So one thing is with the transition district is I don't know why we would I've walked down South Industrial many times. It's very walkable, but there needs to be a sidewalk and not a pole in the middle of the sidewalk. There needs to be sidewalks along that. I don't think we're restricting anything by saying yes, it still also needs to be walkable because if I'm going to go rent a car, I I'm chances are I'm not going to have a car to drive to the car rental. That's not entirely true, but uh you know I don't think it's a I think we can use those reduced automobile dominant site design still in a place for for an industry that traditionally might not have sidewalks in front. But I don't think we I don't think it's bad to have sidewalks in front or to have the street wall close to the or have a good walking experience.
Like I don't think that's a problem to have. I I agree with that sentiment. There's no reason to, right? I mean, you know, Arbor, well, the 777 building, I've walked around there the lot. It's actually nice to walk around there, but that is a it's you wouldn't think of it as a traditional pedestrian nice pedestrian experience, but I think it's not problematic to make it more pedestrian solution. I mean meaning meaning that we had talked about you may come back and you staff's made this point a few times that the districts that are created by the plan may need to have there may need to be multiple versions multiple flavors. Minimize parking for southindustrial might look different than minimize parking for a different like different sections of the city that use transition. this may, in other words, this is a tension you're pointing out that feels real to me, but it's it becomes real when we actually sit down and make the zoning map.
Um, and to the extent that it doesn't make sense on the page of the plan, I think I'm hoping that we can draft it so that it does, but I I I don't I come having trouble right now at the table doing it. Is that fair? I think we all are. Okay. So, so is that a correct is did Brett summarize that correctly to broaden more types of form? Well, it seems like a no. There's two things seeming to happen. So Brett's way of saying broaden it and include all of this stuff, which I'm not sure how that would actually work, but it isn't what I'm trained in. Um that's one way to go in order to avoid um what people were saying earlier in public comment partitioning or or offering several versions of transition. So you you have to go one way or the other.
You either have to create more than one version of transition, one in which things are distinctly allowed that really aren't that aren't as compatible with um a majority residential um district that has supportive services and and commercial but not a busy yard on it. So if you So I mean so there I don't think there's I think we have to do one or the other. I think we have to have more than one version of transition or we have to have one very broad transition which then is very difficult to I mean well maybe it wouldn't be I mean I don't know maybe all of that can easily be done in zoning or you know the idea of context specificity does the work of yeah in this context we've got a lot of apartments here and so you know I I don't know but what I don't want to have happen is what's happening in TC1 which is things like grocery stores are saying we want to modify one thing and we're saying no you have to do these form standards and then they're like well then we won't have a grocery store anymore and that's not desirable because none of us wants to have to drive to Pittsfield Township to buy an orange.
So, I'm I'm concerned about the I'm concerned about what happens if there's a form typology that isn't really consistent with the uses that we're trying to pack into transition. So, I can see two versions of transition or however many you want. I I I'm not sure. And I can and I can imagine that you guys could work out the broad but context specific. I could imagine you guys could do it either way, but aren't a lot of uses already self-limiting? So, aren't the use itself going to sort of decide like even if it's zone transition, you might not be able to do what you want to do because the parcel doesn't support it. There's not infrastructure that support not I sorry, I did not mean to say infrastructure, but like space to turn a a a 18-wheel um tractor trailer around in. So you're not going to put that there.
Like our church is now and flex, but now I suspect we will either go to transition or hub and we're a big warehouse. It's a 26,000 ft warehouse on 3.2 acres. And we have about 120 units of housing across the street. We have a 35 ft setback with a sidewalk. And it's very walkable. People walk all through the church. We have a playground in the back. Uh we have a Gaga boil court right there as well in a ginormous parking lot. And so, but because it's set so far back, what we started on with Mr. Leonard was the the street uh the street wall like you were trying to design a street wall with these uses. And so, you know, would that bring our church building closer to the sidewalk? I would love to do that because it would be a more active use, but we had these setbacks from 1977 that put us 50 feet from the street.
So, I I feel like the use that's going to come in is also going to be self-limiting where we saw that ourselves. Maybe another my sense of getting rid of the flex district was the concern that it was written in such a way it was going to keep out housing when there could be housing put into those districts. But what Mr. Leonard is pointing out is well then if if you go the other way now we're going to let anything that was in a flex district could be in any any place in a transition district which means which I don't think folks were contemplating. 100% contemplated it cuz it it already allowed it. It it allowed light industrial and and the the other thing that I kept thinking about was I live really close to the parts of North Main that are zoned industrial and they're surrounded by parkland.
They border residential south industrial does as well. So it's the idea that there's this area of the city where these noxious uses can just go and and create, you know, sound and like nuisances that that's not that's not the case. like we have we already allowed light industrial into the transition and it it felt redundant and the purpose of it didn't feel important like we don't okay so then I'm not then I'm confused by why you're objecting to um the there was a typology that went along with a transition district that you weren't envisioning because it doesn't feel like a tension that we need we we can address the tension that I think I hear staff pointing out I think is properly addressed in the zoning if and by properly addressed I mean it will become more clear once all right I can't draft this zoning to work here I can't do it so I need to do two transitions because unless I do two South Industrial won't make any sense and there's going to be a bunch of non-conforming stuff in it that's but I'm not there yet in terms of my level of granularity I'm looking at a guidance document that's supposed to be high level and I feel like I can I can draft the and make changes to the way transitions describe to avoid a problem with the way transition itions currently were to accommodate the change we made last week.
That's what I'm hoping. It sounds like to me then instead of tonight trying to come up with a replacement that we broaden and then when we get to zoning that we understand that transition might be more than one zone. Is that what I'm hearing? Um I don't I I don't actually think that's necessarily the case. Um, I actually think me and Commissioner Mills concerns are assaged with the overarching category of light industrial. Um, that and then also I think Commissioner Weatherbe is the one that pointed out whether that like the building formed should still be even if it is um, you know, going to be an R&D or a glass blowing you know light industrial use that it should still have some form of like pedestrian walkability. I don't actually think that we need to make any changes to 111. I I also think it says typical transition district building types parenthesis not an exhaustive list, right?
And so I think it just provides a lot of uh flexibility in that respect. So I don't know that any thing needs to be changed. Uh my concerns just about flex district being collapsed is I I have no concerns at this point. Um, and okay, I think I did hear from uh council member Dish, was it you that had said like maybe there is two types of flex uh transition districts, but again I I don't necessarily think that's the case. I'm all I'm saying is that I'm hearing two different ways we can approach and I think the idea I think the way you put it Michelle is perfectly consistent that we're going to broaden now and when we get to zoning we'll figure out if broad works works because the uses are self-limiting or if there needs to be more control. But we want to be mindful of not imposing typologies on things that can't fit them and then making them unable to make any changes to themselves.
Okay. And can I just ask for clarification on a point that I think is clear but it it came up so I need to clarify it. So the list of primary uses includes office. The fact that office is a use in transition does not mean that all of the things that are currently permitted in an office zone under our current zoning would be permitted in transition. Is that correct or not correct? It is ultimately your and the council's discretion. I mean, I think of office as a we're talking about a new plan. I don't think we're having we're intending um that much f fidelity to our old definitions and arrangement and assemblage of uses under those districts. Um, but I I don't I as I would tell anybody, I wouldn't I would never guarantee that this body and the council don't find some similarity to the current office framework and defining that.
Okay. The reason it came up and I think this is a reasonable concern is that am I correct or not that uh STRs are okay in office? Um I would have to look but generally we allow them where hotels are as a permitted use and in residential zones we have more restrictions. So since transition is a residential zone we would have restrictions undetermined. It's a zone that includes both uses. So, we do we have not gotten into that granularity of are hotels included in the uses in the transition zone? And if they are, I think short-term rentals would be totally appropriate there. I don't know why we'd allow a hotel but not a short-term rental. Well, I guess that we I don't want to argue that at 1054. Um but I think that we are asking we are we are presenting this plan as having goals around affordability and what affordability affordability yeah affordability sorry um and there are things that I think residents are willing to give on if the goal is affordability but if the goal is commercial profit in the form of an STR because their experiences with STRs are not the same as their experiences with hotels.
STRs can be party houses. You know, you one gets a fair number of calls from constituents and there is a sensitivity as we've heard tonight around this plan simply creating wealth for, you know, developers without really creating homes for people. And so, um, I think that there would there would be more resistance to the transition district or to its, you know, to its good things if there weren't assurance. And maybe this isn't the appropriate place. Maybe that comes in zoning, but and and it comes because the plan the the the the goals of the plan and everything I think could be read to say it's not consistent with allowing STRs in transition zones just as we don't allow ADUs to be used as STRs because when we when we I'm quoting a staff member here who's not present um when council um um legalized or I don't know allowed ADUs, it was within explicit purpose of gentle density increasing housing and so to you if if you let them be used as STRs, that's how they will be used.
And so they would never be someone's, you know, motherhood in-law apartment or whatever. And so I think that same logic I can I can see that same logic applying here that uh the STR is a really it's a very seductive use. It's a very it's a very profit intensive use and it would take it could take over and um it would be I think it would be upsetting to many people if our transition districts didn't accomplish greater multif family housing but just accomplished louder parties on the weekends and more possibilities for that. I'm being really, you know, graphic, but it's what I heard from some commentary and I feel like I need to bring it. I hear your points, but we don't ever talk about short-term rentals anywhere in the plan. So, are you suggesting that we try to insert that language because that feels like something that we need to talk about in zoning?
I I do agree and all I'm saying is that I think if you know if we can articulate and I know that there's no I mean yeah we're not going to we're not going to reg we're not going to write regulations for STRs we already have them but the ones that we have depending on how we treat this idea of you know hotels could be here I didn't think about hotels offices um I think we need to to be true to the goals of the plan when we come to think about that question when we hit zoning um because there there might be a feeling of bait and switch but there's not but there's not a revision to this to this text here that you're putting on the table to discuss revision I was asking for a clarification and the clarification that I got was DBD yeah and could be kind of depends could be so that's okay with me because I can make an argument that given the intents of the plan we we'd have a you know a very good and logical discussion where we decided not to permit them or to you know permit some you know to limit the numbers we there are many ways that one could go there but uh you know so I feel okay about that um a hard no would have been better but I don't think a hard no is appropriate for this moment in the process and but I needed to raise this as an issue because it is important that we that the plan is genuinely Wait, I don't want to finish that sentence.
I'm I'm just too tired. Thanks. That was just needed to go to Wait, we're not done with transition. Sorry. I just wanted Is anyone else in support of eliminating the graphic on page 111 like we did for residential? I find it to be quite problematic. I think that would probably I assume uniform. Okay, great. Yeah. Yeah. And then um I'm down. Did I miss did anyone suggest adding in the primary uses list adding something about mixeduse apartment buildings or um it just says mixeduse storefront which I don't maybe that should be revised to say mixed mixeduse building. Sure. I'm good with that. Thanks. Yeah. Any objections? And we talked about adding a highrise to the photos. We're not doing new business. Wait, what? It's at 11. So, oh, wait, but sorry, Michelle. Did I do you want me to repeat what I just said for So, I can change I can add change mixuse storefront to mixuse building, but did you say something before that to add?
Oh, just to strike the illustration, which you already were going to do. Thanks. It also strikes me. I I put this in the comments, but the small condo building is here. That just feels like a weird typology sheet cuz condo is a legal designation, right? Not a building type, right? And if it's small, like should this actually be in residential? Like I wasn't quite sure what exactly what we mean. What do we mean between condo and apartment? And yeah, I don't know. We should probably just stick to the typology cuz condo is a ownership. Yeah. Type. Okay. So, thank you. Enjoy. Sounds good. Let's move on to hub scale condo. So I I just have a a very simple question which is this is the intersection of the land use map to the DDA. Um the DDA is potentially expanding its boundary and is because currently almost everything that's in the DDA is zone D1 or D2.
So what is the overlay once the DDA expands? Does it just pick up hub? Does hub pick up D1 and D2? Can we just make everything here TC1? So I think you followed the hub the hub largely matches their proposed expansion. Okay, that's that's a good uh starting point. Not 100%. I think they're looking at some things to the north that aren't. But so so then that would allow us to expand D2 into hub. Well, again, you're you're thinking about our current zone. We we Yeah. It might not be D2. It might be H2. Okay. All right. But yes, it could be if we end up using the D1 D2 framework. Yes. Okay. All right. Great. That that was my question. Although D2 would probably be less development potential than the transition district as currently drafted. Okay. And then when what did I want to Five Corners again?
Is that going to get picked up into the DDA? Uh, that is an area that they're looking at as well. Okay. I don't know if it ex I don't know if it includes that building, but that commercial area definitely. I think all I'm thinking about here is non-conforming use, right? That we're going to change the land map that would make something that's already there non-conforming. Um, and so just how are we picking those things up so that we don't create new nonconformities as we expand the map? The map doesn't create any non. Yeah, I understand what I said. Any other edits to the hub? We like it. I want it citywide. Uh I'm going back to the chart on page 102 and picking up. Is it too late in the night to pick up this confusing conversation around active first floor commercial exposure? As long as it's not required, that's what we're Can I just change it to prefer?
Well, if I'm the only one who reads that as a requirement, then I can just let it go. I just want to make sure that's clear that we're saying I think it permits I think it it seems like it's permitting. People are reading it a bunch of different ways and that's okay. Um, but if what was the suggestion? Preferred. Preferred first floor commercial. Okay, there's a look at this gray thing here. We could put preferred or permitted or Yeah, permitted building uses. Sure. Right in the gray box. The way that I would normally phrase this would be um crown floor activation on arterials. Um, so it might not necessarily say active use, but it's a ground floor activation to a certain extent. So, um, and that would be again something that's encouraged, but not required. Would that be a use then or would that be a form?