Laserfiche WebLink
JOEL GIMPEL <br /> 73-4686 H>!tvA LAlvt STREET <br /> K~WA <br /> KONA, HI 96740 <br /> 808/3254991 <br /> <br /> To: Hawai i County Council <br /> <br /> Subject °Superstore° Legislation <br /> Date: September 19, 2007 <br /> <br /> Atha! In my earlier testimony to the Planning Committee and the Planning Commission on the <br /> "Superstore" legislation i observed that the definitan of °Superstore" in both bills is fatally flawed, <br /> because it is too easiy avoided. The bill to ban such stores wouldn't ban them, nor would the bill <br /> to establish a special zone for them have the desired effect, especially in view of the fact that <br /> existing zoning categories already permit large retail establishments. Acrwrdingly, 1've given some <br /> thought to how best m do wturt you're really hying to accomplish, and in order to do that, it was <br /> necessary to determine what, in fact, n~ded fixing. <br /> The Planning Committee's discussion helped, because it became clear that you rightly perceived <br /> a lads of Council coritrol when a large retail establishment is proposed for property akeady zoned <br /> for such establishments, so that rezoning, with the accompanying infrastructure review, is Trot <br /> required. Therefore, it should be dear that the zoning approach alone is inadequate. And I might <br /> add that the absolute ban approach, in addition to being easily sidestepped as IYe pointed out, <br /> doesnY really fix the problem and could inadveriendy sweep in desired retai! establishments. <br /> Your concern over lack of centrol regarding the effect of large retail establishrrrents on our <br /> infrastnrdure, already inadequate in many areas, is well taken and should be addressed. t also <br /> note that a shopping mall, with many stores, has at as great an effect on infrasWdure as a <br /> single "Superstore' or "Big Box° store, however defined, of similar s¢e. <br /> So what to do? Here's a suggestion: Require, as a condition for oMaining a building permik that <br /> structures exceeding 50,000 square feet, for example, that are to house a retail establishment or <br /> establishments, submit an analysis of infrastructure needs (roads, water. etc.,) and plans to <br /> mitigate those needs for Courroil approval- in order tb eNminate bopholes, the legislation should <br /> apply m incremental devebpments, devebpments on adjoining tax paroe~, and conversrons to <br /> retail space. Thus, a developer who already has. rx obtains a building Permit for', a 45,000 square <br /> toot building waikt have rp obtavi Council clearance for a 10,000 square foot conversion or <br /> addition if at least 50.000 square feet was for retail sales. whether on the same parcel w on an <br /> adjoining parcel. And, the requirement woukt attach a the larxl, in order a assure compliance by <br /> future owners. <br /> Consider Crow this would apply in the real world. Before Caribou Center and the proposed <br /> stepping mall near the 07d Airport can build structures chat wiN exceed x,000 square feet. which <br /> they surely wiu, both would have to Main Council clearance with rasped to infrastructure, despite <br /> the fad that the properties are already zoned to permit such establishments. <br /> Mahab for your attention and consideration. I'll be happy to answer any questions and to work <br /> with you m develop appropriate language to accomplish the wortlry goal of assuring adequate <br /> infrastructure for our county. <br /> Jcei Gimpel <br /> Comm. No. 3 2 • ~ d <br /> Ref. 70: ~ar+wNii~ <br /> Cou?+tll <br /> Ref. Date <br /> SEP } <br /> g <br /> ~a'j-' <br /> <br />