I don't think the pro I I don't think the issue I mean we could take out just take out the word active and say forceful or commercial. We could leave in the word active. It might just be helpful if it was permitted building uses along the side because then it's obvious that it's not required building uses. Let's let's in the gray. Let's hold off on this one. Come back to it when we tackle the tables cuz I think we can talk about the transition district, right? Um on page 110 and let's circle back to it because uh I think we've talked about the intent. We may be circling a little bit. So I want to make sure that we we hit this and the rest of the pages. Um so let let's go to page 110. Um my my comment here uh is actually with the paragraph that starts with both the ride 2045 long range.
Um, one of the things that I'd love to see for the consultants is instead of that saying like emphasizing the importance, right, that that's what they have said. I'd love to see if there's some level of integrations. They plan to increase bus service or they have a certain number of like I just want a little bit of analytic rigor to that particular sentence as opposed to just saying like they they plan to. Do you guys see that? Um it it just says that it it emphasizes the importance of locating higher density development near transit routes. But then one of the things I was thinking of is like in the third paragraph, can we um more specific? Yeah. Yeah. I just I it needs a little bit more meat, I think, is kind of where my head was going. So you know, we shouldn't make promises that we don't have any power over though.
Well, that's fair. I I suppose 2045 is just saying like I'm like I'm I'm I'm using Miller as kind of like an example, right? Um does 2045 state that they're going to increase bus service, but I guess that's beyond the scope of what we have. So, okay, point taken. Disregard, please. Uh wait, you want me to remove that as a comment? No, no, just just remove the comment. Yeah, forget it. I agree with you. We can't um Yeah. So since we collapsed this and the flex district, we need to think about adding in I think the primary uses in buildings warehousing research and development need to go somewhere. Do they don't they fall under light industrial? Yeah, light industrial is in there. So in previously in the pre in the then I guess that was a weird thing to call out in the flex district because they had light industrial plus research and development and warehousing.
So I just want to make sure that again this is where we ended the last thing what the intent is of this district is inclusive now of the kind of intent that we had in flex as well. So again, I don't because I don't know that we necessarily need to have two separate transition zones. I'm not necessarily calling for that. I'm just calling for an intent of the zone that recognizes the multiple things now that we think might fit in this. And so um yeah, so to piggyback on that, if we have collapsed flex, I think what I'm hearing is like, well, R&D needs to go somewhere, right? So if we collapse them, the And I remember it was Mr. Leaf that said um he did not want kind of like industrial uses on like South Industrial or something like that, right? Um, I I want to be clear, uh, like nuisance, odors emanating beyond the property line, all of those standards still apply to this district, right?
I want to make sure that that's Yeah, there's performance standards. Perfect. Yep. And so I But but I also want to acknowledge that there's a flexibility to those uses when they're aggregated amongst similar uses. Like for example, [Music] um marijuana business odors when in integrated into commercial business commercial businesses was a thing. So So absolutely no change exists there. But I just I just want to I just want to recognize that having two uses that might be more prone to odors next to each other is might be a different experience than one of those uses next to residential. Gotcha. Like a Sriracha. I don't want to relitigate flex again. But your example of the marijuana shops, don't they have to have filters? they do with they don't always work to the satisfaction of but that's a code enforcement issue. It is and and it's a it's also a resource question.
It's also just yeah thinking about staff and thinking about when we what we require a conflicting land use buffer for like it's not even about I mean that's about a parking lot right and that the fact that if it's a residential at all if it's residential in a mixeduse zone now the neighbors have to have a conflicting land use buffer where they wouldn't otherwise and I mean I know that that's something that we can change but I like that's one where we I um that I that I think where that kind of comes up and it maybe you weren't here for the last conversation about that. So um but I just we want to make sure that if there's content about things that we want to make space for in the city and we've decided that we're going to collapse them all into the transition zone that the transition zone is not now just only about about um creating a street wall.
right? Like that's that's what's going to be hard actually. But that decision that decision was made last time I think so I my recommendation is that those uses now do have to be built with a street wall and my recommendation is that we add industrial to the intent section here. um to be a little bit more clear about that that now we expect our light industrial to be meeting those same intentions about walkable nodes and corridors. Um and I would also suggest that based on the last change, we also consider adding a high-rise example to our building types. Okay. I'm okay with the high-rise example. I don't think we need to change the street wall concept. it that no I'm not proposing we change it but I think I don't think but I I the idea with collapsing flux into this one was that this one accommodates industrial it wasn't it wasn't the judgment that we need to make industrial have a street wall I think but on the table that we just talked about we talked about a street wall right but that doesn't require a street wall so there's a we're getting into I'm okay so we're looking at 102 Um well I think we were looking at one to higher density housing with opportunities for complimentary retail and commercial space fostering walkable nodes and corridors.
And so if now we are incorporating our research and industrial I think we should incorporate that language here. And when I see walkable nodes and corridors it I think of street walls. I think of orientation. I think of setbacks. And so my understanding from that conversation last time is we are now imposing that intention on a greater variety of uses not only the ones that were included here but also warehouse research etc. No that's not what I intended but okay well then I guess I don't understand I mean we could just the the intent statement for flex said preserve opportunities for affordable diverse mix of flexible uses and scales. Yeah but that's gone now. No, no, no. I know. But you're talking about folding that intent into the transition. What I'm saying is there's nothing about scale in that in the original intent for flex.
It just says flexible uses well and scales. But no, no. I I think it was flexible there. The transition district, I think, takes a more affirmative action to say we have a typology in mind of development for this and we weren't carrying that same typology to the flex district. That's that's what that was my take on it. And so by eliminating that flex district, you had directed to put the transition district where we had previously flex. So now we're imposing this development physical typology. I understand like I'm clear that you wanted the flexibility of uses and I get that. But now this is a I this is a imposing a typology of pattern of development I think on those uses that is going to be challenging not impossible. This is the same thing we struggled with TC1 and we made those modifications and so we can do the same thing here.
But I think we should be clear that that's now how we expect those uses to be realized in our community. So I think there's more in what you're envisioning than the words on the page. I think that's what I'm trying to call attention to. So like you're the words on the page just say so is it the word walkable that for you feels in congruent with flex but I think research park drive could be walkable. Okay. Or that's just me personally. I'm just saying that doesn't if there's a tension between let's identify the word that is if there's a tension between what we collapsed like I don't intend to transform self-industrial into a a walkable and I I think we can agree to disagree on whether it could be. I'm saying I'm not trying to impose anything on the industrial what's currently zoned M1 or M2 that we're folding in a transition in terms of its walkability or its street frontage or whatever.
What I need staff's help on is how to carve those districts out and still preserve. They don't need we don't All I intended to do with proposing getting rid of flex was the intention of flex was to do something I didn't want to do which was create this um you know wall off a section of the city or discourage housing. We we didn't need it and that was the intention of getting rid of it. That's fully compatible with folding industrial into these zones. If that's intention with the walkability requirement, then we can find a way with language to carve it out. But I don't want to impose a walkability requirement absurdly on two industrial largely industrial areas that currently industrial areas of the city that don't seem appropriate for that. Yeah. Again, my my read was of that conversation was that you wanted to we wanted the commission wanted to bring to those geographies the intentions that we were talking about with the transition district which are street walls maybe some version of active first floors multimodal multimodal and so you know that's what I was that that was the conversation I I take the direction.
I'm not trying to relitigate that, but if that's the case, then I think the transition district has to be much broader because practically speaking, we need to be able to communicate to land owners when X version of the transition district is appropriate to apply and when Y version of the transition district is appropriate to apply. So what I could do is propose some language if that would be helpful because I don't think I don't think that this is this is just an exercise in saying with respect I mean we what we want here is in areas where it's appropriate to um encourage you know walkability in some of these notes. I mean these districts don't apply I think in the way that I'm hearing you say that they apply. For example, we say in here with respect to um you know, we just got got done talking about how we want um active first floor commercial on arterials.
That's a sub that's a subzone within a district, right? Like an arterial is not the entire district. An arterial is a spot inside the district, right? Well, an arterial is a corridor and most of our transition zones are on corridors, right? But it's but what I'm saying is it is a part of the land inside of the district. Right. So like south industrial as an arterial. I'm no I'm saying that the districts don't apply in this rigid way that you're suggesting. I'm saying that we could say we want walkable street frontage in these parts of transition, but maybe we're not going to incentivize it in other parts. And the the district can be as flexible as we need it to be. In other words, the tension that you're pointing out, I think can be solved with drafting. And what I need help with is how to draft it.
Well, generally, if there's two different intents for then they're two different zones. It's not two different intents. It already allowed light industrial. So, you're you're intention here is basically so I'm I'm looking I'm back on the table. So, building form contextsensitive that could apply very equally to um any land use. I think uh shared entries um that is probably more applicable to commercial and residential I'm thinking than maybe industrial but I I I don't know that for sure it you know I guess it's possible you could have you know you have office marks um reduced automobile dominant site design that like that's one that I think that there might be uses on south industrial that are actually very automobile ccentric right now a bus garage, uh, auto repair, what have you. And they don't have to be absolute. Again, just like TC1, we said we could see those being realized, but they have to follow our form based standards.
Um, a unified street wall, that's a building form standard that is there across the district. Um, so you're what you're suggesting is perhaps there's a building form. I'm trying to understand there's a building form though. I think this is kind of the tension why originally we had provided flex was we think that there might be distinct building forms and development styles for different categories of uses. The purpose of flex is preserve opportunities for affordable I mean it was entirely an employment district. So I'm what I'm I'm happy to help with language. to just want a little direction on what you're trying to accomplish on. You're pointing out, I think, correctly, that we may not want reduced automotive dominant site design and self-industrial. And I think that there are a handful of there's a handful of statements in here that we need to make sure in our drafting apply to the parts of transition that we think they're appropriate to apply to and not to the parts that we don't.
And I was hoping that by adding relatively small slices of the city to transition that we could accommodate it in and with some hopefully minor tweaks to it. Maybe. Yeah, I'm happy to propose changes. Sorry, I wanted to get back to kind of what um Commissioner Mills and I were commenting about. If we we've already agreed to collapse flex, that means the two categories of permitted uses that aren't on that aren't on flex or that's gone from flex would be R&D and warehouse. The question really I think for me is like less about the building form that permitted use component of are we just good with just eliminating R&D and warehouse from like the permitted use of like districts everywhere? We don't call out every single we're we're saying in here that we're we're allowing light industrial in transition which we already did and I don't think do we need to call out adult inter I mean there's a million different things in here.
I I'm not sure we need to call it out in the plan what's we say light industrial isn't that sufficient. Um we've distinguished warehousing and light industrial I guess it could be. Yeah, I suppose the the question is are we cool with um the example that we heard earlier tonight about the glass maker in a transition zone, right? Like I think about like light industrial in so long as that they're subject to performance standards, I guess I'm not really all all that concerned. Um you're saying that light industrial already encapsulates R&D warehousing. Is that I think warehousing was pulled out if I could guess because light industrial could be for example like a 3D printing shop or something like that and that could fit in. But a warehouse for example like if you look at our transition corridors like those are usually massive onestory kind of sprawling buildings that I don't think fit the intent.
And so I think that was probably pulled out originally in flex. Oh, so it was um so even prior to the collapsing of flex, it was extricated. No, I'm I'm just saying I think that's why there's a distinction. I think that's why like they have light industrial and warehouse cuz warehouse is such a distinct kind of building format that usually only fits well in industrial areas. I don't I don't think there I agree with Commissioner Adams. I don't think we need to list every use, but I I I think that maybe broadening the light industrial to include um office or research just I feel like it's missing like one more category broadly. Yeah. R&D. Yeah. Um ultimately we kind of talked about the importance of having economic diversification in in the consideration of what that means overall. um at least I think I've mentioned that in the past.
Um it appears that we we've collect flex which I'm okay with conceptually speaking. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't just lose kind of the concepts behind what that was going to be. So um but commercial light industrial I think are encapsulating. So I think that's Commissioner Mills correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's what you we were talking about. I was like, "Hey, if we're getting rid of Flex, shouldn't we take a look at what we lost in Flex? Make sure that's mentioned." Well, yeah. And I just pulled up the UDC uh light manufacturing. There's a number of things. I mean, again, maybe Cole and Coke dealer we don't need to have anymore. I don't But like food and beverage manufacturing like Yeah. Do you want that on Miller? like Zingermanman's, you know, bakery. I'm just if this is the place, if this is the district where it's supposed to go because we're not having it in low density if in the sorry in the land use category where it's supposed to go because our districts I'm just trying to make sure that we have someplace and I'm and I'm also thinking about again design standards.
I get that we can differentiate between them and having design standards for a residential building that might go on south industrial like hopefully you do want that to look walkable to be more walkable but then if it's next to things that are not I'm just trying to think like again there's nothing that we don't have sidewalks to nowhere and it's not a great experience if it's not continuous so I'm thinking about how how we're thinking about what those standards are in a district that h can have lots and lots of things which I again there can be benefits in that. I just don't I don't know how to do that and there's lots of things that are on our list. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is we need to broaden transition district to provide more types of form that are more inclusive of everything from high-rise to perhaps explicitly automotive dependent development.