Neighbors urge council to block nightclub and travel‑center at Moose Lodge remodel

Several neighbors told the council they oppose a proposed remodel of the Moose Lodge into a mixed convenience store/gas station and nightclub, which they say exceeds the scale and uses appropriate for a Neighborhood Business District.

"I say no to the convenience store, and I say no to the gas station, and definitely no to a nightclub in our area," said Greg Adams, a Roosevelt‑area resident who said traffic and speeding already make driveway access hazardous. Jack Baker, who lives directly across from the Moose Lodge, said the applicant's plan appears sized for highway traffic rather than neighborhood retail: "The proposed landmark station with 12 fuel pumps and an approximate 11,000 square foot convenience store," Baker said, arguing that the project resembles a travel center rather than a small service‑oriented business.

Several speakers focused on noise and code compliance. Jan Molinaro cited City and state noise rules and questioned whether the proposal's references to outdoor seating are consistent with the Neighborhood Business District requirement that uses be conducted within a completely enclosed building. "The noise limitations to receiving property ... are 50 dBA, meaning ... from 10PM to 7AM," Molinaro told council, and asked whether outdoor seating, perimeter walls, and other mitigation will be required.

Cindy Baker, who lives across the street and teaches at Enumclaw Middle School, urged a moratorium on nightclubs in residential neighborhoods and asked the council to change its code: "I would ask that you immediately impose a moratorium on allowing any nightclubs in neighborhoods and direct the city to change its code," she said, noting multiple schools within one mile and recounting incidents she described as overserved patrons entering private yards.

City staff did not make a staff recommendation on the specific land‑use decision during public comment; the hearing portion in this meeting was public comment only. Speakers asked for (a) clearer permit posting that states all proposed uses on the sign, (b) more detailed interior plans showing equipment and layout, and (c) explicit requirements for sound barriers or fencing where the site abuts residential properties. Council did not take a land‑use vote during the regular meeting.

The neighborhood presentation added procedural requests for staff and council review: residents asked that the posted land‑use notice be corrected to list each permit type proposed, and several asked staff to require additional construction and mitigation details before any permits are issued.