Council pauses vote on 100-unit Canyon Road proposal after broad neighborhood objections

Councilors voted to delay a final decision on a developer's request to rezone property at 2000 North Canyon Road from R-1-8 to Medium Density Residential (MDR) after extended public comment and council deliberation.

Planner Nancy Robinson summarized the request and staff review, noting the Planning Commission recommended the rezoning and the developer had proposed a development agreement that would include a landscape bond, sewer improvements and other conditions. The developer's plan would allow a building up to the MDR height limit (45 feet) and the proffered concept currently envisions about 100 units; staff emphasized that sewer capacity and canal relocation would need to be addressed during engineering review.

Residents from adjacent properties expressed multiple concerns: Arthur "Art" Humans said he was "very concerned" about property values and the disruption of removing a large hillside adjacent to his Garden Villa condominium community; Mike Mickelson testified he worried about soil stability and that "if we cut that hill off, my shed's gonna slough off" (SEG 2199-2201). Paul Evans and other neighbors raised questions about building height and the cumulative effect of nearby dense projects; Lily Mott said the neighborhood felt "overrun by density" and criticized developer outreach.

City staff said geotechnical and soils reports will be required in later engineering review and that liability for excavation and retaining walls would rest with the property owner/developer. Staff also said the developer is proposing more than the code-required number of parking spaces (staff reported the code requirement would be 201 spaces; the developer proposed 240). Regarding height, staff observed the existing hillside is roughly 55'0 feet tall, so a 45-foot building could still be lower than the current natural high point but visible from some directions.

Developer representatives said a soils report had been submitted that supports a 2:1 slope plan with appropriate retaining measures and that the project has been revised from earlier, taller concepts. Councilor Craig Christiansen moved to continue the item and "encourage the developer to come back with a different owner-occupancy scenario," seeking a more compelling for-sale or owner-occupied component than the developer's cited 12 percent for-sale proposal. The motion to continue passed 6-1.

Councilors asked the developer to return with clearer numbers showing how different mixes of for-sale versus rental units would affect project pricing and feasibility, and staff noted required materials deadlines for future meetings. The item will return to council when the developer and staff are ready to provide the requested additional detail.