Garden City council holds public hearing on buffer ordinance, approves first reading by title

Garden City held a public hearing Feb. 24 on CPA FY24‑4, a proposed “buffer” ordinance that would align base zoning with the city’s comprehensive plan, add a new residential medium‑density (RM) zone and create standards for setbacks, perimeter landscaping, transitions adjacent to single‑family neighborhoods and activity nodes.

The ordinance as drafted would create an RM zone allowing up to 15 units per acre and a 45‑foot maximum building height as drafted; staff and supporters described the RM zone as a tool that would not automatically rezone property but would be available when a rezoning is proposed. Director of Development Services Jenna Thornborough summarized the draft: it codifies activity nodes from the comprehensive plan, clarifies setbacks and exceptions, establishes transition areas adjacent to R2 residential zoning, and adds design standards intended to preserve visual privacy for existing homes.

Why it matters: The proposal changes how medium‑density housing near low‑density neighborhoods would be regulated in Garden City, including permitted densities, height limits, and landscaping and design requirements. Those code changes affect where and how future housing and mixed‑use projects could be sited and built along corridors such as Chinden/Chinden Boulevard, Garrett and Glenwood.

Thornborough told the council the draft also resurrects elements of an earlier Boise River overlay to guide development adjacent to the greenbelt and that the draft includes a 45‑foot height cap for the RM zone. “It aligns current zoning districts with the comprehensive plan land‑use designations,” she said. Thornborough also noted two technical edits staff were considering, including a wording change from “front” to “face” in one design requirement.

City Attorney Charles Wadhams provided a legal memorandum included in the packet and pointed council members to statutory and procedural materials for the record. The attorney’s memo and an accompanying draft decision document were included in the council packet for members’ review.

Public comment: About a dozen residents spoke. Wendy Carver Herbert, who identified herself as representing several neighbors south of the river and west of Glenwood, said she supports creating an RM tool but urged lowering the maximum height to 35 feet where RM adjoins single‑family neighborhoods. “I think the 15 units an acre is a good compromise,” she said, while adding, “I would like to see the 35 feet as our preferred height restriction, particularly for developments adjacent to single‑family neighborhoods.”

Resident Bob Sorvaugh said he supported the ordinance and encouraged the council to move quickly to rezone parcels to match the comprehensive plan, but suggested a default of 35 feet with a mechanism to allow 45 feet in limited cases through design review. Resident Carol Layton said she opposed developments she described as dense “tenement”‑style buildings next to existing neighborhoods and held up drawings she said were not allowed under the proposed tool; council members clarified that the RM tool would be applied only via separate rezoning processes.

Council discussion focused on practical application and drafting details. Council members and staff discussed how activity‑node boundaries are defined (the draft would codify language now in the comprehensive plan), whether minimum and maximum densities in activity nodes overlap low‑density areas, how step‑backs and landscaping buffers would work, and how to treat parapets or rooftop mechanical screens (the draft currently includes a provision that allows certain rooftop features above the base height for nonhabitable elements such as screening of mechanical equipment). Several council members asked staff to ensure the maximum height is measured consistently (from grade) and suggested clarifying language so that any rooftop structures or parapets count toward the total maximum height unless the council explicitly allows otherwise.

Action: Council approved a first reading by title only of CPA FY24‑4 (the buffer ordinance) and related ordinance language. The motion for first reading passed on a roll call vote with Council Members Jorgensen, Page, Rasmussen and Jacobs recorded in favor. The clerk read ordinance language and a summary of Ordinance 10‑50‑24 by title during the meeting.

Next steps: The ordinance requires two additional readings before final adoption. Council members and staff said there will be opportunities to revise word‑smithing and respond to public comments between readings; staff also flagged specific definitions (for example, “greenbelt”) and other language to review. The council separately moved later in the meeting to remand a different proposed ordinance (Ordinance 10‑51‑24) to Planning & Zoning for a work session to consider Idaho Supreme Court precedent and whether findings or notice language need revision.

The hearing generated substantive requests for clarifications and edits, particularly on maximum height, step‑back requirements, activity‑node boundaries and minimum/maximum densities. Council members instructed staff to return with any recommended clarifications before subsequent readings so those adjustments can be considered publicly.