Garden City planning commission recommends denial of Edgemere subdivision

The Garden City Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 19 recommended that City Council deny a proposed nine-unit townhome subdivision at 219 E. 44th Street, saying the project requests too many waivers of development standards and raises safety and livability concerns.

Planning staff told commissioners the Edgemere (also referenced as Esmerald) subdivision does some things that align with the comprehensive plan — notably infill at approximately 17 dwelling units per acre — but fails to meet several Garden City Development Code requirements. "The cumulative number and scope of those deviations raises concerns about whether the proposal meets the intent of the planned unit development ordinance," planning staff member Miss Beal said, recommending denial unless the commission finds the requested code adjustments justified.

Applicant Jaden Schneider described revisions made since the project's prior hearing, including reducing the end unit width on Lot 5 from 20 feet to 15 feet, adding three dedicated full-size guest parking stalls in a hammerhead area, and reconfiguring a small common open space into a more usable rectangular area. "We've added 3 guest parking stalls...and tried to make this site plan as best it can be," Schneider said, noting the site remains constrained and that removing a unit would likely make the project economically unfeasible.

Staff and several commissioners highlighted specific numeric shortfalls. Beal said the project's common open space is about 1,400 square feet, while the site requires roughly 2,265 square feet (10% of gross site area), leaving a deficit of about 900 square feet. She also said tandem garages are approximately 2 feet short of code dimensions and that most driveway stalls fall short of the 10-by-20-foot standard. Perimeter landscape buffers along the common drive were shown to be roughly 2 feet wide in places versus the 10 feet required by code, and there is limited room for a required street tree at the frontage; staff recommended that a street tree be planted internal to the development if the code cannot be met on the right-of-way.

Commissioner Brown said he appreciated the applicant's work but remained unconvinced. "We're trying to put too many units on a space that's not large enough," Brown said, citing cascading noncompliance, inadequate parking for residents with full-size vehicles, and insufficient landscaping and common area usability.

Commissioner Wild diverged from Brown and said he believed the revisions were sufficient to advance the project and that the commission could grant the requested waivers. "It's not a great project, let's be honest...but I would find the waivers sufficient," Wild said. Commissioner Smith sided with staff and Brown, voicing safety concerns about emergency access and visibility if exceptions are granted. The chair said he might support a continuance to allow a redesign but noted the applicant had already been before the commission for more than a year.

Commissioner Brown moved that the commission recommend denial of SUBFY2024-0006 (Edgemere/Esmerald Subdivision) as a combined preliminary and final plat processed as a planned unit development; Commissioner Smith seconded. The motion passed with the record showing three ayes and one no. The commission instructed staff to include findings and suggestions for council on possible remedies — principally reducing lot count and reconfiguring the site to increase open space, perimeter and interior landscaping, and on-site parking dimensions — should the council entertain approval.

No members of the public signed up to testify during the hearing. The commission's recommendation and the hearing record will be forwarded to City Council, which has final authority on the subdivision application.