Gardner council denies rezoning for west 190th Street, orders review of truck‑route code after resident opposition

The Gardner City Council on an evening vote rejected a developer’s request to rezone land west of Gardner Road on West 190th Street and denied a conditional‑use permit for four stacked commercial signs, after multiple residents urged the council to keep semitrailer traffic off the road and honor annexation promises.

The council’s action followed more than an hour of public comment and a staff presentation. The motion to adopt the planning commission’s recommendation to deny Ordinance No. 2848 (rezoning) passed with three yes votes, two no votes and one abstention; the related conditional‑use permit, Ordinance No. 2849, was also denied. Council members then directed staff to develop a menu of possible amendments to Chapter 10.15 (truck routes) of the Gardner Municipal Code for future consideration.

Why it matters: residents who annexed into the city years ago said they agreed to enter city limits on the understanding the city would block heavy intermodal truck traffic and prevent wholesale conversion of nearby rural lots to warehouses. Dozens of neighbors told the council the rezoning would undo that protection and increase heavy vehicle traffic on a two‑lane road with limited shoulders.

Staff presentation and options: Planning staff explained the matter was tied to several documents — the 2016 comprehensive plan and a more recent sub‑area plan that show parts of the parcel as candidate commercial land uses — and to the city’s land‑development code (Title 17). The planning commission recommended denial but supplied advisory conditions and ideas (including use limits, tree preservation, building scale and phasing) that could mitigate truck traffic and land‑use impacts if the council chose to approve a revised plan.

Public reaction: more than a dozen speakers who live on or near West 190th Street told the council they had accepted annexation to protect the southern border of Gardner from Edgerton‑area warehousing and to keep semitrailers off local roads. Several speakers described trucks turning or backing on narrow roads near a bridge and cited safety concerns. One resident asked whether the council had completed a “Golden criteria” evaluation — a standard list of factors used for rezoning decisions — and urged the council to apply it to the request.

Council action and next steps: Council members debated the conflict between the municipal truck‑route language (Chapter 10.15) and land‑use designations in the comprehensive plan, and whether the city can, in practice, enforce a no‑truck designation on arterial roads outside Gardner’s jurisdiction. The council voted to deny the rezoning (Ordinance No. 2848) and the CUP (Ordinance No. 2849). Separately, the council unanimously instructed staff to return with a comprehensive set of options to amend Chapter 10.15 — for example, defining truck classes by gross vehicle weight, axle count or permitted uses — so the governing body can evaluate clearer, city‑wide truck‑route language.

What the votes showed: on the rezoning denial the roll call recorded three votes in favor of denial, two opposed and one abstention; the council clerk recorded the motions as successful. The CUP vote likewise resulted in denial.

Background and limits: staff emphasized that any change to truck‑route language is a legislative decision; it requires ordinance drafting and later council approval. The council’s direction does not itself rezone any parcel or change existing entitlements. Several council members noted the decision does not remove the comprehensive plan designation; it leaves open future requests but signals the council’s current policy preference to protect the area from heavy semitrailer traffic.

Councilmembers, staff and several residents said they expect the subject to return to the council as staff drafts ordinance language and as developers or property owners consider revised proposals.