Pessimistic on 'good intentions'

Admitting their response was fueled by a high degree of skepticism, Cheney’s Planning Commission tabled adding a new chapter to the city’s zoning code allowing construction of cottage developments and deleted a staff recommendation to allow some small commercial uses in residential zones.

The request for changes at the commission’s Sept. 8 meeting to allow limited commercial in multifamily zoning comes from the developers of the Parkside Commons student housing complex, under construction on North 8th Street across from Hagelin Park. Developers believe the location is ideal for small businesses that sell items such as coffee and bagels to students, a usage that could also take place at other student-oriented housing such as Eagle Point and The Grove.

Commercial uses permitted under the proposed zoning changes would only be for eating and drinking, and would not exceed 200 square feet under R-3 zoning and 400 square feet under R-3H.

Commissioner Rick Mount wasn’t comfortable with the proposal, saying it opens up problems of increased traffic while also taking away from existing businesses in the city that provided those products and supported the entire community rather than just one small part. Commissioner Dan Hillman also expressed concern about increased traffic around these developments, even though Cheney senior planner Brett Lucas said he didn’t envision that happening as the businesses would be only for the apartment complex residents.

“I’ve laid down some serious rubber stopping for Dutch Brothers (coffee stands),” Hillman replied.

The commission ultimately removed the commercial proposal from the action item, which also requested increasing lot sizes in R-1 single-family residential and R-2 two-family residential zones. The former is at the request of a developer who wants to build larger homes near Simpson Parkway and the latter to facilitate senior housing units proposed north of the Cheney Care Center.

“You’re changing a lot on behalf of particular developers to meet the demands of specific projects,” Hillman told Lucas, who acknowledged that was the case.

But when it came to adding a chapter allowing construction of cottage-style homes in the city, the commission expressed a high degree of not only skepticism but some cynicism. The latter stemmed from a feeling such developments would not lead to home ownership in the city, but rather more rentals being built that were owned by out-of-town parties with no stake in how those units impacted the city.

Mount cited instances of this already happening, particularly single-family homes owned by out-of-town individuals who rent to multiple individuals in defiance of current city single-family occupancy restrictions that limit the definition of family to only two or more related individuals. Mount said such developments had been permitted for too long by previous commissions and councils.

“We’re trying to reverse this because people in our seats, in Mark’s (City Administrator Schuller) seat, in (Councilman Barthels) Vince’s seat on council had no forethought at all,” Mount said. Both Barthels and Schuller were present at Monday’s meeting.

Cheney planning intern Tynan Stevenson told the commission cottage-style developments would help the city provide more affordable housing options and serve as smoother transitions from R-1 to R-2 and from R-3 (multifamily) to R-3H (high-density multifamily) since they would only be allowed in R-2 and R-3 zones. Stevenson also said the proposed zoning chapter would establish a minimum R-1 construction size of 250 square feet, larger than the current 180 square feet Cheney building inspectors were telling him would meet code as a single-family unit.

Because the city has no zoning regulations for cottage-style homes, and that it would need to pass a moratorium should a developer approach the city to build such a development, the commission elected to table consideration of the proposed code additions to its January 2020 meeting.

“This comes down to pessimism on our part that anyone would follow these (regulations),” Hillman told Stevenson. “It was a good presentation, with good intentions, but I don’t feel people will follow these good intentions.”

John McCallum can be reached at [email protected].