Garden City — The Garden City Council closed public testimony Dec. 30 on a design review application for a 236-unit apartment project proposed on Boise Bible College property and voted to continue deliberations to a special meeting set for Jan. 10, 2026.
The project, presented by Deborah Nelson, a land-use attorney representing Renison Companies, would place two multifamily buildings (3–4 stories with elevator access) on new parcels at the college site. Nelson told the council the application “meets all code requirements for the R-3 zone” and that the applicant “is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.” She and the project team described large setbacks, enhanced landscaping, relocated dumpsters and an alternate sewer connection to avoid an at-capacity City lift station.
Neighbors, homeowners associations and condo representatives opposed the design, focusing on four recurring concerns: traffic and intersection capacity on Marigold and Glenwood; the applicant’s proposal to tile a local drainage ditch and route sewer infrastructure through nearby residential easements; on-site parking adequacy and off-site spillover; and the scale of four-story buildings adjacent to mostly single-story homes.
Terry Dean, Willowbrook HOA president, urged councilors not to approve the design without conditions protecting her neighborhood, saying the project “does not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood” and asking for measures such as moving dumpsters, enclosed carports, a 6-foot wall, independent engineering review of sewer plans and, if sewer construction occurs in Willowbrook, full street paving where impacted.
Attorney Kenley Grover, representing several neighbors, told the council he had retained appraisers and argued the project would “create negative impacts on property values” and should be denied unless redesigned to reduce height and intensity. Jeannie Jackson, speaking for River’s Edge residents, cited Garden City code and case law and urged the council to find the application fails to meet the design-review findings on compatibility and adverse impacts.
Technical reviews and agency responses
City staff and the applicant relied on engineering and transportation reviews submitted into the record. Development Services Director Jenna Thornborough told the council the city engineer had reviewed the applicant’s alternate sewer plan and found it technically feasible; she also explained that drainage-district approval would be required for any tiling. The applicant’s civil engineer supplied a letter asserting an 18-inch piped solution would maintain flow capacity and that drainage-district review is necessary before construction.
On traffic, the applicant’s traffic engineer used the ITE trip-generation methodology and reported 92 AM peak-hour and 92 PM peak-hour trips for the project; the consultant and ACHD staff accepted those methods and the study. Rebecca Phillips, a transportation planner with ACHD, told the council ACHD is conducting a Marigold Street concept study and is collecting updated counts; she said the agency supports the applicant’s approach and that the project’s trip generation did not trigger ACHD off-site mitigation thresholds. Tim Nicholson of Kimley Horn explained that ACHD and ITD had reviewed the traffic materials and that ACHD’s adopted level-of-service thresholds guided the decision not to request additional mitigation.
Sewer and drainage concerns
Neighbors repeatedly warned that tiling or piping the ditch and installing sewer infrastructure through or adjacent to Willowbrook could worsen local groundwater and stormwater impacts and lead to road disruption. The applicant said the drainage district supports the tiling concept and that drainage and tiling designs must be approved by the drainage district and city engineer; the applicant also stated it would be responsible for long-term maintenance of any tiled segments under a license agreement with Drainage District No. 2.
Responses and concessions
In rebuttal, Nelson restated that the project would comply with applicable code and staff-recommended conditions. She said the applicant is willing to accept additional conditions — including providing a recorded covenant not to charge for parking, moving recycling to reduce east-border impacts, adding rear walls to carports to reduce light trespass and supplying required photometric lighting plans for down-shielding — and noted the design review consultants had requested facade and entry refinements that the applicant is prepared to implement.
Council action and next steps
Before adjourning, the council voted to admit late exhibits submitted that day into the record and then moved to continue deliberations and any possible decision to a special meeting on Jan. 10, 2026 (4:00 p.m.). The public hearing was closed; council members instructed that deliberations must be confined to the record and warned against ex parte contact with council members after the hearing is closed.
The Jan. 10 meeting is scheduled as a special council session to complete deliberation and — if the council chooses to do so — adopt reasoned findings that explain how the application does or does not meet each of the eight Garden City design-review criteria. The city attorney reminded the council that any written decision must resolve factual disputes and identify the evidence and legal basis for findings.
Antioch Apartments proponents and opponents said they want a negotiated solution: the applicant emphasized its willingness to modify site details and accept conditions; neighbors said they want substantive design changes (lower height or stepped massing, confirmed sewer plans and enforceable protections for adjacent properties) before they would withdraw objections. The council’s decision remains pending and will be taken at the Jan. 10, 2026 special meeting.
Ending
The council closed the public hearing Dec. 30 and will resume deliberations Jan. 10; the record now includes the late submittals the council accepted during the meeting.
Comments are closed.