Submission Summary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Submission # Parcel ID Name Address Email Address Directly Support/ Wishes Section 100a Trade Summary of submission Affected Oppose/ to be Competitor Neutral heard at Hearing 1 Brian Edward Gillett [email protected] Not Support Not no selection made No Support as adjacent to their consented retirement village and will be good for residents and the visitors Specified Specified 2 1975/120 Janice & Derek Fowler Wilde 38/4 Greystone Place, Omokoroa [email protected] No Support Yes no selection made No * Supports application * Emphasises/requests inclusion of green areas, dog friendly/off leash areas/cafes and quality retail encouraging "Local) * Emphasises the retention of Omokoroa's country feel amenity. * Opposed to fast food retailers being established * Suggests meeting place, boutique style cinema, multi purpose building for arts and theatre production etc. * Safe planning for road access/parking consideration 3 Mark & Donna Bentham no details provided no details provided No Support No I do not request No Submission sheet blank no details provided 4 1481/11 Elles Pearse-Danker 118 McPhail Road, RD3, Tauranga 3173 [email protected] No Support No I do not request No * Support application * Request applications be granted subject to completing within specific time frame 5 1161/12 Janelle Carter & Christian Slipper no details provided - Found in data base as no details provided Not Support Not no selection made Not Specified Supports the town centre with the provision the traffic is managed away from Kaimai Views Subdivision 2 Bridle Way, Omokoroa 3114 Specified Specified Concerns surrounding road adjoining Kaimai Views & town centre (roads are already too narrow) walkway would be preferred Omokoroa Road to SH2 in general needs some attention 6 1218/45 Dave & Christine Paul 171 Snodgrass Road, RD4, Tauranga 3174 [email protected] Not Support No I do not request Not Specified Supports application - great alternative to travelling to Bethlehem Specified Central location 7 1203/19 Melody & Mark Downie 274 Youngson Road [email protected] Not Support Not no selection made Not Specified Supports application Specified Specified Sympathetic to public and surroundings Need for community of shops as proposed in development 8 1303/14 Hayley Larman & Rob Larman 15 Minden Hill Lane, RD6 Tauranga 3176 [email protected] No Support Yes I request No Supports application, proposed location, well thought out/community consultation, local job creation 9 1207/593 Daniel Reedy 454 Omokoroa Road [email protected] Not Support No I request Not Specified Supports application and the proposed location Specified 10 1207/593 Rochelle Philip 454 Omokoroa Road [email protected] Not Support Yes I request Not Specified Supports application - great alternative to travelling to Bethlehem, great opportunity for the community Specified 11 1270/57 Adele Selfridge 14B Coppelia Avenue, Omokoroa 3114 [email protected] No Support Yes I request No Supports application - Supports having amenities locally and will enhance existing Omokoroa Lifestyle 12 1117/3 Robin (Rob) Wright 6 Traverse Lane, Kaimai Views, Omokoroa [email protected] Not Support Not no selection made Not Specified Overall welcomes the development Specified Specified Concerns surrounding Sentinel Road's inclusion in the proposal- road is already narrow and populated with young families - increased traffic flow is undesirable Development staging is unclear will the supermarket/apartment complex be constructed first? Questions when the rest of the development would be commenced (clarity with timelines required). 13 1947/28 Ailsa Fisher 23 Lynley Park Drive, Omokoroa [email protected] Not Conditional Yes I request Not Specified Supports in part: Specified general concept, potential to create a well thought out town centre (although, does not think the application will achieve this). Underground carpark - subject to further clarity around times and CPTED standards being met Commitment to smaller retail surrounding supermarket - promotion of human scale approach & visual amenity (prevent the supermarket dominating views) The use of design guidelines Open areas/planned interactions at pedestrian scale Areas OPPOSED: 1. Proposed design & Vision - Poor urban design/lacks innovation, local context and incorporation of technological and key environmental/sustainable considerations - Requests - application amendment and impose conditions/develop design guidelines. OPPOSED: 2. Transport - Continued reliance/dominance or road network - lack of provision for a pedestrian/ cycle focused environment/ ebike charging stations, connecting roads through Kaimai views should be pedestrianised (access to service vehicles after hours should be permitted with use of removable bollard) and Omokoroa Rd should be the main thoroughfare, does not support parallel parking on main street - Requests: Application amendment & impose conditions where relevant including: Alter main street to fully pedestrianised, remove parallel parks from main street & use area for pedestrians or landscaping would be consistent with DP rule 19.4.1(a)(viii), require traffic calming measures, provide support/promotion of electric vehicles/e bike charging stations. Amendments would be consistent with objective 19.2.1.1 and Policy 19.2.2.10. OPPOSED: 3. Building design and character - Design of buildings are typical and do not consider local context and character, no analysis within the urban design statement, suggesting not considered. Suggests that local character should be incorporated into the urban design guidelines to retain historical & rural connections through building design/landscape/street art in keeping with objective 12.2.1.1. For areas where people are encourage active use of areas (Between buildings I, J, K & L) suggests building frontages be activated - outdoor dining/balconies/Children's play equipment. Requests - application amendment & impose conditions where relevant including: Update architectural drawings/urban design to enhance the character/proposes treatment of public space/opportunities formal/informal interactions/opportunities for interaction with the environment (Street art/seating/landscape/light design), require CPTED assessment be undertaken prior to construction & do not retain the old shed - does not fit the proposed design. OPPOSED: 4. Sustainable Design - Lack of reference with regard to sustainable building/environmental design that considers climate change & sustainability. Minimal reference to low impact urban design. Sustainability objective should be included in design elements relating to infrastructure and improving environmental outcomes (objectives 12.2.1.3, 12.2.1.7 and policy 12.2.2.8). Doesn't agree that the application takes into account the Principal of custodianship - proposed road does not encourage alternate modes of transport/low impact SW design. Doesn't agree that the application takes into account the Principal of connections - low priority on active transport. Legacy project should have environmental and sustainable objectives. Does not agree that the development is consistent with policy 19.2.2.14. - Requests - application amendment & impose conditions where relevant including: Update urban design objectives with sustainable building design focus, commit to minimum design elements with focus on sustainability (the use of solar power/rainwater collection & reuse/roof gardens/worm farms & composting/north facing buildings/double glazing). Reduction of car dominance/ enhance design to encourage active transport modes. OPPOSED: 5. Stormwater & Landscape Treatment - Opposes lack of onsite SW treatment/management solution largely directs SW off site to wetland/SW management areas to the north and south of the site. Believes SW should be reconsidered with onsite SW retention & treatment (Rain gardens/swales). Opposed to raised landscaping treatments - lack of provision for SW collection (important with large impervious areas - carparks). updating will align with objective 12.2.1(6) - minimising effects of SW runoff. Requests - application amendment & impose conditions where relevant including: update SW management to include onsite, low impact SW treatment resulting in predevelopment SW levels & prohibit use of planter boxes for landscaping. OPPOSED: 6. Active Street frontage - Support dwellings on ground floor if patio/outdoor areas are adjacent to street - provides for passive surveillance - notes no designs provided with application. Proposed office (Building B) does not comply with district plan (noted in AEE) Active street frontages are essential along the main road - offices should be relocated to an area where active street frontages are not essential (side road). No internal access from shops/supermarket should be permitted - risk shops will face supermarket opposing the development of active street frontages. Provision of this will align with policy 19.2.2.13 orientation of street frontages. Requests - Application amendment & impose conditions where relevant including: Adjacent residential outdoor areas should be required to activate street frontage, change land use of building B to meet district plan compliance with street frontage. OPPOSED: 7. S104D assessment - Considers application as notified contrary to the following objectives and policies: Transport: Objective - 4B.2.1(3) Policy 4B.3.3(8) Subdivision & Development - Objectives 12.2.1(1),(3),(6) & (7) Policies 12.2.2(5),(7) & (8) Commercial Zones - Objectives