1962 06 07June 7,1962
MINUTES -SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL -8:00 P.M.
Special meeting called for purpose of conducting Public Hearing on appeal
of Planning Commission decision relating to expanded uses in Shopping
Center.
Meeting called to order by Mayor John Dietzen.Councilmen Hilderbrand,
Ebbert,Law and Stadshaug,present.Councilmen Krueger and Skaug,
absent.,/
Approximately 35 citizens present at Hearing.
Mayor Dietzen reviewed history of project to date,particularly relating to
Council and Planning Commission actions.Emphasized that the issue
before the City Council is more comprehensive than the specific request,
stated that City Council's considerations cannot be limited to one specific
shopping center,and requested those attending the public hearing to
limit their discussion to shopping center zones in general,and not to a
specific site.
Mayor Dietzen then offered the following comment:"I am aware that my
position in this consideration is an awkward one,inasmuch as my business
is located in the existing shopping center.I call to your attention,and I
am sure the Council will verify this,that I have abstained from voting on
this issue.Furthermore,at no time have I contacted any member of the
City Council or any other person in an attempt to influence their decision.
I want to be extremely sure that this hearing is conducted impartially,and
that you do not feel that I may influence the Council's decision by the
manner in which I conduct this meeting.It is,therefore,my decision to
relinquish Chairmanship of the City Council for conduct of this hearing,
and to allow the City Council to select a Chairman."
The City Council unanimously affirmed their confidence in Mayor Dietzen,
stating that he has always conducted himself impartially in such matters,
further stated that they recognize his privilege to abstain from voting,but
feel he should not relinquish Chairmanship.
Mayor Dietzen then explained procedure for conduct of meeting,and
invited comments from the audience.The following comments were offered:
Gene Daoust:The central business district of Spokane,Portland and
Seattle,has been ruined by shopping centers.Moses
Lake should profit from that experience.Shopping
centers will detract from the central business district
of Moses Lake.
Neal Lucke:Expressed the same sentiments,but feels that Amick
should be entitled to replace existing tenants if
buildings are vacated.
Betty Dixon:Myra's.Expressed the same sentiments regarding
relationship of shopping centers to the central business
district.
George Herron:J. C.Penney.The consideration before the Council
should be what is best for Moses Lake and its future
development.He does not believe that shopping
centers will contribute to proper future development.
Chuck Edwards:Expressed the same sentiment.He does not believe that
spreading of business districts will develop Moses Lake
as a regional shopping area.
Councilman
Ebbert:
Mr.Daoust:
Councilman
Hilderbrand:
Mayor Dietzen:
Don Roberts:
Mayor Dietzen:
S.R.Tones:
Councilman
Ebbert:
Mr.Lucke:
Chuck Edwards:
Councilman
Stadshaug:
Councilman
Hilderbrand:
June 7,1962 Cont'd.
Asked of Mr.Daoust,"Are you infavor of doing away
with any and all shopping centers ?"
Replied,"No,but Moses Lake is not large enough for
shopping centers.They will ruin all businesses because
of dividing business and diverting from the central
business district.Development of another "city"will be
harmful to the development of Moses Lake."
Commented regarding the size of existing site,parking
ratio to buildings,the number of square feet developed in
buildings,and the amount of future expansion thus
permissible.
Again requested that discussion be confined to the "CNS"
zone,not to a specific center.
Representing W.T.Grant's.Stated he had no objection
to development of shopping centers.Existing centers are
entitled to protection of existing ordinances,but so is
the central business district entitled to such protection.
The current appeal has been based upon expediency.
Zoning should not be changed at every request of individ
uals .The proposal before the Council is too broad and
would detract from the central business district.
Reiterated the basis of appeal,and emphasized the right
of every citizen to appear before the Council.
418 N.Central Drive.Same sentiments,a divided
central business district will detract from regional shop
ping concept.
What will prevent development of shopping centers at
periphery of City?The City certainly cannot prevent
such development.The City Council's concern is to
control development of shopping centers,not to force
their development outside the corporate limits.
(Brother of Neal Lucke)The City Council must plan for
City development,the County will control development
outside corporate limits.
Economics will take care of the problem of development
outside the corporate limits.
In agreement with the economic concept of development as
applied to shopping centers.Acreage control,plus econ
omics,will largely control shopping center developments.
Perhaps the existing ordinance is too restrictive.
Agrees that existing ordinance is too restrictive.Individ
ual stores,as specified in the ordinance,all sell other
items normally sold by stores not allowed by ordinance.
There is consideration for an area outside corporate limits,
proper control inside the City is preferable.
- 2 -
Ra1ph Kenison:
Bob Trask:
Don Roberts
John Lewis:
June 7,1962 Cont'd
Attorney.Stated that his firm is representing Earl Amick
in this appeal,and therefore he had planned to make no
comments at the meeting.However,he expressed amaze
ment at some of the comments heard this evening.He
expressed the opinion that the restrictive attitude expressed
will ruin Moses Lake as a regional shopping center.He is
of the opinion that adjacent communities do not have the
shopping center problem because they are not growing and
developing.He further stated that he is shocked at the
attitude of some,that we do not want shopping centers.
The question should rather be,"What are we going to
allow in shopping centers."The ordinance should be such
as to allow Moses Lake to grow and to develop logically.
As the City is growing,free enterprize should not be
stopped.If economic demand is for expansion of the shop
ping centers,they should be allowed to do so.Certain
controls are necessary,but should not be unduly restrictive.
W.T.Grant's.Emphasized that he favors expansion of
Moses Lake,but wants the protection of controls as
specified in the existing zoning ordinance.
Attorney:The problem has become grossly exaggerated.
Controversy of downtown versus shopping centers is un
fortunate.Shopping centers have developed because of
inadequate parking in the central business district and
because of attitudes of certain non-resident owners.Land
prices down town are too expensive because of speculative
developers.The decision of the City Council regarding
uses in the shopping center will not make or break the
central business district;other problems will unless they
are resolved by the downtown businessmen.
Councilman Reiterated that the existing zone is considerably more
Stadshaug:restrictive than was the former "CNS"zone.Perhaps
Ordinance No.433 is too restrictive.Basically,land area
and parking ratio will control development.
Howard
Peterson:
John Lewis
Harold Brill:
George Herron:
Shopping centers are an integral part of our community.
This decision will not "throw out"planning as previously
suggested.Shopping centers must have a well rounded
listing of businesses to exist.
Attorney.Suggested perhaps a committee should be formed
to help resolve the parking problem in the central business
district.
Weisfields:Stated he is Chairman of a Chamber of
Commerce committee to study parking,and to establish
parking lots for future development.Emphasized the need
to work as a team with shopping centers,and to make Moses
Lake a regional shopping center.
J. C.Penney.Stated that downtown merchants certainly
want to work with shopping centers,and that they want no
division between the two groups.
Further general discussion ensued regarding possible additional uses in the
"CNS"zone.
- 3 -
June 7,1962 Cont'd
Motion by Law,seconded by Hilderbrand,that City Attorney be authorized
to draft an amendment to Ordinance No.433,allowing the following uses
in the "CNS"zone:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32,
33
Art Supply Shop
Auto Accessory Store
Automobile Service Station (one only)
Bakery,Retail Products sold on premises
Barber Shop and Beauty Shop
Book or Stationery Store
Clinics,Medical and Dental
Clothes Pressing and Spot Cleaning
Clothing Store or Tailor Shop
Confectionery or Candy Store
Delicatessen
Drug Store
Dry Goods Store,Draperies,Millinery,Dress Shop
Florist Shop (excluding greenhouses)
Furniture Store and Floor Coverings
Gift Shop
Grocery,fruit or vegetable store,meat market,super
market and lockers.
Hardware or Appliance Store
Hobby Shop,Fixit Shop
Jewelry Store
Laundry Agency or Self-Service (excluding laundry)
Music Store,Record Shop
Offices (business or professional)
Photo Shop
Post Office Branch
Radio and TV Shop
Restaurant (excluding cabaret,cocktail lounge or bar,
or tavern)
Shoe Store and Shoe Repair
Sporting Goods Store
Studios,Music,Art,Dance
Variety Store,5 &10 Cent Store
Accessory uses customarily incidental to the permitted
uses,provided all such accessory uses are carried on
entirely within a building.
Other uses ruled by the Council under Section 310.20,
Ordinance No.433,to be similar to the above specified
uses,and exceptions as permitted in Article II of
Ordinance No.433.
Under discussion,Councilman Stadshaug asked if other changes were intended
or if this motion was only intended to provide additional uses.He stated that,
for example,an amendment to the parking provisions may be important.
Councilman Law,with permission from his second,moved to include in the
amendment a change in parking ratio to 4 to 1.Motion carried,with Council
man Law,Hilderbrand,Stadshaug,Ebbert voting "Yes".Mayor Dietzen
abstained.
Meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
"••J .("•c-s/.///y .'<s
City Manager John F.Dietzen -Mayor
.
- 4 -