Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Canyonside preliminary plan amendment for 184 homes despite resident opposition
Summary
After a multi‑hour hearing and public comment from nearby homeowners concerned about density, traffic, open space and school capacity, the City Council approved Resolution 25‑45 to amend the Canyons preliminary plan for Lots 4 and 5 to allow about 184 single‑family detached homes and roughly 21 acres of open space.
The City Council approved a preliminary plan amendment for the Canyons at its Oct. 14 meeting, authorizing an amendment that would create approximately 184 single‑family detached lots on just under 41 acres in the northeast corner of the city.
Senior planner Lisa Umhildad presented staff findings and told council the application meets the seven approval criteria for preliminary plans, including evidence for water and sewer, drainage improvements, protection of natural and cultural resources, and availability of public services. "We confirm that the planning area minimum open‑space requirements have already been satisfied," she said, noting the overall Canyons PD allows up to 5,000 units and the amendment stays within that ceiling.
Applicant Skyler Heger of North Canyons Development Company described product types, phasing, utilities, and traffic work. He said the project would add roughly 21 acres of open space and that traffic modeling showed a 7% decrease in daily trips and a 36% decrease in peak‑morning trips compared with earlier assumptions. Heger also said geographic constraints (visibility and a 40‑foot knob) and steep topography made commercial development impractical on the parcels and justified the residential approach.
Neighbors, however, urged denial or substantial changes. Public commenters said the proposal conflicts with the comprehensive‑plan goal to "maintain the character of single‑family and large‑lot neighborhoods," criticized the age of the traffic study, questioned the conditional nature of water commitments, warned of school overcrowding and absent school‑site funding, and objected to the proposed three‑story "cityscape" product that residents said would be visually incongruent.
Council deliberations acknowledged these concerns but also highlighted planning‑commission unanimity and staff findings. After debate the council voted to approve Resolution 25‑45 (city case PPDash2025Dash001). The motion carried on recorded vote.
Next steps: the applicant will pursue final plat and site improvement approvals; staff noted future filings will include final engineering, more detailed trail and open‑space acreage, and standard plat notes including airport noise disclosure on the final plat.
