Garden City council sustains Planning & Zoning denial of Edgemere Subdivision over parking, landscaping and fire-access concerns

Garden City's City Council voted to sustain the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation and deny the Edgemere Subdivision preliminary plat and planned-unit development application (SUV FY 2024-0006) after extended questioning of the applicant and deliberation about public-safety and code compliance.

The project, presented by applicant Jaden Schneider, proposed eight attached townhome units on a 0.52-acre parcel zoned R-3 and asked for multiple waivers including more than four units on a common drive, reduced dimensional and parking standards, reduced perimeter landscaping and reduced required common open space. Schneider described revisions made after design-review and planning hearings: a drop from nine to eight units, added trellises and balconies, four full-size guest-parking stalls and about 4,000 square feet of interior open space (presentation by Schneider). "This is Edgemere Subdivision preliminary plat and PUD," Schneider said while summarizing the site plan and the design iterations.

City staff, represented by Director Thornborough during the staff report, told council the application arrived under an older PUD ordinance and that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial. Staff highlighted five waiver requests and expressed concerns that the project relied on waivers rather than using the PUD tool to enhance the development. The staff report noted that only about 3% of the required 10% open space was provided and raised issues with perimeter landscaping width, sidewalk continuity and the location of HVAC equipment at unit fronts. As staff put it: the commission's draft findings and recommended denial are in the packet for council consideration.

Council members pressed the applicant on several technical and safety points. Members asked about pedestrian connectivity and bicycle-parking placement; Schneider said sidewalks could be wrapped and bike parking relocated to maintain pedestrian access. Council asked whether Fairview Acres had consented to tiling a ditch on or adjacent to their property; Schneider reported that Fairview Acres had informally indicated they preferred pipe installation and would accept it so long as the city approved and standard pipe-cover requirements were met. Schneider also described discussions with Republic Services about trash-cart placement and acknowledged the potential conflict where a cart might occupy a designated compact stall.

A major thread in deliberations was parking and fire access. Schneider described the proposed tandem garages as 38 feet deep versus an ideal 40 feet and gave examples of typical vehicle lengths, saying common vehicle combinations (for example a Ford F-150 and a Toyota RAV4) would fit in tandem. Council members repeatedly flagged the risk that a vehicle parked in the narrow entrance could block apparatus outriggers and hinder emergency access; Schneider said the fire department reviewed the design, set conditions (including no parking in the narrow throat) and that the interior segments expand to a 26-foot pavement width required for fire apparatus.

Multiple council members said the number and scope of waivers weighed against approval. "I'm probably gonna have a hard time, not using the d word, the deny word on this one tonight," one councilor said, citing the accumulation of required deviations from code. Others urged the council to consider code changes for very small R-3 parcels in the future but concluded that the current application, as presented, did not meet the intent of zoning and design standards.

After deliberations, Council President Page moved to sustain the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation and adopt the commission's findings for denial while also specifying pathways to remedies; the motion was seconded and carried. The clerk recorded affirmative council votes sustaining denial and outlining the reasons and remedies the applicant would have to address before resubmittal.

What happens next: the denial preserves the Planning & Zoning Commission's findings and provides the applicant a path to revise the plan (for example reducing unit count and redoing design review) if they wish to pursue approval. The council and staff noted the applicant could revisit the proposal with a reworked layout responsive to landscaping, parking, fire-access and dimensional concerns.

Sources: presentation and Q&A by applicant Jaden Schneider; staff report and recommendation by Director Thornborough; Planning & Zoning Commission findings and council deliberations (Garden City Council meeting agenda item SUV FY 2024-0006).