Garden City council debates buffer-focused zoning changes, height limits and greenbelt setbacks

Garden City — At a Dec. 9 work session, the Garden City City Council reviewed a proposed code text amendment (CPA FY2024-4) aimed at creating new buffering rules, clarifying greenbelt setbacks and creating an optional lower-density R-3 zone, among other changes.

Director Jenna Thornborough summarized the package, which staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission presented as tools the city could use if it later chooses to rezone specific properties. "This is a code text amendment, commonly referred to as the buffers development code," Thornborough said during the presentation.

Council members pressed staff on three main issues: maximum building heights, how the code would change density calculations, and how buffering and landscape standards would be enforced and paid for. Thornborough said the draft contains multiple measures for privacy and buffering — vegetation screening, window placement and setbacks — and noted the draft would not rezone any property automatically if the council adopts it. "Should the council want to introduce a new zoning district that will not zone anybody's property in that action," she said, describing the amendment as a tool to be applied later.

Key provisions described by staff and discussed by council: - Greenbelt setbacks and fence heights: If a structure fronts the greenbelt the draft proposes a 15-foot setback; where the rear of a structure is adjacent to the greenbelt, a 30-foot setback is proposed. Fences set 5 to 15 feet from the greenbelt would be limited to a maximum height of 3.5 feet, with standard 6-foot fences required to be set back farther, staff said. Thornborough also noted an existing 70-foot setback from the river that may supersede other setbacks in some locations. - Mixed-use thresholds: The draft would require a mix of uses in certain developments. Staff described a threshold where developments with more than 50 dwelling units and densities greater than 20 dwelling units per acre would need 30% of building square footage dedicated to nonresidential uses; conversely, nonresidential buildings of 120,000 gross square feet or more would be required to include at least 10% residential square footage. A conditional-use permit would remain an option when meeting those ratios is infeasible. - Heights and a proposed R-3 low-density zone: Planning staff explained that, historically, an R-3 zone had a 45-foot height limit but currently lacks a numeric cap. The draft discussed by the council would re-establish 45 feet for R-3 in some versions and create an R-3 low-density (R-3L) with a 35-foot height maximum. Council members debated whether to adopt a citywide approach or draw a geographic line — for example, treating properties west of Glenwood differently than those to the east. - Design and timing: Staff showed multiple photographic examples and density illustrations (ranging from about 6 to more than 30 dwelling units per acre) to give council context for how heights, unit size and design combine to produce different neighborhood characters.

Council concerns and follow-up actions Council members repeatedly returned to neighborhood compatibility. One council member summarized the zoning approach as "neighborhood appropriate," saying some areas west of Glenwood would justify a 35-foot limit while other parts of the city could support taller, denser development.

Members also pressed on implementation details. Councilmember Ball raised the practical question of tree caliper and growth time when relying on vegetation for screening; other members discussed whether an overlay zone or a new R-3L zoning designation would be the clearest method to preserve neighborhood character without improperly altering property rights.

On legal and process questions, the city attorney advised that different geographic treatment is permissible but must be supported by a legitimate public rationale. The city attorney said, "The answer is yes, but there needs to be a legitimate reason for treating the properties or areas differently," and staff said they would ask the city attorney and other legal staff to review potential liability and rezoning procedures.

Council members also discussed how future annexations and large sites — including the fairgrounds/Expo Idaho parcel and an identified "Smith property" near the Ruby lift station — could be handled. Thornborough said annexation proceedings would allow the city to require a zoning designation, development agreement or other conditions and that utility and sewer capacity (including lift-station limits) are real constraints on where higher-density projects could be built.

Next steps Council members asked staff to return with more detailed analysis. Thornborough and others recommended taking the Planning and Zoning Commissionrecommendation as a baseline for additional review, and the council directed staff and the city attorney to provide further legal and implementation analysis before the council considers formal code amendments.

Votes at a glance - Add cancellation of Dec. 23 council meeting to the agenda (special business): motion carried by voice vote; council approved cancelling the Dec. 23, 2024 meeting. Vote recorded as voice vote; counts not specified in the transcript. - Continue 3rd reading of Ordinance 1051-24 to Feb. 10, 2025: motion carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally in transcript. - Continue 3rd reading of Ordinance 1054-24 to Jan. 13, 2025: motion carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally in transcript. - Continue 3rd reading of Ordinance 1048-24 to Jan. 13, 2025: motion carried by voice vote; no roll-call tally in transcript.

The council did not take final action on CPA FY2024-4 at the work session and scheduled further review at a future meeting after staff and the city attorney provide additional analysis.