No commission recommendation

By JOHN McCALLUM

Editor

After almost two-and-a-half hours of public testimony over two separate days, 19 comment letters and several staff reports, the Cheney Planning Commission deadlocked on a vote at the March 23 special meeting regarding a rezone request for a student-housing apartment complex near Eastern Washington University.

The decision, which stems somewhat from a vacant seventh seat on the commission, now moves to the City Council for final deliberation without a recommendation from the commission. Before the vote took place, however, the commission was warned by city attorney Stanley Schwartz that it appeared they were engaging in speculation, and therefore potentially not a “rational decision making process” regarding Eastmark Corporation’s Parkside Commons complex.

Eastmark is requesting a rezoning of two parcels between Erie and North Eighth streets on the east and west, and Oak and Cedar streets on the north and south from its current R-3 multifamily to R-3H high-density multifamily. That would allow it to increase the size of the Parkside Commons proposal from the allowed maximum of 76 units to 115 units.

The construction would remove 16 duplexes originally installed in the mid-1970s as military housing. It would provide sidewalks on all four sides of the development, and provide 230-250 off-street parking stalls for the students living there.

Much of the testimony received by the commission, both written and verbal, revolved around current conditions at the location, namely heavy use by vehicle and pedestrian traffic that when coupled with on-street parking, can limit travel lanes and visibility, particularly under snowy winter conditions.

“It’s a very congested area now,” Cheney resident Andrea Kraft told the commission last Thursday.

Part of this conversation also involved a traffic study provided by Eastmark that suggested the complex, if built out to 115 units, would increase vehicle traffic in the area by about 155 daily trips from the current 170. The report was based on a study done at six student apartment complexes at the University of Minnesota, and several commissioners at the March 13 hearing questioned its applicability in Cheney’s case.

Commission Chair Vince Bartels produced another study at that meeting regarding trip generation at student-oriented housing. In an email to the city, Eastmark’s traffic engineer, Bill White of Morrison Maierle, wrote that he didn’t refute the evidence or conclusions of the new study that suggested the Minnesota study may not be sufficient for estimating trip generation from student housing.

“However, I do stand by my suppositions stated in the March 13 Planning Commission meeting that this project is more comparable to a ‘graduated dormitory’ versus that of student apartments and is likely to generate less traffic than apartments,” White wrote. “The near location of the University and transit will motivate higher levels of walking and biking, versus apartments, and this will reduce trip counts.”

This aspect was pointed out in one of two letters in favor of the project by Eastern Washington University student Patrick Hanley.

“The city is lacking housing that is within walking distance of the campus, and is one of the largest complaints from students,” Hanley wrote.

Commissioner Craig Huber also mentioned the lack of student housing near the university. He also brought up an issue that commissioners had debated in previous meetings about housing, namely that students have been renting single-family homes, and that such rentals violate city ordinances regarding occupancy.

“This (Parkside) could be an option for those people,” Huber added.

At one point, Schwartz reminded the commission that in their finding of facts regarding the March 13 hearing, city staff had produced a list of measures that could be used to mitigate the impacts of increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic. He also reintroduced the area’s current zoning.

“The zoning is already R3,” Schwartz said. “You’ve already determined this is an appropriate place for multi-family housing.”

Regarding the traffic studies, Schwartz said the commission was engaging in speculation, something that wasn’t fair to the applicant.

“You can’t superimpose existing problems on this application,” Schwartz said, advising the commission to look at the evidence presented and how it fit with current conditions.

In the end, Barthels, Huber and Commissioner Dan Turbeville voted against the rezone request while commissioners Vara Lyn Conrath, Rick Mount and Kristine Williams voted in favor.

“And now, the matter is in the hands of the City Council,” Schwartz said.

John McCallum can be reached at [email protected].