It's preserve neighborhood character, protect protect property values, maintain harmonious communities, support neighborhood schools. These are this is the lexicon of exclusion. And so that's all that's on the one extreme and I get totally your concern about trying to undo fixed patterns, but I see that as the other extreme. I'm trying to figure out where's the middle. Yeah. Where's the compromise? Well, the there is no compromise with folks who don't want anything. I mean, that's the problem. We haven't been given suggestions. We've been given Let me be clear. I'm not I'm not knuckling under to folks who don't want anything to change. I'm not going there. But I think that's I also kind of recognize the the idea of transition over time. And I'm hard heartened by the folks I've talked to who said, "Yeah, I've seen developments. I've seen triplexes come into my neighborhood. They're fine." What is it about them that have they're still where they are?
They're in their neighborhood. They've got a triplex that doesn't bother them. Was that just happen stance or is there some way that we can navigate that and give some assurance that we're not going to build a fivetory building 4 ft from your lot line, which is what everybody's We already provide that assurance. We've limited it to three stories. We talk about uh using setbacks and dimensional regulations and to what end though I mean we've the one thing we've clearly done is limited the heights and we're very vaguely saying we're going to use formbbased standards and what I'm asking is to what purpose what I'm hearing well we're really not but the building types are cottage courts town houses single family homes accessory three dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. None of that is I think we're actually doing a lot to communicate the intent. I I also just I also feel like zoning is where we actually debate all of this stuff in in the UDC updates, not in the complaint.
And none of this stops a single family development or excuse me a single family detached from uh doing a lot combination and building a Bigfoot there. Um and we have no restrictions in our code for the number of related people who can live together. So I I was at Traverwood with you this past week. I sat next to uh a neighbor who was like, "I'm afraid." That was his phrase. And I said, "What are you afraid of?" He's like, "Well, I don't know what's going to be built next door." And I was like, "You currently don't know what's going to be built next door." And he's like, "Well, it'll be a single family home." I was like, "But 34 people could move in. As long as the building code permitted it, there's no restriction." And he's like, "Well, where did they park?" And I go, "You can't park on Miller today." And he's like, "Right." And I was like, so so that that's what I am working through is we have code that permits anything as long as it's a single family home up to what 3500 square ft before they have to talk to you, Mr.
Leonard. And you can clear cut all the trees because it's in private development. And now we're being more restrictive in a sense with what is coming that's supposed to densify. And I think it's reversed. I I and in some ways I appreciated the comments uh from Commissioner uh Mills uh early on in this conversation that some of these decisions have unintended but also perverse outcomes. So I I think um I hear you. I I just don't have an answer for you other than to say I don't agree with Gentle, but that's it. Yeah. So I don't think I mean I think it's okay to say I mean the the thing about gentle is that we would have to define it right we had a woman who came in and said you know define gentle define there were several things I wrote them down I think we noted them that night and and I don't know how we would define gentle but one of the things I actually think this plan defines which I do like is missing middle.
I mean, funny enough, there's so many concepts that are in the plan that didn't really get defined. And um the way I have been thinking about how to convey what's going on in low-rise residential is that it envisions these lowscale multifamily missing middle housing forms to coexist with detached single family homes. I don't think that's, you know, and that it makes it legal again to build these once common missing middle housing forms. I mean, these were common in Andor. So, we're actually reaching back to a past that was certainly more economically diverse by vers by virtue of its housing patterns. And so, um, and but you know, 1957 and then the 1980s changed all of that. So we're So the vision everybody has for the kind of increased density that could go into any single family residential house would be a duplex, triplex, quadplex, townhouse or cordage cottage.
It would build. It would depend on the size of the parcel and what whatever we say whatever we do with form standards that will without referencing parcels affect how much area you can have for your thing. I mean cottage courts don't fit I mean they fit on a very particular kind of lot. Rowouses could be very consistent with the rhythm of the neighborhood. The one standard we've clearly established is not higher than three stories, right? What are the other standards? Well, we're not going to do that in the plan. I I mean, we've we've given we'll give examples of what form based standards, you know, what tools we have in formbbased standards, but I don't think that we want to tie the hands of the zoning to come or impose a sort of uniformity because we're dealing with one land use category. We're going to have different zones.
Let me ask it this way. What how will we describe the purpose of the formbbased standard? The purpose is to bring back missing middle housing which was once common in a more economically diverse time in this horribly now obscenely I'm I'm being a little bit I'm playing devil's advocate here. So that doesn't do it for you because now you're descri missing housing is to bring back forms that aren't here. No, the middle missing middle housing is the forms that aren't here but were once common and right but now we're saying but don't worry because we're going to adopt formbbased standards for what purpose? To minimize the disruption of the stuff that's going into the neighboring properties. I think like the like the height limit the formbbased standards will be used to to limit the size and scale of development. And we have not yet had that conversation and we will have that conversation and we will have to decide if a typical single family home is 50 is ft its facade width do we want something that size bigger smaller trying to get into the plan is a signal that we're going to have that conversation so it's right but I think it's there in the sentence that one read out loud which is further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood neighborhood scale which will be explored during the reason.
That's the key sentence. So that's the purpose of the formbbased standards. Y I'm okay with the missile milling housing. I'm the missing middle housing that's resonates with I mean probably Donnell doesn't like this. We say preserving neighborhood scale. You probably take issue with that. But I think we do say in here preserving neighborhood scale which feels like what you're saying in terms of uh that's Yeah. So maybe I Okay, that's what I'm looking for because that what I want to make sure is that we have that conversation and I could very well end up agreeing with Commissioner W on what those standards would be cuz I I totally get his concerns, but I don't want them to be chopped off at the el at the knees now because we didn't include that in the plan. So So maybe I'm pushing a point that you already settled some time ago when you pointed out that sentence is still there.
Your hand up. Yeah, I was um I was just going to suggest that the the language in the plan that says that we will do that work. Maybe part of this is us linking it um in some way to the typical residential building types. I would just say that having this plan that says we're going to do that work and here's examples of what we want to accomplish, I think would be a great jumping off point for us to start doing the zoning work to figure out with deeper dives what is it about these examples. And with each one of those, we're probably going to be doing more research about different versions of duplexes. What are ones we like? What are ones we don't like? What are versions of stack flats that we like and don't like? What are small apartments that we like and we don't like?
So, I would just say that I as Michelle pointed out before, I don't suggest we are going to be able to we're not going to be able to satisfy everybody with a level of specificity that we will get to where they would want us to get. But I think we can get to a level of spec specificity that we we think zoning is the appropriate place to do that. And we're signaling very clearly here, these are the types of products that we're going to be steering towards. Um, and that that's the place as to how we put together the regulatory framework, whether it's one district or 34 districts that get to those things. Um, that's how it'll be realized. I I'd like to point out I'm thinking about Can I say he was joking, please? I'm thinking about all the comments we keep getting over and over again about one size plan doesn't fit all, one size plan doesn't fit all.
And and what it's usually voiced in the context of my neighbor, you should set aside my neighborhood or that's what I'm hearing except Okay, I know. I get that and I'm I'm totally hearing it. But I think that people don't understand the diff the difference between the land use categories and zoning districts. And this plan has three now land use categories. And we don't know how many zoning districts it will take to realize them. Correct. It will be fewer than we used to have, but it's not going to be three cuz that would could be Yeah. I think people are responding to the fact that we have one residential future land use district and so they think that all regulations are going to be exactly the same across the board and that is not true. That's what I do not want to I don't want to put out there that we can guarantee that there are going to be many residential I agree zoning districts.
I don't even think I'm not saying there's going to be none, but I just think can we not be 13, but I don't think there's going to be one and I've feel like we've been clear about that. Yeah. No, I know. But I just want to really make sure we don't set unreasonable expectations in the public about customized zoning districts for their neighborhood. that is not it's not going to be that either. It's not going to be one zone and it's not necessarily going to be that every single neighborhood has their, you know, customized zoning. That's not how it is now either. And I'm trying to point out I don't think we need to do that. If in fact we're successful in designing formbbased standards that make sure that no matter what district you're in, it's not a one-sizefits-all, this standard building is going to go everywhere.
you're going to have buildings with storm form based standards that fit the context of the neighborhood. I think that sentence we read covers that. Yeah. So that's my response to folks who are saying it's not a one it's not a one-sizefits plan. It's context dependent. But that's going to happen through the zoning code. Correct. Primarily through the form based standards not by the proliferation of districts so that every neighborhood gets its own zoning district. I'm not I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about a proliferation of districts. But I just am pointing out that what is their their misunderstanding is they hear mid-rise residential and they think that's a zoning district. Sorry, I always do that. They they hear lowrise residential. Sorry. And they think it's one zoning district. It's one zoning district. That's that's their misunderstanding. I I completely understand that. The misunderstanding comes from conversations here where some I mean some commissioners aspire I think we've aspired to that.
Yes. I I think so. I don't think we should indicate that we have to do more than two zones like I think that's our minimum and then uh I would argue it's our maximum but that's a conversation we will have at the table. I I want to make sure also that we're giving practical feedback especially I feel clear on I feel clear if you all are ready to move on to transition. I feel right you I'm just going to throw in one little wrench. Okay. Thanks. Right. The where where my head's at? I've read that sentence now like I don't know 30 times at this point. And it's that last sentence about preserving neighborhood scale. For me it is about um increased legibility of like the idea of preservation like it induces this concept of like protectionalism like in in my head like this concept of um there should be different types of product types like whether it's a 1,200 foot or a 600 foot or a 3,000 foot like you should have the option in different neighborhoods to kind of choose the housing type that you would like to be in, right?
That that fits your And so this idea of that, you know, and and I'm I'm trying to absolutely balance the the needs of kind of or what I'm hearing, right? and really kind of incorporate that. But that that sentence right there um I think it is pivotal, but I am kind of worried about the exact wording of that saying preserving neighborhood scale because I think what it is about is about um preserving um legibility I think is early not the the word the operating word of like preservation is a little concerning to me, right? Because that's like historic, right? Historic preservation. pres preserving is a problematic word cuz you're fixing things in Yber. What about respecting? No, I mean well and like I think the idea it needs to be improved legibility, right? like we want uh I I I don't like and I guess improvement is already kind of like a judgmental or subjective kind of case but I I this sentence um while I think it is necessary or like the concept of it is necessary for the purpose of like just what we have heard I don't think it's correct in the right in the current state that is in because again the idea should be that different neighborhoods I'd love to live in Burnsburg I used to walk home from tap the middle school, I was like, "Oh, wow.
All my friends live here. I I'm not going to live there. I live in a attached townhouse. Actually, I love the place, right? Like I I know my neighbors very well." And I agree with you that the neighbors, the people that live in that's what actually makes up the fabric of the neighborhood. So, like to me, it's like those kinds of options should be available in different neighborhoods, right? Like the different price points, etc. So like the idea of the preservation of the continuity again like that that does seem operatively slightly concerning from that standpoint. So but but that being said what we don't want is the detraction of like architectural dividend or value that's created through legibility of the neighborhood like as you walk past it like it it needs to make sense. Like what we don't want is like abrupt and then you know when we talk about the concept of gentle you're right gentle means different to different people like abrupt and violent transitions right I'm trying to use kind of the opposite of what I would consider to be gentle um I I I think and I'm trying to figure out like what's the right way to word this in a way that is yeah whether it's respect I don't know is it just uh something along lines that further analysis uh is needed to identify additional measures to ensure that new development is realized in the example scales here.
Yeah, we're Yeah. So, we are preserving scale, but like we're we're capping the heights. We're we're we're considering scale. Yeah. I mean, why don't why don't we just recommend like I I think I I'm hearing a lot of agreement that preserving neighborhood scale is a little bit too protectionist perhaps. So why don't we just try and craft some language that is a little bit more general or doesn't okay because it should be explored during that reasoning process right and and again there is value to legibility there is value to but um also by you I legibility I don't where the public will get at all. It doesn't resonate with me and I I think I think it's worse than some of our planning nerdy terms. It's a very design focused word. I if you can give us another adjective like a synonym. Yeah. Yeah. Let's let you all do it and the consultants.
We need to do a vote on the gentle density before we move on to transition. I'm okay with not using the word gentle. Can we scrub it? I just want to make sure that it's just on page 53. Um, well, while we're at it then, but that's only because you asked, Michelle, Michelle, I literally want to move forward. Yeah, I want to move forward, too, but can we also scrub neighborhood character from page 108? Sure. We should get rid of neighborhood character everywhere it exists. That is such a That is such a hot It's a hot phrase and it's the only place in the whole planet shows up. So, it's very easy to just want to be clear that when planners say that, we're talking about mass and scale. We're not using it in the way that other people. So let's say neighborhood mass and scale district.
I mean yeah cuz character gets us into these conversations that are not productive. Page 110 transition. Can I take a swing for sure? Can you take a swing? Please, Dan. Please. So I I submitted a comment on this and I'll try to track it because I think it's it's relevant to the Miller feed push back we're getting. So I think Miller should state transition provided that we and there's I guess two changes that I want to make to this is pa sorry which page are we on? I want to make sure I'm tracking this right. We're on 110 110. Yep. So 110 talks about it's got the I think it says mid does it say midrise in here or is that back in the table? No. It's here. I thought it might have just been on the table. It is on the table. You're right, sir.
All right. So, it's more on the table than it is here, but it's relevant to the discussion here, I think. Um, I think we want to say low to high-rise buildings, but we want to say depending on proximity to residential to nearby residential homes. The reason I'm saying that is if transition backs up to hub, there's no reason to there's no reason to limit if it backs into hub. And some of these transition districts do back into hub. Some of these transition districts are right along like the Miller example comes front of mind where people are are saying that's a residential neighborhood. That's not a major art artery. There's not a bus line on it. They're making all these arguments and there's merit in that. If we're already saying in here that this district self-regulates height when adjacent to established residential districts and we are backing it up into hub and hub is high-rise.