|
JACKSON: Hi. So one of the main differences, Mike, is, with this current zoning and what they are
<br /> proposing, you have land uses that are segregated; you have your commercial in one area, you have
<br /> your housing in another. And when you don't integrate it, either within one structure with like a
<br /> live-work unit or very close to one another, then the community, the area becomes less walkable.
<br /> You have to get in your car, the tendency is to get in the car, to go from the housing area to the
<br /> commercial area. So the Project District zoning will allow not only greater density but a lot higher
<br /> percentage of mixing the uses together so that these areas do become automatically more conducive
<br /> to walking and biking.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So that's a nice idea, of course, you know, I mean it's great. Does that solve our
<br /> housing issue now? I mean we have this pressing issues where we don't have housing for people
<br /> and, you know, the idea that what they have presented to us is, is pretty close to what we are
<br /> suggesting, you know, in terms of mixed use where you've got some residential, you've got some
<br /> multi-family. They are pretty close to each other, they are connected to each other. They could be
<br /> more connected. I don't know if that's something that can be worked out between the applicant and
<br /> the office. But, I mean, is it, is this, you know, is this going to make it more difficult for our
<br /> community to get the housing that it needs?
<br /> JACKSON: I would say not necessarily, I mean, the current request that the applicant is making is
<br /> actually a lot of relief from providing affordable housing units. So I would, you know, suggest that
<br /> what they are proposing isn't going to necessarily get us any closer to providing units on the ground
<br /> in a short time frame.
<br /> VITOUSEK: And I agree with you there; I don't necessarily think the changes to the zoning
<br /> conditions are appropriate, you know, given the need for it now. I think the time extension is too
<br /> great. But, my question is if we would be better served by maintaining the existing zoning and
<br /> reconditioning it to make it suit out community's needs now versus kicking it back to Land Use
<br /> Commission and Project District that's going to extend this way beyond the, you know, ten-, 20-year
<br /> period that, that is being proposed here.
<br /> JACKSON: Yeah, so I, I understand your concern, Mike,just because of the time it takes to go
<br /> through these planning processes. I would just remind you that the developer, the applicant has not
<br /> provided us with any timeline or guarantee at this point. So I can't really speak to how long their
<br /> proposal is going to take or if it's going to pan out. But what I can tell you is the Planning
<br /> Department has to advise the Commission based on the plans that the community has created. And,
<br /> you know, the CDP says we need affordable housing, the CDP also says we want more walkable
<br /> TODs and more walkable commercial communities. So we have to balance that, and I don't think- -
<br /> -necessarily throw either of those ideas out the window. I think the Director, and he can speak to
<br /> this, would feel a lot more comfortable, if the applicant would provide some more solid timeline on
<br /> when housing could be provided, or if it's even going to be provided on site.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, again, you know, I definitely agree, but I think that, you know, looking at the
<br /> extension, the zoning extension, from 2011, it indicates that, you know, the Kona Community
<br /> Development Plan was adopted after the fact, and it kind of offers help from the County to the
<br /> developer, saying, hey, if you need help in complying with the guidelines established in the
<br /> 15
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|