But the judgment I think we're making is that that's not a realistic risk. That's a hard idea to convey. But using the law to tell people that it's not going to happen means that we're going to go back to sixbedroom oneunit deals. And we've I think council member Dish, you've talked about this. Members of the public have talked about it. That's that's a pretty absurd result to force on the market in order to respond to a non like a like borderline impossible scenario. It's too expensive. It's not happening. Have I Does anybody disagree with that? I I'd like to be proven wrong if that's wrong, but I thought that when we got away from the unit based restriction and went and we said last last week we clarified its form and or dimension depending on what's appropriate that we were not going to use the law to block off that that hypothetical that is truly like a pie in the sky hypothetical.
I think what I was putting on the table is that you could use form and dimension to to limit block. Yeah, because you could the same way we do in TC1. we have a maximum building frontage. So you have to have a break, you know, you can't have a building. So we could do that at a residential scale. There's the answer. So I think what I would recommend because we already use dimensional standards and so adding those is fine. Setbacks, heights, people understand that. I think what people don't understand is form based code and to be clear this would obviously be a hybrid because form based code is only regulating by form. We're regulating by use and form. Um so that maybe we could just add some examples of what we mean by formbased to maybe help clarify that to the public and bring it back to you for the second round to make sure we're getting the vision correct.
I that would be helpful for me. The way I understand form based code would be like in our downtown we kind of have a little hybrid because there's at the 12T mark you're required to use a different type of material so that it just provides a sense of scale as you're a pedestrian that is a type of a form base right like you're not regulating by F but you're regulating by a material that which creates a different segmentation or visual separation so I think using some examples to get familiarity with what form based means would be helpful for sure Could we do any do we know that we're going to delete the picture on 109? The image. I believe the edit was to remove the top graphic so that we had more room for these bottom images to make those larger cuz that graphic in particular looks like even though it says it's row houses the way it's drawn I mean literally I had conversations with people about this and I was unable to defend because they saw what they saw and I was trying to say no that's not what you know Those are row houses.
There are there's I guess you would say one woo articulation there, but it looks like a big long thing, right? To them, it looks like a big long thing. And it's just because these aren't legible to the public in the ways that they are legible to. And so they were insisting to me, oh no, no, that's just that's a big long Lockwood like building. And oh god. So I mean there's a real there there we know that we need to have integrity in the words that we use but there's also a real communication gap and we're we hear it every night here. Half of what we hear is frightening because it is frightening but it's not in the plan. And that is really I'm trying to have integrity, but I'm also trying to be honest to the conversations I'm having with people on the end that I am working on this, which is between here and you know to my my 20,000.
So y so following I'm trying to understand we've been talking about in the plan about encouraging gentle in gentle density gentle increases in density in single in the single family residences and that's what we're hearing is just this great concern that some monstrosity is going to be built and I have in my individual conversations oh this got built and it was fine and this got built and this was fine I don't object to that but in their mind they're they're perceiving all of these horrible things that could be built that are way out of scale. So, back to my earlier comment about we need to figure out how to um allow gentle increases in density that are conversant with the neighborhood. Pick your word. I don't I I'm very mindful of the your language concerns and the history of them, but we're telling them we're going to do gentle increases in density.
That's got to mean something. We're hearing from everybody, my neighborhood is different from everyone else. And we just we heard comments earlier, well, we have to be careful about neighborhoods because they're different from everywhere else. So, we have to account for that. Um, we're saying in here some text about we're going to develop formbbased codes and standards. Where are we going to do that? Where is this a place where we're the plan is calling for general guidance on we're going to do this and then we're going to do it through the zoning code? That's what would be appropriate. So, we need to make that more state that more clearly and and that what we're calling for is a standard based a set of standards that aren't so um differential to the neighborhood that they can be to everything, but also aren't so discretionary that it could mean anything, right?
We're going to have to walk that line. And I think we just need to state more clearly in here. That level of detail will be addressed in the zoning code when we get to the code reform to make it consistent with the plan. Is that what everybody's thinking? I I think so. For my clarification, does the sentence in 108 still exist? Further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood scale and which will be explored during the resoning process. I hope so. Did I get struck as far as I know? Okay, got it. Well, that that sentence I think encapsulates exactly what that sentiment was, right? That further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood scale. So, council member D, I just wanted to I support striking that graphic and moving I think I think we had talked about moving to larger example photos and striking the the graphic for low-rise residential on page 109.
And I would support doing that. I I think the graphic can't be saved. Um, and the reason is is that it it in it showing examples, it shows a shotgun. It shows h housing type shotguned into a low-rise residential, which I don't imagine is how it will happen. And it portrays, I think, maybe a representative, but I think a false example. I'd rather show people larger examples of these buildings to scale next to other buildings that look like theirs. Um yeah, they were probably still made at four stories because we changed that after. So that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So, but do you think even even if we sort of tried it, we'll be taking another swing at it. I'm worried it will it'll the other graphics I think do a really good job. And and this one for some reason because of the nature of the district, I think causes some alarm that I don't think is consistent with what we intend.
And one of the comments that we heard two meetings ago was the photos are really good, but they're too small. So, we can use that real estate to blow them up. Yeah. And okay, everybody on the board. Uh, well, just a a clarification to Commissioner Norton's comment about gentle. The the presence of gentle in the comp plan comes from the quotes of the residents which we've struck. And the only place that it survives in the actual plan would be on page 53 when we speak of missing middle. And so it's just one modifier to the amount of density there. So I think it would be better for us to settle on either missing middle as opposed to gentle because missing middle includes everything that we are discussing where gentle for a lot of residents once that term is used they're going to define it and then it will become a cudel because we are not abiding by what their definition is where missing middle goes I can't see because everything is tiny on my screen but from duplexes to live work units right and that is the scope because that would include the Hoover and Green building that we are speak that uh Commissioner Weatherbe spoke of um and everything in between.
And so I I feel like just to help us not have to have the same conversation that we're having about the stories and the height cuz there was agreement over my objection as uh uh Commissioner Abrams mentioned uh to go from four stories to three. We we heard that feedback. Uh the table had a robust discussion about it. We vote it and now we have moved on. I think it would be helpful for us to sort of settle in on the missing middle housing because otherwise what we're doing is we are um embedding into our neighborhoods the housing segregation that exists there today and I don't think I I cannot support that. I want to have a conversation about that but I have a straw poll on the table and I want to get that done and before we move past it. So what was the straw poll?
Straw was strong was striking the graphic on page 109. Sorry, I thought there was agreement. I think there was already agreement on I just didn't we accepted that. We're good. Yep. And so just real quick on page 109. Are there any other kind of like thoughts other than obviously organization? Yes, we during this conversation a couple mentioned different project examples. Are there project examples that you think that we've experienced in our community that aren't included in those typical building types that you think would be helpful? But didn't we have a conversation about how some of those are are inaccurate or confusing and we talked about sub substituting some for others? Yeah. Well, we definitely want to align the bullet points with the images and there was some misalignment there, but I think I thought we talked about like the duplex is enormous. It's like there's a much more common version of a duplex in Ann Arbor that shows up all over and this kind of thing.
We can Yeah, we can look for duplexes. And so I thought we had a conversation also about the attached single family home photo. Am I making this up? I remember this conversation. Okay. I I think we had a conversation about better images. Yeah. Okay. But are there prototypes that are missing here? There's also Sarah's Go. It's I'm going to come back to this actually now Hoover and Green got brought up. This is that's a great example. Is that a small apartment? Is that what we're imagining in low density residential? Because I if it is then then we should have that shown here. If it's not people like how do we define small? Yeah. And so and I don't think I don't think that Hoover and Green in my mind is a small apartment building and that is me. I will just I will just say that is me.
Um but I feel like that is something that we need. So you're happy it's not here. I am happy it's not here. I would like to have there's no depiction in those pictures of what we mean by small apartment building. And this is why I did my research last week to say like here are different like maybe they're all small in everybody's mind. Um, but I I feel like if we're saying small apartment buildings are in low density residential, thinking about what the I'm not saying F, what the footprint of that is, right? Right. Like that's Well, you were making an argument last week about the ground floor because it's really the ground floor that matters most to most people. It's sort of what feels um conversant to them as they walk past it. And I think it's on Madison that we have the threestory apartment one.
So I think Green and Hoover doesn't fit because it would be over the height limit. So I don't think we have to worry about it in terms of height. But um if you look at the Madison apartment that you took a photo of, um it is three stories, but it's upscale because it goes so far back into that lot and it's a L. it can present in the same way that a Hoover and Green could because it's almost near a corner. So, um, but I would say that is very comfortable in a lowrise. I would have no objection whatsoever to the Madison being there because I feel like that's where it is today. Sorry, I just This is why we need two meetings for the second draft. We we've like just back this conversation is so important, but we've like backslid and we're rehashing the low-rise residential conversation.
We haven't I don't think it was always clear. I don't think I don't feel like we are. I just we were asking what are are there any other comments on this page of this? So, we're going to we're going to start graphic and find some better image. But you during the conversation, you were talking about other images. And the reason I'm asking this is I think this will be helpful to the prior point to to help articulate what we mean by stand form standards and help to communicate that. So um that's why I posed the question. I Yeah, I was Oh, I wasn't saying I wasn't uh direct I might have been looking at you Brett. I was not directing coming at you. It was at us. It was at us directing it. I just wanted to just point out that this is an important conversation and also why things take more time than we think they're going to because we have not yet begun talking about transition yet.
Um but I think what my takeway is this I think a small apartment building should be on here and I also I would agree Hoover and Green is not a small apartment building that is a full city block. Um I think the the buildings in uh Commissioner Mills PDF are much more appropriate. I agree and they range from five units to eight units. There's a ton of them. Hill and Brown, you got an example as another. So there they are conveying a sense of scale and fit and gentle conversency with it. I want to make sure that doesn't get lost. And I I understand what you're saying, Commissioner W, about the missing middle, but that's kind of describing type more than it is these questions about form and fit with the neighborhood. And so how are we going to make sure that that concept isn't completely jettisoned?
I just don't I don't think we can come to an agreement on what gentle means and therefore I don't think we should use it because your definition of gentle won't meet my definition of gentle and so cuz I think having a block a full block the block that I'm on on Scio Church full of town houses would be fine for me. three-story town houses because they're like the row houses that I grew up with in DC. That was a neighborhood. That was a resident that made very clear sense. But there are a lot of folks we've been hearing from who would not would would say that's not gentle. So I I just don't think we can get to agreement on gentle and because we can't we should use jettison it completely then we're agreeing that we're not going to worry about it anymore. That's my concern.
Well, that that does sound like your concern. I would agree. I'm not think I don't think I'm alone in putting that concern on the table. Sure. I mean that that's why we can do the straw polls when we need to give uh the staff the uh feedback the straw poll about whether to use the term gentle. I'm not proposing that. I'm just saying if if we need to go in that direction, we have tools to help us uh figure out whether we're going to use it or not. I let me clarify. Not. So I I mean this is the question we keep coming back to. When are we going to just sit down and really noodle through this difficult question of how to how to figure out what fits in different neighborhoods? And we're going to have to do that at some point, right? It's either going to be through the plan or through the zoning code.
I don't think in the plan we can get to ne like every single neighborhood and how we're going to regulate it. But I think if there's more like warning that would clarify that that's if that's what you all want to do. So my concern is that we not write the plan in such a way that when we get to the zoning code, we say, "Oh gosh, that's not part of what we need to do in the zoning code cuz we didn't bring it up in the plan." And I'm afraid that not speaking to designing form-based codes so that new developments fit in the neighborhood, pick your word, fit, they're conversant with the neighborhood, they're not overly disruptive. So I think you and I have different goals. I'm trying to remove the existing housing segregation that exists because it's exclusionary. And when I hear we are trying to build housing that fits the existing housing segregation, I hear that it is perpetuating that because this is a 50-year look.
This is not a five, not even a 10, not even a 25. This is a 50-year look. So um I think one of our commenters, one of the very first com commenters said um let's not restrict things today so that we have the ability for tomorrow to have their own conversations. And so I think we need to have an expansive view. I think we are restricting it already. Council has given direction to planning. Planning has accepted it for a height limit. Now we're in the conversation about not restricting the number of homes because otherwise we get into these very weird configurations, you know, one bedroomedroom or one unit but sixbedroom kind of things. No, I wasn't suggesting that we go there. That's not that's how so so when I hear gentle what I'm hearing and and this is this is because of my social location uh which I think is very different.