Council continues buffer-ordinance discussion; agrees to segregate new RM zoning and retain standards in Chapter 8-4

Garden City staff and council continued an extended discussion May 20 on proposed citywide buffering standards and a new medium‑density residential zoning designation (RM). The session reviewed a multi-page packet that compared existing code with proposed language for buffers, river‑zone protections, setbacks, retaining‑wall limits, and tree/landscape requirements.

Director Thornborough and planning staff (Jenna) summarized packet materials and described the approach staff used to separate the RM zoning designation from the broader buffer ordinance. Staff said most of the changes in the draft are clarifications: clerical edits, reorganized intent language, and clearer definitions (for example, ordinary high-water mark language to align with Idaho Department of Lands and Idaho Department of Water Resources determinations). Staff noted some substantive edits proposed after stakeholder comments: lowering a proposed retaining-wall maximum from 6 feet to 3.5 feet (so applicants would stack shorter walls with terraces rather than build single high walls) and clarifying when the 30-foot greenbelt/river setback would apply (up to 30 feet where Army Corps or flood-mitigation measures require it; otherwise the standard front/rear setback was proposed at 15 feet).

The council discussed whether river-zone protections should be placed in an overlay chapter or remain in Chapter 8‑4 (design and development regulations). City attorney Wadhams reviewed the single-subject rule from the Idaho Constitution and recommended separating distinct legislative subjects where practicable. Several councilors, including President Page and Council member Rasmussen, said that because the Boise River is a primary city amenity the river standards could reasonably be labeled and treated as an overlay district; other councilors and staff preferred keeping the rules in Chapter 8‑4 where they have been drafted and where applicants and staff have already been working under that format. Director Thornborough explained the administrative cost of moving rules back into a formal overlay chapter would require scrubbing links and template materials, but that staff could implement either approach and that placement would not change the substantive standards.

On the RM zoning designation, staff and council agreed to separate the legislation that creates the new RM zone (a citywide legislative matter) from the buffer ordinance (citywide development standards). Council members expressed concern that adopting use‑table changes to the R‑3 district without the RM mechanism in place could unintentionally up‑zone other R‑3 areas elsewhere in the city (for example, West of Glenwood) where residents do not want additional nonresidential or higher-density uses. Staff explained options for property owners and neighborhoods to seek rezones (for example, a rezone to R‑2 to match existing built density) or to have the city initiate rezonings for stability. The council directed staff to proceed with separating the RM zone from the buffering ordinance, to refine written decision language, and to prepare the RM ordinance as a standalone legislative item to be considered on a separate schedule from the buffer ordinance.

Staff said they had solicited and incorporated many comments from stakeholders, including Totten Group (Bob Totten), Idaho Department of Water Resources, and Boise River Enhancement Network, and that additional comments were expected before the noticed public hearing. Staff also said they would clarify ordinary high-water mark references to rely on the Idaho Department of Lands and IDWR determinations.

Next steps and implementation

Council signaled a preference to keep the draft buffering and river‑zone standards in Chapter 8‑4 (design and development regulations) rather than create a separate overlay chapter, primarily to avoid short‑term administrative work and to preserve the format applicants had been using. Council directed staff to prepare the RM zoning ordinance as a separate legislative item, to finalize written‑decision criteria for quasi‑judicial rezonings and to return the buffer ordinance with the RM removed for continued review and public hearings as scheduled.

Quotations (selected)

"I would recommend relocating the river amenity language to an overlay section because it is really the Boise River and an amenity — call it out what we're trying to do," City Attorney Wadhams said, noting the river component functions like an overlay.

"Short term, we'd have to go through and just change all the numbering... there'd be some broken links to scrub, but it's feasible," Director Thornborough said when asked about moving river standards to an overlay chapter.

"If you take out the RM, that becomes a sole ordinance on its own feet," Council member Rasmussen said, describing the sequencing and the council's options.

The council did not adopt final code language at the May 20 meeting. Staff will return with the RM ordinance as a standalone legislative proposal and with updated buffer language for public hearing.