|
they'd have to jump in their cars and drive up the access road to get to the commercial area to go to
<br /> the drug store or the offices or whatever else. What the CDP, what the CDP envisions, and that's,
<br /> you know, more consistent with this type of mixed-use TOD development is kind of all of these uses
<br /> taking place in one area and allowing for a higher density around the transit area in the commercial
<br /> core, lower density on the outside, but then mixed uses of, you know, living and working in the same
<br /> buildings, in buildings next door to each other, and things like that. Under the existing zoning, this
<br /> is impossible. So, I mean, ultimately, your, your question initially was, do we have an issue with the
<br /> development? And the issue is, yes, the development is inconsistent, as is currently proposed, with
<br /> what the CDP calls for. And as that's one of the kind of criteria to look at, consistency with the
<br /> existing plans, we would say that, yes, we have an issue with what's being currently proposed. It
<br /> was, it's inconsistent with the CDP that came into, into view three years after the ordinances were
<br /> granted, but because they are coming in for a time extension and other amendments, we have to look
<br /> at what the CDP calls for in the area, and that's kind of where we are at this point. Does that answer
<br /> your question, Mike?
<br /> VITOUSEK: - - -
<br /> KAY:
<br /> - -KAY: Mike, you are muted.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Thank you. So the - - -
<br /> CARR
<br /> - -CARR SMITH: You are still muted for some reason. There you go.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Is it still muted?
<br /> CARR SMITH: No, go ahead.
<br /> KAY: No, we can hear you.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, cool. Yeah, so the inconsistency, then, is that the development that's being
<br /> proposed is not dense enough for the area?
<br /> KAY: It's, it's not just density; it's density, it's a mix of uses, it's walkability, it's any number of
<br /> things that the CDP calls out, which unfortunately cannot be developed under the zoning that's
<br /> currently set up at this point, so, yeah.
<br /> VITOUSEK: - - -because of like the walkability,there is no way that we can connect the two. Is
<br /> that what we are saying is that the zoning prohibits like construction of walking path that would go
<br /> between the two properties?
<br /> KAY: There is no prohibition there. And, you know, Maija and I have talked a lot about this, so
<br /> I'm going to, I'm going to tap her in, tag her in, if that's okay, Mike, and she can address that.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Sure, of course.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Maija.
<br /> 14
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|