there's it should taper down from that appropriately to residential and I think it can uh without changing the character of the district. So I wanted to already say that it says low to mid-rise I think in the table for 102 but it also says you know in other places higher intensity uses and higher density housing. And again that's not really I think the thrust of what I'm saying. The the main point is because it backs into some hub and because it also it goes right up against some houses. I think it's got to have it's okay if it's highrise in spots but it's it's got to taper as you get closer to residential appropriately. And I think that solves for the Miller objection because the Miller objection we're getting is this is too dense for us and if the tapering is right then that solves for some of that.
Well, the objection to Miller is also that the right of way is very narrow and that it's the same as a res like many of our residential roads that we did not put to transition. So there's doesn't solve for all of it. But I think a lot of a lot of the concern has been we're going to get these taller buildings right up right up along here. And I think having it having that tapering mechanism more clearly stated helps a little bit. It would also help to know what it's going to taper from or if it's not going to I mean I don't know what was given at the public engagement sessions. And I think that I'm worried that the low level in transition that was sometimes referred to is actually more um aggressive than TC1 is. Because in TC1 the taper is uh if you're within 80 feet of an R1 you can have 55 feet of height.
But I don't think we put it have we discussed this taper. Where are you basing that on? I'm just basing it on slides. I do think I do think in our slides we had talked about tapering heights for this um district and but I don't think we had specificity of what that was. Yeah. And I and I had that conversation a lot with people in Miller as well like you know that we envision tapering but I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means if the full hay would be realized there or not because those would be details for the zoning. So the I think there's a concern because if there are details out there and the details are higher than than the president of even TC1 and there are things like Miller if we're if we are keeping that if Travers are that were were there numbers on the slide?
Yes. Originally when we talked about all of these districts, we had heights attached to them and I believe transition was four to seven stories at its minimum because I think what Commissioner Adams is saying right is that we would use the we would limit the height even lower if you were directly adjacent to a to a residential. So they a lot of them are right cuz they're on corridors that have single family homes on them. Um, so what does adjacent mean though? Because in in TC1 adjacent means um shoot it means the it's within 80 ft. That's the that's for the lowest height in TC1. You could you can get 55 ft if you're within 80 ft of an R1. I don't mean to I don't mean to restrict the debate. I think you're asking Council Member D. asking good questions, but I I I guess that feels separate for me from can we can we say high-rise to low-rise?
Like that gets to a level of detail that I'm not sure I want to get into in this document. I agree. But if it's out there and there are petitions being circulated and signed because they think something is fixed and I hear the issue. I'm just saying I'm asking for a straw poll on making a change to low to highrise and a taper away from residential neighborhoods without being specific. And if we want to I think right after that address the issue of do we want to get specific that would be totally fine to have that discussion. I just don't want to dis I don't want to I don't want to make the job that staff has of incorporating the edits harder by tangling up two different conversations in one. You're absolutely right. So, is there any opposition to low to high-rise with a taper from what how did I frame it in my note?
I said, um, reward mid-rise and medium scale in reference to transition to read low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to nearby residential homes. So, yeah, the purpose of transition was to be mid-rise. I understand that. I'm asking for it to say low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to nearby residential homes because some have transitioned backs up into hub and there's no reason to limit it to mid-rise there or or where it's isolated and far away from a a residential home. It's it like again it it the sensitivity there feels entirely related to getting close to a residential parcel. And I think we can design a taper mechanism like we did in TC1 to do that work for us. And if it's right up against hub, there's no reason to limit. Um, and maybe staff, do you want to explain your rationale for wanting to limit even when it backs into?
So we we thought that it was appropriate to suggest a scale that would be smaller than the hubs. We had identified that the hubs are the most intense place for development. Um transition zones we had keyed to a lot of building code potential which uh honestly haven't been fully realized yet with the adoption of new building codes. um uh setting a a height that of seven stories would have been approximate to the international building code and how a lot of housing gets built across the country under the international building code. But because we're so special here in Michigan, we decided let's keep that around five stories instead. Um so that was the intention of it is to um and and also to communicate a smaller scale of development um just in in the way I've been talking about with a lot of people over the course of the last couple of years is talking a lot about uh the development uh on South Mainard and 618 as examples of the types of development typology that I think would be appropriate along these corridors.
Um, without the specificity as to how far it would drop as it gets closer to residential or with what proximity, whether it would drop below four stories at all. Um, so I think what now is being considered is that this district is really more referential. So it like I guess what I'm hearing is it might drop to three stories when it gets close to residential and have the same limit as hub when it's adjacent to hub which is just a little bit different about how we were laying out the district but that's commission's prerogative. The one of the other things I recall reading in the somewhere uh is that that I think yeah it's actually the end of this chapter that the the trans the what well no let me just quote it because it says that that there there's a desire for some flexibility around where these where the boundaries of these things are.
And so, um, one way to to, uh, I should just, oh God, I really hate the way the screen does that. Um, it is, yeah, allowing certain boundaries to be fluid rather than strictly prescriptive. And so I suppose that the change that um Commissioner Adams is proposing would enable greater fluidity where transition meets hub. Um and we might want greater fluidity where transition meets R1. Mhm. And so that's you guys can take that to a vote if you want. Yeah, I think you have that with the language as it is. I think what is being proposed is basically just the transition zone having a wider range of opportunities than um having sort of a separate communicated character district as it's currently. It's building it out a little bit. Yeah. And it I also wanted to signal to people when they read low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to residential homes.
I want people to read that sentence and see the tapering without having to reference something else. Yeah. And just one other piece that I don't I don't I don't I don't think this is a reason not not to consider that change, but um when we're talking about infrastructure, sizing infrastructure, whether it's locationally or across the city, [Music] um adding high-rise potentially to more of these districts just might be a factor in areas of the city that might now be real might have the potential for greater capacity. It might also result in different projections. You know, you'll recall some of the early projections we did about build out of the future land use map. That might change the potential to increase that volume as well. So, um yeah, it's um I I don't think the fluidity is I think that's built into the plan. That's the intention is when you have transition versus a hub, we want the fluidity to understand that um it's hard for us to predict now 20 years from now what the pattern of land use ownership and arrangement is there and give the city a a reasonable opportunity to consider how to how to how to respond to a request.
Um so I don't think that that that is particularly helped or hurt in any way by this proposed change. Okay. And to be specific, are we talking about page 102 on the table? So it's the low to midrise instead of low to mid-rise, you're saying low to highrise. Okay. Tapers. Okay. Gotcha. And depending on proximate proximity to lowrise resils above context sensitive to height, but I agree that your wording um Commissioner Adams make doesn't make them have to read two bullet points and hold a thought in their head that long. I don't want high-rise ripped out of context. So, I want I want the intention clear and um because that again could be inflammatory and it's not the intent. It's just when we get close to hub, we should be able to go higher. Can I just look at the big map for one minute?
I know I don't want to. No, you guys can keep talking. And then while that happens, can I just um can I just ask what unified street wall means? I think we've got a straw. We're done. Is there consensus? That's what I was going to say. I don't I don't think there's objection. I'm good with it. Okay. Okay, great. Yeah, if you didn't object. Okay, so we're we're good on that change. Um, and then the next one just underneath the unified street. More can somebody else understand what that on page 102? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's just right underneath it high and then unified street. I didn't know what that meant. Yeah, it's uh I think that is uh obviously unsuccessful, but it's intended to reflect a lot of some of the similar standards that we have with our um that we originally had with some of our TC1 and our D1 and D2 where um we have some requirements that you have uh maximum setbacks.
Um and the D1 D2 we have frontage requirements where you have to occupy certain amount of the block. So it was intended to communicate that as part of the transition district. It was intended to be very corridor pedestrian oriented and part of that um to use your I think some of the experiences you were talking about have a relationship with people whether it's material or height or whatever. So I think um an unsuccessful way of trying to say that the the form of development would be very multimodal supportive and um particularly for pedestrian maybe can we just say pedestrian oriented? Yeah, for sure. Okay. Okay. Street. Cool. Something. Yeah, cuz you um if we're to walk by. If we're Yeah. Nice to walk by. I mean that's that is what we mean. like good for pedestrians, pedestrian friendly. Can we um stay here for a moment and I can make another suggestion for a revision to that table?
I think we were always planning to come back to this table once we had talked about all of the districts and then we could make the changes. Oh, okay. But if Well, I just would like to strike active from first floor commercial. Yes. I think we've heard from a lot of people um sending us comments and also within this body that there would be many good commercial uses that may not qualify as active that we would want to allow in transition zone. I thought their comments was more that you they don't want to require that there's active like that there's a commercial use at all at all. Sorry. At all also that. So, so should we just change it to So, you want to strike that for both the hub and the transition? I Yeah, I would support that as long as it's not required.
I mean, I think we Yeah, if it's not we require we have a lot of like I would envision us revisiting or keeping or modifying our form standards like about transparency and first floor height, but we don't have to keep those either. Should we say permissive instead of active? Right. Yeah. It would be better if you had to keep allow it, but we don't want to require it. Yep. Well, it doesn't it's inferred. That's what it's just not clear. I think Yeah, I think that's all that we're not we're not saying that it's it's just listed there. So, it's not Yeah, I guess I read every I read most of this as something which either going to be required or limited. Is it an aspiration or not? Sure. That's why aspiration I think it's an aspiration of being here as a goal. Sorry. So, I'm misreading this.
I So, maybe this is the issue. I'm I'm assuming things in here are either limits or um requirements. It's these are trying to uh these are trying to These are just descriptions. Describe what these districts might be. No, but when you say low to mid-rise, you mean not high-rise. Only low only low to mid-rise, right? Or so when we say Yeah, but that's not been modified to low to high. No, no, I know. But, I'm just saying they're not just like des they're not they actually are imposing limitations. They are not descriptive because before we but before we just trans transition we could not have highrise in the transition district. So it was a restriction and that was the that was the intention and is to no I think what I'm saying it's not like uh includes but is not limited to the following. It's actually more this is this is intended to be more uh defining the limits or the parameters or the constraints.
No. Well, I didn't or maybe we can do maybe let's go go the other direction. When you say active first floor commercial, what do you intend that to communicate? Um, for me it would be an aspirational that the first floor businesses have a a public connection. They have um uh paracity like where people might be coming and going. um that may be an active, you know, it might be a retail use, it might be an office, maybe it's just a gym as part of an apartment complex, but I think all of those can help create an interesting uh pedestrian experience. Um I yeah, I agree. I don't think act I'm not sure active use is the right term, but my question is is that a goal of ours like or would you prefer to have the experience of you know the bank blanc on South Main?
Personally, it would be I would we could I would rank those. There are things I would prefer to see, but I would never want to rest do something that would cause no h like that would if that was going to be housing. Great. But do you want us to So, we could say encourage do you want to identify it as a goal to see if that's something we can achieve or not? That's the purpose of this plan. Well, so I I personally think that um it's the Jane Jacobs kind of like eyes on the street concept, right? Like I I want passive security to be inc encouraged on sidewalks by just few I mean like I think in TC1 for example required what 70% transparency right on on like you need glass kind of on the first so so I I certainly think it's an aspiration that we want to increase passive security.
I mean it doesn't necessarily have to be active but even just having eyes um of somebody being able to see what's happening on the the ground floor is great. The the challenge is is like if you had imposed it and said like, "Yeah, you have to have some type of a commercial, right?" Then it's like, "Okay, well, it's vacant. Sorry. Yeah, I can't lease it." Right. Exactly. And I think it's just the question of how people read it. I did not read that as a list of requirements because it says residential, commercial, light industrial. I assumed you weren't going to require light industrial. So, I didn't read it as a requirement, but I had a number of people raise to me, make sure that you guys don't require that. So, I don't know if we just it's it's just a matter of clarification or something or because someone did come up to me at a at a comment session at an engagement session and say the problem is we don't trust you.
And I thought yeah that is the problem. Thank you for telling me. Um and you know sometimes the way we word things it helps to when you know like they just put the most suspicious spin and Yeah. Yeah. We say like perform. We might not fix that by changing this word. But I don't think active is the problem. I think just how are you reading that list? Yeah. Is there a suggestion on what to change it to? Prefer active first for uses or encourage. Well, no. Could I suggest building uses on the side? Could I suggest interactive streetscapes or something? Really, it wasn't the commercials. You were trying to get some diversity and interaction going. So, residential, commercial, light, industrial, interactive streetscapes, pedestrian friendly or something like that. And not and then I'm not sure interactive streetscapes doesn't necessarily sound comforting to me. I've walked by interactive streetscapes and okay, but not necessarily great.