Garden City leaders lean toward hybrid ‘Option C’ for waterfront zoning amid traffic and access concerns

Garden City held a joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission work session on Wednesday, June 17, to review a draft zoning approach for the Waterfront District intended to steer long-term redevelopment along the river while preserving public access and design qualities.

Mayor (speaking as chair) opened the meeting by urging a long-term view: "This is a project that's gonna, a, be around for 100 years," he said, arguing the city should aim for a durable, sustainable waterfront anchor rather than short-term fixes.

Planning staff outlined draft C as a middle path between options that staff called either too prescriptive or too permissive. Staff said the draft keeps greenbelt protections and public-access expectations while providing flexibility through master plans and deviations. "...60% of the the property being publicly accessible, meaning that there's a definition in the in the draft, meaning that the public can enter in and out of that space," staff said, summarizing a requirement intended to keep ground floors open to the public.

The draft includes a density target of roughly 50 units per acre to create enough market support for retail and services, staff said, but they warned the site lacks high-traffic roads, transit and connectivity and might require 20–30 years to fully realize. Staff also noted technical requirements—fire sprinklers for multiunit ground floors and ADA-accessible restrooms in some cases—that raise renovation costs and affect feasibility.

Speakers repeatedly raised access and emergency-response constraints tied to the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). One participant who said he had served as a liaison to the highway district relayed ACHD's stance: "We have heard from ACHD, and they indicated that they won't have determination at the time that there is a development that's proposed," meaning ACHD has not committed to design changes that would allow a fully pedestrianized spine or to reclassifying Adams Street away from a collector standard.

Commissioners and council members expressed broad support for a hybrid approach. Several said Option C struck the best balance, allowing staff to rely on master plans and deviation criteria rather than imposing inflexible standards that could leave large parcels undeveloped. One commissioner argued that overly detailed mandates could "make a place where developers can't make the market work" and lead to long-term vacancy.

Participants discussed practical tools to reduce developer burdens, including a letter from the mayor to ACHD requesting clearer commitments, and the potential use of urban renewal districts to finance flood protection, public open space and street improvements. Staff noted the city has begun a letter-of-map revision process that could shrink floodplain constraints and suggested an urban renewal district might later fund flood protection and related infrastructure; funding details were described as possibilities, not formal commitments.

Parking policy drew sustained discussion. Staff confirmed the draft allows residential parking to be provided off-site if the proposal demonstrates no adverse spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. Commissioners debated whether minimum on-site parking requirements should remain, whether structured off-site parking or shared parking solutions could support affordability, and how parking trade-offs might be packaged in the code.

Several speakers emphasized process: rather than deleting options in the work session, they asked for direction so staff could refine one preferred approach. "Once we receive feedback, I'll incorporate or we'll incorporate your discussions and continue with targeted outreach for those that might be using it," staff told the group, assigning next steps to city planning staff.

No formal vote or adoption occurred at the meeting. The council and commission signaled a preference for continuing with Option C as the starting point for drafting, while staff will revise the code language, pursue targeted outreach and return with a tightened package that addresses ACHD access, parking mechanisms and master-plan implementation.

What happens next: staff will incorporate council and commission feedback, pursue targeted outreach with likely users and stakeholders, refine legal language and return a revised draft for additional review and potential public hearings.