Garden City planning commission sends Edgemere PUD back for redesign, sets Nov. 19 return

Garden City planning commissioners voted Sept. 17 to defer a decision on the Edgemere Subdivision planned unit development at 219 E. 40th Street so the applicant can return with revisions. The commission set a date certain of Nov. 19 for the applicant to address multiple code shortfalls identified by staff and commissioners.

The commission’s action came after a 90‑minute public hearing that included a presentation by the applicant and a detailed staff report from planning staff. The Edgemere proposal would subdivide roughly a half‑acre R‑3 zoned parcel into nine attached townhome units and one common lot processed as a PUD; the developer also requested several code adjustments for private driveway width, tandem parking dimensions, perimeter landscaping and open space configuration.

Staff and commissioners flagged multiple issues that they said needed solving before they could recommend approval. Key concerns included the private driveway access, which narrows to 20 feet through a stem portion but must meet a 26‑foot private street standard (or be characterized as a common drive with its own limitations); tandem garages and guest stalls that fall short of standard parking dimensions; a perimeter landscaping shortfall; uncertainty about whether proposed on‑site open space meets the city’s dimensional standards; and whether an irrigation lateral at the site could remain open instead of being tiled.

City planner Hannah Beal told the commission that the proposal meets certain density targets — the project would yield roughly 17 dwelling units per acre, within the R‑3 medium density range — but that the density increases create code shortfalls: "The increased density or compliant density has resulted in a shortfall of some code compliance, such as open space landscaping and the parking concerns," she said during the staff presentation. Beal recommended denial unless the applicant secures a range of code adjustments; she also noted that PUD findings require give‑and‑take justification for any waivers.

Applicant Jaden (Jamie) Schneider described design responses intended to draw pedestrians toward a trellised entry and to provide a 20‑foot drivable section that grows to 26 feet in front of buildings to meet fire‑truck ladder requirements. Schneider said the developer proposes 38‑foot tandem garage depths and 15‑foot guest stalls, and argued that the 38‑foot interior depth accommodates many popular vehicles. Commissioners pressed the applicant on practical parking impacts — multiple commissioners said they were worried that typical modern SUVs and trucks would protrude into the drive aisle and block access.

Commissioners repeatedly raised safety and service access questions: whether fire apparatus could navigate the constrained stem portion; how trash pickup would operate; and whether adding, removing or reconfiguring units could resolve shortfalls. Staff explained that the private drive/common drive classification affects whether Ada County Highway District (ACHD) might later adopt the roadway: a private street typically must be 26 feet wide for ACHD adoption, while a common drive is limited in the number of dwellings it can serve without additional waivers.

After deliberation, the commission voted to continue the application to Nov. 19 to give the applicant time to consider design revisions and the requested code adjustments. Commissioner Wilde moved to defer to Nov. 19; the motion passed unanimously.

What’s next: the developer will return with revised plans addressing parking, driveway configuration, open space calculations, perimeter landscaping and irrigation/ditch treatment, or propose alternative waivers and findings. Staff suggested that a Nov. 19 continuance would give time for meaningful revisions and staff review.