+- Punaweb Forum (https://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) (https://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Thread: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP (/showthread.php?tid=8771)
KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - Rob Tucker - 04-16-2011
I lifted this from the application. As regards the Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP). For some reason it uses the acronym COP when I think it should be CDP (Community Development Plan). For your reading enjoyment:
C. Puna Community Development Plan ("COP")
Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the development and eventual County Council adoption of COPs. The General Plan states that the COP "will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan also notes that should the COP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered concurrent with the adoption of the COP. However, "If there is a direct conflict between the 7 Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling." (emphasis added) Pursuant to the above, the Puna COP was developed and adopted by the Hawai'i County Council on August 27, 2008. It became effective on September 10, 2008 as Ordinance No. 08 116. The COP identified the "Orchidland Neighborhood Village Center as being in the area "along Orchidland Drive from Highway 130 to halfway between 34th and 35h avenues, which encompasses 15 parcels and an area of about 16 acres." The subject site is located just outside of this identified Center, approximately % mile to the east at the next major intersection.
In addition to the map, the COP established three (3) major themes: • Malama I Ka'Aina which "establishes how the contextual natural, historic and cultural features of Puna should be preserved." (emphasis added)
• Growth Management which "addresses how the future pattern of human settlement and land use should be shaped to respect that context and support the desired quality of life for Puna's residents." (emphasis added)
• Transportation which "focuses on sustainable approaches to transportation to support the goals of the two above themes." Relative to the Malama I Ka'Aina theme, four (4) major elements were identified and assigned goals, objectives, and actions. These elements and their relationship to the proposed action follow:
1. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
The site has been entirely cleared of all vegetation. A grading and/or grubbing permit was issued, with the approval of the State Historic Preservation Division. As such, the archaeological resources of this site appear to be non-existent. Nonetheless, should there be inadvertent discoveries during the construction of this project, work will stop and contacts with the County Planning Department and State Historic Preservation Division will be made.
2. Native Forests and Geological Features Given the location of the property and the geological condition of the site, the goals and objectives of this element would not be applicable to the proposed project. The subject site is not part of any established native forest areas, neither does it have any significant or unique geological features.
3. Aquifers, Coastal Waters and Stormwaters
The project site is not proximate to potable wells in this area. Notwithstanding that factor, the project will have a wastewater system that would comply with the State Department of Health's standards to assure adequate protection of any potential groundwater in this area. All storm water generated by the project would be retained on site through a system of drywells. These drywells wilt require the approval of the State Department of Health and through the NPDES permitting system, the objective of not only storm water containment but protection of groundwater will be fulfilled. Given the above, combined with the fact that the property is over five (5) miles from the ocean, the goals and objectives of this element would be fulfilled.
4. Shoreline Area
As the site is not a shoreline or coastal property, this element is not applicable. The other theme is Managing Growth. For this, six (6) elements were identified. These elements and their relationship to the project follow.
1. Land Use Pattern
The Implementation Section (Chapter 5) of the CDP identifies, among others, neighborhood village centers. For this area, the subject site is located approximately % mile east of the Orchidland Neighborhood Village Center. While located outside of the center, it should be noted that the recently amended Section 5.2.1 of the COP focuses on the land use entitlement process as it relates to regional town centers and community village centers and not neighborhood village centers. Specifically, it states that "Future zone changes and State land use boundar amendments for the regional town centers and community village centers at Kea'au, Pahoa, and Hawaiian Paradise Park shall be consistent with the LUPAG map designations of the General Plan." This provision makes no references to neighborhood village centers or Orchidland. Furthermore, the amended provision of the last paragraph of Section 5.2.2 states that "The maps shown in this chapter are not meant to be precise or strictly interpreted, but rather as guidelines in the preparation of rezoning requests for areas within or adjacent to regional town centers, community vii/age centers, or neighborhood village centers." (Emphasis added). Thus, in considering land use applications, the COP does not mandate consideration of only those sites that fall exactly within designated regional, community, or neighborhood centers. The designated areas are to be used as guides, thus enabling land use applications to be considered in a much broader policy context. Given the above, this request is being evaluated against the articulated goals and objectives of the Managing Growth theme. The request would be consistent with the following Goals of the COP:
• Improves the quality of life and expands economic opportunity for Puna's residents.
• Reduces the exposure to high risk from natural hazard situations.
• Makes services and community facilities more accessible in village/town centers
• Reduces overall number of buildable lots in Puna. In that regard, the proposed project is intended to be supportive of the needs of the community, although given its location, it would have some quasi-regional function. Having the project situated in this area provides the ability to concentrate commercial uses in a general location, which would be from the subject area and the area smaller commercial uses around Orchidland Drive. It would allow for the eventual in-filling of the areas between those two (2) commercial land use anchors. Hence, the project's location would not necessarily create urban commercial sprawl. Additionally, the project would provide economic opportunity for Puna's residents. This project would yield much needed employment in this area. This site, particularly with the planned improvements at the intersection, would be a convenient location not only for prospective employees but the community in general.
2. Agriculture and Economic Development The COP identifies the following:
Goals
• Increase opportunities for diversified agriculture
• Preserve lands for agricultural use
• Increase local market share of Puna agricultural products Oblectives
• Discourage urban growth and further subdivision on lands that have been identified as having agricultural value The subject site, while zoned Agriculture, has not been used for active agricultural purposes in the recent past. It is vacant of any structures and effectively functions as a form of open space. As such, the proposed project should not have an adverse impact on the agriculture industry. It could actually be indirectly supportive of it through the provision of services to that industry.
3. Social Services and Housing
As this is not a housing project, this section is not really applicable. Indirectly, however, by providing employment opportunities in an area that is proximate to lower Puna, the project would reduce commuting time and expenses. In that regard, it could afford employees and employers to devote more time to their families and the community.
4. Public Safety and Sanitation Services
The subject site is located in an area where basic infrastructure is available or will be made by the applicants. One of the major improvements would be the construction of a channelized intersection with traffic signal lights. Public cost to provide these needed infrastructures would thus be minimal, if at all.
5. Parks and Recreation
This section is not really applicable, as the project would have no direct impacts on parks. Nonetheless, there are existing park facilities in the villages of Kea'au and Pahoa. Then, too, the site is not listed for any future trails or park related uses.
6. Energy Sustainability
The applicant intends to utilize solar and photovoltaic system to help with some of its power needs. Other means to reduce dependency on the conventional fuel source is being explored. Additionally, the structures would be constructed and placed in a manner so as to take advantage of wind and sun patterns for both heating and cooling.
The third theme is Transportation. This theme identifies, as it pertains to the subject request, the following goals and objectives:
Goals
• Reduce percentage of residents who commute to employed outside of Puna
Objectives
• Provide more services and employment within Puna's village and town centers
• Create new employment opportunities in Puna in order to reduce long commuting
It also identifies five (5) elements. The project's relationship to these elements follows.
-
1. Traffic Demand Management
The project's location would help reduce the flow of both workers as well as residents requiring certain services from traveling outside of the district. In that regard, it would definitely fulfill two of the major objectives of this theme. The applicants also intend to encourage their tenants and employees to consider car-pooling to the extent feasible. Telecommunication system through the possible development of a wireless system within the project is being considered. However, other "ISP" providers are available to this area.
2. Mass Transit
Although this element is not really applicable, in the event that bus stops are needed in this area, the applicants are willing to set aside an area within the project for this purpose.
3. Roadway Network
Likewise, the objectives and policies of this element are not directly pertinent to the project. However, it should be noted that the project has two major access points to the Highway.
4. Highways
The major access to the project from the Ke'eau-Pahoa Road would be fully channelized and signalized by the applicants. Accordingly, the planned improvements would comport to the applicable objective. The other objectives are not directly applicable to the project.
5. Non-Motorized Travel and Scenic Byways
The subject site is not part of any proposed non-motorized travel area, such as a bikeway. There are also no known trails within the subject site. Accordingly, the project would not be incongruous with this element. The COP also has a table (Table 5-1) the outlines general use and design criteria. Relative to the Neighborhood Village Center and the subject request:
a. The service area population is geared for 3,000 to 6,000 residents.
While that is the focus, it should be noted that the project by its nature and location will also attract a wider population base;
b. The subject site is 3 acres, which is less than the 10 acre guideline;
c. Although the project would include a supermarket, it would also have small tenant spaces for retail and personal services;
d. The project could be designed and constructed with material that would address the rural residential ambiance of the area;
e. There are no plans for a drive-thru commercial use, and while there would be only 1-way ingress movements to the site from Highway 130. The primary access would be from 'AuJi'i Drive. In summary, it is conceded that the subject site is not specifically identified for any particular land use on the Orchidland Neighborhood Village Center map of the COP. At the same time, the COP does not contain any mandatory language (such as "shall") that prohibits consideration of the requested use in this area. For example, the term "should" is used when the three themes are described. Then, too, the recent amendments to the COP suggest that the land use pattern map be used as a guide. As noted earlier, the discussion on the project's relationship to the COP was based on the themes and corresponding policies and objectives. And from that perspective, it is concluded that the requested Special Permit request would be generally consistent with and implement the applicable goals and objectives of the COP.
RE: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - Rob Tucker - 04-16-2011
and this was at the end of the application....
Nonetheless, as this growth occurs, there will be - as is now - a need to provide more services proximate to these communities. In that regard, the Windward Planning Commission on June 4,2010, granted a Special Permit for a commercial retail and office building proximate to the subject site and at a location that was outside of the boundaries of the Orchidland Neighborhood Village Center of the Puna COP. (Exhibit E) In its approval, the Commission noted that the request was consistent with the Puna COP and imposed certain conditions including the withholding of any occupancy permit until traffic signal lights are installed at the intersection of Shower Drive, Pohaku Drive, and Highway 130.
I am familiar with the "Special Use Permit" mentioned above. The Planning Director imposed conditions on this family that were so onerous that the family abandoned their plans after spending thousands of dollars on the effort.
I wrote about it on Big Island Chronicle:
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/?s=two+bobbie+jeans&Submit.x=7&Submit.y=8
RE: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - janet - 04-17-2011
Am I reading the following wrong?
From "1. Land Use Pattern (fourth bullet point)":
"It would allow for the eventual in-filling of the areas between those two (2) commercial land use anchors. Hence, the project's location would not necessarily create urban commercial sprawl."
"In filling of the areas" between Orchidland Drive and Auli'i sounds like "urban commercial sprawl" to me.
This is NOT a comment on the proposal itself - just disgust at the cynical use of the word "necessarily". There is also the repeated use of "0/0 miles" as the description of the distance between Orchidland Drive and Auli'i. It makes me suspicious of the whole elaboration of the proposal.
RE: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - james weatherford - 04-17-2011
Yes, Janet, 'in filling', as described here means there would be no such thing as urban sprawl anywhere -- just go outside of existing urban area (i.e., Pahoa or Keaau) and build something (Orchidland commercial area); then build something else, bigger, down the road (KTA) and the 'in fill' is no longer urban sprawl...
I agree with you, such very reckless language raises suspicions of the proposers' being disingenuous.
RE: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - peteadams - 04-18-2011
Emailed to planning@co.hawaii.hi.us
Aloha Hawai'i County Planning,
I have been watching the details emerge on Punaweb about the KTA application for a large retail center placed on Highway 130 at the intersection of Auli'i. We have also driven by to look at the site and have observed the posted sign regarding the SUP. While it is early, my conclusion so far is that KTA desires to end run the Puna CDP, ignore the very clear directives and directions in the PCDP and locate their supercenter where ever they think it suits their business needs. Legitimate for them, but bad for the rest of us.
I was a member of the early Growth Management working subcommittee of the PCDP. We submitted a detailed outline of growth management objectives, including many statements decrying suburban sprawl and patchwork development and, particularly, about commercialization of Highway 130. The KTA development goal appears at this point nothing more than exactly that sort of suburban sprawl and highway commercialization that we developed objectives against.
We realize that most big retail businesses want traffic exposure, exemplified by the placement of this large development directly on the highway. However, their objectives must not be controlling here. This is a very large and extensive development. I don't believe it compares at all to a 2010 application for a small commercial center across from the Wikiwiki in Orchidland. An exception to the objectives of the PCDP for a project of this size will, inevitably over time in my opinion, lead directly to a strip mall pattern developing on Highway 130. Large and small developments will metastasize from anchor developments like this type of large grocery store-anchored retail center. This outcome will be, again in my opinion, essentially destructive of the Puna rural character such as it still exists. Now is not the time in the still early stages of implementation of the PCDP to fundamentally alter the character of the highway and Puna itself. It is also not the time to begin creating large loopholes in the PCDP.
RE: KTA applicatiion as per PCDP - DaVinci - 04-18-2011
Just to be clear: G Yamada is filing for the SUP, not KTA. They understandably want to expand their business (heck, I'd like to expand my business too)... and they'd like that expansion to be easy and inexpensive. Yamada applied for and was denied a SUP in 2004 at the same location. I'm sure he has invested time and resources in this particular parcel and would like to see it be developed. However, that alone is not reason enough to abandon the PCDP or try to end run around it. I think that KTA could be persuaded to look at other sites that hewed a litle closer to the PCDP village center plan, if this proposal were to prove to be less viable due to community concerns being voiced before the Planning Dept and the County Council. But that means we have to raise our voices and be heard.