Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission tables Crowder Avenue four‑unit site plan over missing dimensions and materials

Garden City Planning Commission · April 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Garden City Planning Commission on April 9 tabled a site plan for a proposed two‑story, four‑unit building at 28541 Crowder Avenue after staff and commissioners identified missing dimensions, landscaping shortfalls, an unspecified dumpster enclosure and incomplete exterior‑material details.

The Garden City Planning Commission on April 9 tabled consideration of a site plan for a proposed two‑story, four‑unit multifamily building at 28541 Crowder Avenue after staff and commissioners said the application lacked required plan details.

City planner Mario Ortega said the combined parcels meet use and density standards but that the submitted plan must be revised to comply with dimensional and site‑development rules. "To comply with the 30‑foot setback, it just has to be shifted 2 feet," Ortega said, and he asked that the applicant add a building‑height note and show the mounting heights for exterior lighting on revised plans. Ortega also flagged an 11‑shrub shortfall and the need for an ADA‑compliant parking stall with a five‑foot striped access aisle, plus a dumpster enclosure for the residential wheelie carts proposed.

The applicant, Gary Slickman of Green Builders Plus, told commissioners he could provide material samples and colored elevations. "I can bring brick samples and all that's not an issue," he said, and said he would add required dimensions to avoid future delays. Commissioners repeatedly asked for labeled, final elevations and precise measurements after past projects arrived built differently than approved.

Commissioner Frank moved to table the item so the applicant could address the items identified in Ortega's review letter, including final plans and brick samples; the motion carried 4‑0 on a roll call vote. The commission instructed staff to supply a consolidated list of required changes and asked the applicant to return with revised, labeled plans and color samples at the next meeting.

The tabled item will return to the planning commission after the applicant submits the requested revisions and staff verifies the plan addresses setbacks, landscaping counts, ADA parking and the dumpster enclosure.