No Super Wal-Mart

Community divided on rezone; City Council will decide May 15 on acreage eyed by Wal-Mart for a super center

By Omie Drawhorn Daily News staff writer
Published: 05-02-2006

A crowd of about 120 people packed Moscow City Council chambers Monday night to speak out on, or witness, the latest action in a controversial rezone application that could bring a Wal-Mart Supercenter to east Moscow.

A yes vote could bring a mixture of stores and homes to a 77-acre chunk of undeveloped land, said supporters of the proposed rezone.

Opponents weren’t so sure. Many people fear a rezone would unleash a floodgate of retail development that would crowd out any hope for a healthy mix of neighborhood residential construction.

Middle ground was hard to find during the meeting as council members heard testimony in support of and in opposition to the rezoning of the land between the Troy Highway and East Palouse River Drive, east of South Mountain View Road.

Developers want the zoning changed from agriculture forestry to motor business, and Wal-Mart wants to build a super center if that happens.

The hallway was filled to overflowing, with people who couldn’t fit into the council chambers watching the meeting on a television screen. Less than 10 people watched from the 1912 Center, which had been reserved for audience overflow.

The ramifications of the rezone decision stretch beyond a yes or no vote on this particular application.

“We need something more certain than ‘trust us,’ ” said Jim Siebe, attorney for No Super Wal-Mart, a grassroots coalition against the building of the super center. “There’s nothing to compel them to build mixed use when the application is approved.”

But Jack McCullough, Seattle attorney for the Gene Thompson family, owners of the land, and Wal-Mart which wants to build on it, said the City Council has the power to ensure that development occurs the way the city wants.

“We’re not asking you to trust us. Make sure you put conditions on the rezone to ensure protection,” McCullough said.

The City Council refrained from making a decision Monday night. After hearing testimony until 11:45 p.m., council members voted to discuss public testimony, staff reports and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission before making a decision at the May 15 council meeting.

Councilwoman Linda Pall recused herself due to a previous comment she had made while discussing Wal-Mart with a member of the Gene Thompson family.

“I said, ‘Boy, I sure hope you’re not planning a Wal-Mart out there’ Š and in no uncertain terms I said it was a terrible idea,” Pall said.

Thompson family member Garrett Thompson maintained the rezone is in the best interest of the city.

“Our goal is to contribute healthy growth to the city of Moscow,” he said. “Please give us a chance to show you this can be an asset.”

The story behind the meeting began last summer, when the acreage was annexed into the city. The city’s comprehensive plan map designation was changed to extensive commercial at that time. But the comprehensive plan designation merely acts as a guide for development and is not legally binding, said Joel Plaskon, Moscow community development director. He said motor business may be the most appropriate zone for extensive commercial. The property legally could be zoned for less intense commercial.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the rezone March 8, citing scale and a desire to move toward mixed use zoning.

Plaskon said there are between 12-15 acres of motor business within the city of Moscow in addition to 40-60 acres behind the Palouse Mall that were annexed into the city last year.

But McCullough said the biggest parcel of motor business in town is seven acres, not large enough to house significant retail development.

Those in support of the rezone argued last night that:

n More commercial development is needed on the east side of town;

n Moscow needs more motor business zoning; and

n The Thompson family has the right to do what it wishes with the property

Those against argued:

n The rezone would be a violation of the comprehensive plan;

n Transportation and water concerns could be compromised;

n The rezone would interfere with the Latah Trail;

n The scale of development the rezone would allow; and

n Lack of retail demand.

“This is not an issue of pro-growth or no growth,” said Linda Pike of Moscow, a candidate for District 3 Latah County commissioner. “… It’s simply too large. It doesn’t go with what we need here,” she said.

Rick Beebe, Moscow real estate developer disagreed. “This piece of property is the best piece in Moscow we have for this kind of development,” Beebe said.

Diane French of the Palouse Water Conservation District said retail development at the proposed scale would increase water use in Moscow by about 7.6 percent, a violation of the 1 percent annual growth limit.

Jim Mital of Protect Our Water, a local nonprofit dedicated to the preservation of ground water resources, said Moscow doesn’t have the water to support such a development.

“Just because we build it doesn’t mean water will come,” he said.

Supporters of the rezone maintain the proposed east side location is best for the community.

“Our growth in residential areas is to the east, not west,” said Jim Demeerleer, owner of the Furniture Center in Moscow.

But Gerard Connelly, owner of Tri-State, balks at the thought of the retail development being so close to the Moscow Cemetery, literally just across the highway.
“I hate the thought of spending eternity watching all those people go in and out of the unnamed business,” he said.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pm and is filed under DNews, Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.