+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Specialized Group Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Land Use Working Group (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Prevent population sprawl recommendations (/showthread.php?tid=2626)
Prevent population sprawl recommendations - peteadams - 12-17-2006
Goal: Prevent population sprawl and scattered development
Objective: All intensive development must be physically adjacent to existing intensively developed areas or in a small number of well placed new urban expansion zones such as the Orchidland Drive expansion zone
Objective: Guide non-intensive growth into existing subdivisions rather than create new subdivisions
Recommendation: Focus all intensive development in areas that are already intensively developed (i.e., Kea'au, Pahoa, Volcano). In new intensive developments require integrated communities supporting residences, schools, services and recreation either within or adjacent to the new subdivision.
Recommendation: Create and seed funding mechanisms such as self-sustaining revolving loan funds to encourage upgrading existing large subdivisions to better standards of livability and reduced environmental impact.
Recommendation: Rezone all A-1a zones in Puna to A-5a
Recommendation: Increase county staffing to increase code enforcement activity
Discussion: This is perhaps our most fundamental goal in managing Puna's future population growth. As noted in the working groups mission, our definition of rural character is a low population density. A definition of population sprawl is intensive residential development not associated with any other intensively developed area. Conjoining intensive development with current urban zones, encouraging growth in existing subdivisions rather than creating new subdivisions and enforcing a five acre minimum in agricultural zones offers the best possibility of retaining a rural and agricultural character in Puna. The 2005 General Plan policy 14.1.3(j) "encourage urban development within existing zoned areas already served by basic infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development" directly supports these recommendations. While down-zoning A-1a zones to A-5a may be difficult for the county, supporting one acre dwelling parcels results in essentially suburban sprawl and is decidedly inconsistent with maintaining the rural character of Puna. In addition, while intensive agricultural development is possible on one acre parcels, it is generally unlikely given the significant capital and labor requirements for such an enterprise.
RE: Prevent population sprawl recommendations - Rob Tucker - 12-17-2006
Two comments for the moment:
1. We need a defination for the term "Intensive Development". It might be something like "a subdivision of land which creates 3 times the new buildable home sites than previously exisited on that acerage". Yipes! This isn't easy!
2. We need to use the term "Intensive Development" less often. I see spots where "existing development" would be a better phrase.
I am simply stumbling over that one phrase too much. I will look at it more.
Again, Thank you Pete for leading the way.
RE: Prevent population sprawl recommendations - wax - 12-18-2006
Not sure that defining "intensive development" can really be done - it is somewhat implied in contrast to agricultural development. For instance it would be worthwhile to have more multi-family dwellings in these areas. A ratio of multifamily to current (i.e. one acre) zoning may miss the point.
RE: Prevent population sprawl recommendations - peteadams - 12-19-2006
It is a difficult concept because we have been also emphasizing colocation of jobs and services as being part of the increased density aspect of "intensive development."