a store. But, some people do. And I think we might get we'd have we'd have more diverse use options down there if you did have a 10% >> Nordic Cookware? >> Nordic Ware? >> Nordic Ware >> with a store in the front. >> That's exactly what I was thinking of. Yeah. >> That's a good example of what >> would be possible. >> Right. And I don't think it it can conflicts with the trucks that go in and out. There's, you know, there's separate parking and the parking isn't terribly crowded. And, you know, it's not >> It makes this a lot >> the streets are very wide. I don't I don't think there's a huge conflict problem. >> Well, it shouldn't be any different than, you know, again, gyms, churches. These are things that are already allowed in this district storage that bring people in. >> Yeah, but you're coming to the gym, you're going to the church, but this is more like I'm coming to buy this product. You're bringing in a new type of person into that space. I'm just wanting us to just think through a little bit more just to see what's the long-term impact, right? >> Another one is Faribault Woolen Mills. They're They're factory down in Faribault. They allow people to walk in now and buy stuff. And it brings in more people and people get to see the history and they're kind of relying on their brand or their brand name um to make it a lively district. I think the whole thing goes against it. It's just flexibility of what one business is can do in that area. >> It would certainly increase flexibility for sure. I just don't know what the answer is on this one. I like it, but I feel like it was designed that way for a reason to keep that out, you know? >> 50 years ago, businesses were very different. >> it's a good comp- I think it's a good compromise in that if you keep it if you still keep the 10% requirement there, then it doesn't encourage it to become entirely commercial, right? You still allow I mean you still have incentive for film tech and stuff to be in the Kay Hill District. It doesn't create If you allowed it 50%, now that's really up for discussion, right? But I think 10% of the storefront does it good. >> It's a small amount. There's a limit to what they can do with it. It's really just for one-offs kind of a thing, yeah, not mainstream sales, but just >> Yeah, and then I mean the Nordic Ware thing is a good example of a good, you know, type of type of development that could have happened there. Um so it's a small step in the right direction and I think it keeps the industrial still primarily industrial. But we do need I mean Kay Hill is important part of our tax base. Very important part of our tax base. So, both businesses do are very valuable to us. Film tech would be a big loss if we if they left the city. >> Do you guys like the idea of a small retail? >> Allowable? >> Mhm. >> I think yeah. >> I think businesses have changed so much in the past 50 years. That >> Mhm. Okay. >> We have to We have to allow our cities to change. >> So, I think this looks good. Does the branding Is that what we'll settle on that? >> Mhm. >> Um maybe we can come up with a different idea. Uh employment seems like we're not in favor of that, but maybe flex or or >> Or innovation. >> Or innovation or enterprise, something like that. Um might make sense. Now, we skipped over a couple. >> [snorts] >> Um I think we're looking at PCD4, I think it was, and CMU3. I don't know if we finished >> Yeah, we also haven't done medical yet either. >> Okay. Yeah, the >> Medical. >> Medical, yeah. >> Yeah, we haven't got to medical and office yet, but we kind of went through CMU1, which is the current PCD3, and then automotive commercial, which is the current PCD4. >> Just on that, I like that 50% green space uh for the automotive. I think that's going to be good because they would concrete that whole thing if we if we didn't have that. So, I like that that idea. >> All right. >> CMU3. >> Really small purple triangle on the bottom. >> It's all the little plan. >> 20%. >> So this is basically unlimited >> [snorts] >> retail size, whatever could fit. >> Yep. That that limit that's in place for um PCD 1 and 2 today does not exist in PCD 3 today. So, we weren't proposing to change that. >> Okay. >> So, there's a handful of 20-plus story buildings in this area, right? There's like the Bowery, for example, or >> Okay. Yep. Yep. >> Is the intent to still have those go through a PUD process? >> So, we have a height So, height is regulated through We have an overlay district for height. >> Um so, basically, every parcel, like just like a zoning map, is put into a height district. >> Okay. >> So, the height is regulated that way. So, that is something we'll be reviewing. >> Yeah, cuz like for a long or lifetime, >> Yeah. >> there has been something about that massive Yeah, I was just wondering how that fits into this. >> Um Oh, here. I can pull it up quick. >> Sorry to interrupt you there. >> Let's see. >> Michael, we got about 15 more minutes. Is there some Are there other districts >> Sure. >> we want to go through tonight? >> Yeah, yeah. We can get through While Addison pulls up the HUD map, we can get through the the last two districts, Riley. With any anything you talk about, um the office district is uh combination of the POD 1 and POD 2, uh 30% green space coverage, uh alcoholic beverage production is allowed in the O district. It was previously only allowed in the POD 2 district. The only distinction, to my knowledge, between the POD 1 and POD 2 was that difference in alcoholic beverage production. So, this is just uh expanding that permission district-wide. Any comments on on the office district? >> Why do we allow that in office? >> That was how we allowed I think what was it, right? >> Distillery or something? >> Yeah. Whenever we amended the code to allow like breweries, tap rooms, wineries, and distilleries. Um It was allowed in one of the POD districts. I think POD2. >> I just wanted to have a distillery >> Oh, okay. That's right. Yeah. So, that's the only difference. They used to have different height allowances, but now that we moved to the height overlay district, there's virtually no other There's no other difference between the two. So, they don't need to be separate districts. >> So, on a high-level overview, everything I see in purple potentially can have a brewery uh beverage beverage production. >> Yep. If they have the water capacity on the left side. sewer Yep. >> Do you expect to continue to allow all uses in industrial or whatever you call it? >> Um yep. >> All right. Thoughts? Anything? Any pushback there? >> No. I'm going to talk about medical. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh there are aren't really any changes to discuss. For the regional medical, it applies to a pretty limited set of parcels. Uh the dimensional standards aren't changing. Uh the same use permissions are are more or less allowed. Your your inpatient medical care, outpatient medical care. Um The assisted facilities are allowed here. But dimensional standards are are remaining the same. >> My question on that one is just um the hospital is the largest employer in the city. Um I think we probably can all agree that, you know, that will grow, you know, in terms of both numbers and percentages um in the future. And I think along with that will be will come lots of ancillary you know, medical facilities that aren't necessarily inpatient or outpatient, but something else. Um and I just again want to make sure that that there's enough flexibility in there that, you know, so if we want if a medical device what you know, whatever um wanted to expand to the east. Like right now, they couldn't do that because that's is that is that office now? >> That's an office that was there. >> It is. Yes, that >> So >> Right here is his office. >> We are thinking about the future in terms of medical needs of the community and I think they are to grow exponentially. Like I mean, what what if in a few years there's any number of adult day cares that provide um medical services. Um they would have to be they'd have to be um in the RM zone, right? >> Um no. >> Because you can have there's dental offices all over or small doctor's offices all over like a dental family physician just right off Brennan. And um there's a dental office in Jerry's building. >> Yeah, I mean they're all over, but in terms >> I was just going to ask like, okay, a medical office in an office district can be as big as the office. And and I'm I'm certain there's certain like in and out procedures that can be done. >> Yep. >> So, >> Can you have a same-day surgery center? >> Um yeah, it's yep, yep, you're good. >> Yeah. >> In office. >> That would be allowed. principal uses of >> Yeah, the RM district is really just more for people who are like admitted and like staying or like overnight an extended period of time. >> so if you rehab facilities >> Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, so I would be I would be concerned that they they'll be a much greater need for rehab facilities of all kinds. >> Where people are staying overnight and things like that? Okay. >> Would they be excluded? I mean, the current primary use one of the a lot of primary principal uses in planned office is just medical clinic. >> Mhm. >> Right, it's a pretty broad term in my in my mind. So, I think that might fit into that. >> Right, so like we talked about further down on Friends, there were medical office buildings which are perfectly fine and will stay fine. But I'm saying what if there's, you know, a 200-bed rehab facility, whether you know, it's physical rehab or stroke rehab or something like that. That wouldn't then cuz you got people staying over. >> So, but is that is that what's currently laid out in RM? Like somebody stays overnight, they can't it's not a There's a different distinction there? >> That is allowed in RM. >> No, I know. >> But not in office. >> I know, but I don't think we're not allowed to say it's not allowed in office, right? >> Can I ask about the war across Is the war just on the across the street from the hospital? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> That is Do people stay over there? >> Oh, yes. >> Right? There's >> Right? So, that Why Yeah, that's a good place. So, why isn't that RM? >> Well, that's a PUD, isn't it? >> A senior building? >> Aurora? I guess I'm not exactly sure what >> have care suites built but [clears throat] I don't know if they're using them anymore because >> [cough] >> TCO built a building further down on France that you know, you stay overnight to recuperate. I don't know if it's It's not long-term stay like a hospital. But, they do have like overnight care suites. >> Okay. >> That sort of >> But, I think you're right. I think the Aurora is on the west side of France and it's >> Um south of that in that gray >> Right. Well, see you all You have a bunch of new hospice facilities. I think there's a distinct possibility that could happen, right? I mean, I know there's one now, the little little hospice. Um so, would hospice would have to um be zoned RM? >> Well, no, it's not. The little hospice, I think, is licensed as a group home. >> Yeah. >> So, they are allowed like by statute we can We could get into that and they are allowed to go into any multi- any well, single-family they can have up to six beds. >> And here's >> And in a multi-family district, they're allowed at least 16. But, I think that's how little hospice operates. Their zoning is R2. >> Okay. >> But, like a much larger facility, you know, if you're having something that's like 50, 60 beds, um that's why we have the what's currently the PRD-5 district. It's for things like nursing homes. Like a much larger >> But we're aren't we consolidating that? >> Uh, no. This group wanted to keep that as its own district. >> Just as the senior that we're pulling out. >> We're merging senior housing with high-density residential so that we're not distinguishing between just a market-rate apartment building and a senior market-rate. >> I just think we need to pay attention to what the community will likely look like, not just where we are, where we were, >> Yep. >> where we want to be. >> I see where you're going. Um, what's the value of this RM district like? Here's what I'm thinking, right? If we have a rule in the city that says we can't have noise a certain decibel level anywhere close to an RM district. That makes sense to me because you have people recovering from surgeries and they need a comfortable environment, right? What else is going to be of value of an RM district? Um, that you guys can think about. >> Um, I think it's just more that it's a, you know, it allows the hospital, which is a unique use that's not really It's more about controlling where you want to allow a use like a hospital. Right? That's going to like have a lot of traffic, have ambulances, have a helipad, right? So, it's more about limiting those uses to that site, to to those properties. >> Okay. So, >> And they have some medical storage allowances that smaller buildings can't have. Like if they have the radioactive They have some technologies and things that they have to store there that are allowed to happen in a larger way. >> So the use is really unique. Like yeah. I like how you said it too. Like ambulances will be coming in and out of here. Heliport for emergencies, etc. And so that totally makes sense. But where you were going, right? Which is think thinking more broadly about as the community ages and shifts, we will have needs for people in more medical needed situations. And And where would they go in a city, right? And it And you're saying it it can't be limited to just this district, but actually it should be in more areas. >> Or Or Yeah, we I think we just need to think about the growing need in the aging population. Um and the things that again that you know, the way medicine is going to be administered or the kind of testing and the kind of technology and immunology and all these other stuff that um I'm concerned might only fit into the RM. >> Those are Sorry. >> Can we have like assisted living homes or are people moving into apartments and then gradually move up into greater forms of care? Are those allowed in other districts? In here? >> So like a a nursing home what is only allowed in PRD5 or what we're going to rename to be assisted residential. If we had combined it with PSR4, then that would have opened that up like all the properties that are currently PSR4, well then those could have also been like assisted living facilities. But now we're saying we don't want to do that. >> Marianne, what do you think? >> Yeah, I was just going to say that I mean so that I think there's a couple of things with your point. The planned office and planned industrial do both allow as primary uses medical and dental offices of grains. So that's pretty good like broad. >> Right. Yeah, I'm I'm not I'm talking >> So so the the principal use that I think you were referring to would be this one that's pretty long in the regional medical district which is laboratories performing research or having a direct relationship to providing health services including but not limited to medical research, radiology, serology, immunology, allergy, biochemistry, etc. So you're saying that we should allow those types of uses within other district types? >> No. No, I'm what I'm saying is people who are receiving these expanded forms of care. Not the labs necessarily or the research facilities but the people who need proximity to the hospital or the hospital doesn't provide X and Y services so you have to go across the street in order to get this kind of it whatever is provided by those research labs or something like that but the people portion of it. So I just again don't want to be shackled by you know oh we can't do this because it's it's they have to stay over or they need to be easily accessible to the hospital or they they're here and then they're back and um you know as we move away you know the hospitals are the in the hospitality industry right? So um there's just so so much more outpatient um and I don't know I you know I'm not even sure other than the fact that we don't know what it's going to look like. So again I'm saying again to lean toward the flexibility of this being a growth industry, a growth area, and a need for the community. >> We might have to come back to this but can I just because I it's easy for me to see this in graphs can we see the PRD 5 P PRD 5 or what we're going to call PRD5 in terms of the city just to see how large or how many PRD5s we'll have. Because if they will allow some of those assisted living or extended care >> I can show you Michael are are you able to stop sharing? I think that will allow me >> Oh, sure. >> I think I know where you're going. Increase the uses on those which would actually have some of the issues >> I'm just wondering if they can assist in this. I don't know if it's going to answer everything, but it's easier for me to kind of understand how much we're allotting to that. >> Okay, so the parcels you see in the light brown, those are the parcels that are PRD5 today. You can see it's like three parcels. >> Okay, which is very small. >> Very few. PSR4, this is actually a mistake. This is not PSR4, but all of the other red ones you see are PSR4. So we combine if we we combine them, then now like those nursing homes, assisted living facilities would be allowed in all of those red parcels. But if we keep them separate the only way to do like a nursing home that would be to if it's not one of those like three parcels, then you'd have to rezone it to assisted residential. But now it sounds like we're going to merge PSR4 with high density residential. >> I'm going to do the you guys consider continuing considering I mean maybe we ran when we when we said to separate them before maybe we hadn't fully gone through them. I think there's a lot we need to relook at, right? >> We can go back to that. We can think more on that. >> Yeah, and we never did a CMU2 also. >> Michael, thank you. We got to go downstairs. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, thank you everyone.