General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Kaysville

Public Body

Kaysville Planning Commission

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

August 28, 2025 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

August 28, 2025 07:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

08/28/25 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2025 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, August 28, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kaysville City Hall located at 23 East Center Street. Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Chair Mike Packer, Commissioners Wilf Sommerkorn, Erin Young, David Moore, Rachel Lott and Paul Toller Planning Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Paul Allred and Katie Ellis Public Attendees: City Councilmember Abbi Hunt, Bryan Carling, Brock McKeown, Brent Bateman, Tara Oveson, Sylar Walker, Matt Hill, Matt Howes, Mike and Becky Jensen, Steve Hatch, Lorri and Kirk Nacey, Rob Henneberger, Boyd Argyle, Dexter Fisher, Trevor Pole, David McSwain, Sheila McSwain, Rick Jones, Matthew Loveland, Greg Timothy, Brian Kartchner, Lee Stenquist, Jenny White, Laura Hubrich, Ron Hubrich, Val Starkey, Brad Walters, Phil Holland, Dean Christensen, Matthew Mann, Shauna Mann, Alexis Larson, Mitchell Larson, Amy Headlee, Keith Halls, Jason Gagner, Steve Gilmore, Jason Saunders, Mason Tippitts, Paul Belnap, Patick Scott, Doug Stanger, Cami Tippitts, Joel Tippitts, Jed Stanger, Alison Stenquist, Brett Francom, and Brent Giles 1- WELCOME AND MEETING ORDER Chair Packer welcomed all in attendance at the Kaysville City Planning Commission meeting. 2- DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST There were no conflicts of interest. 3- ELECTION OF A VICE CHAIR Commissioner Allred made the motion to elect Commissioner Young as the Vice Chair. Commissioner Lott seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Abstained as she was not present at that meeting. Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay Commissioner Lott: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay 4- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MAJOR HOME OCCUPATION FOR BEEGINNING LEARNER'S PRESCHOOL LOCATED AT 1973 WEST ORCHARD HARVEST DRIVE FOR JENNIFER WHITE Mindi Edstrom presented the Conditional Use Permit for a Major B Home Occupation for Jennifer White to operate BeeGinning Learner's Preschool from her residence located at 1973 West Orchard Harvest Drive. The preschool will serve up to twelve (12) students per session and operate Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday - 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for children ages 4-5 and Tuesday / Thursday - 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. for children ages 3-4. Ms. White is currently compliant with Kaysville City's zoning regulations. She has applied for an entity number with the Utah Department of Commerce and will coordinate with the Kaysville Fire Department to complete the required fire inspection prior to beginning operation. The preschool will operate only during the specified daytime hours. Traffic is anticipated to be limited and staggered during student drop-off and pick-up times. Ms. White has indicated these activities will be managed to minimize congestion and maintain safety for both students and neighbors. A public notice sign was placed on the property on Friday, August 22, 2025 in compliance with city requirements. No written comments have been received at the time of this report. Staff recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Jennifer White to operate BeeGinning Learner's Preschool at 1973 West Orchard Harvest Drive, subject to any additional conditions the Planning Commission deemed necessary under KCC 17-30-8 Standards. The applicant was present for questions, however there were no questions for the applicant. Commissioner Allred said that a preschool is an excellent use for a neighborhood. Commissioner Allred motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Jennifer White located at 1973 West Orchard Harvest Dr. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Young, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (7-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay Commissioner Lott: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay 5- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 2053 WEST GRASSY PLAIN DRIVE (PARCEL #11-245-0002) FROM GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-1-14 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Anne McNamara presented request to rezone a 1.62-acre parcel located at 2053 West Grassy Plain Drive. She said the subject property lies on the western side of Angel Street and the south side of 200 North, at the east end of Grassy Plain Drive where the road dead-ends. Ms. McNamara explained that the parcel is currently zoned General Commercial (GC), the applicant seeks a rezone to R-1-14 Single Family Residential to create four single-family residential lots. Ms. McNamara said that according to the 2022 General Plan's Future Land Use Map, the subject property is identified as appropriate for single-family residential development. The proposed R-1-14 zoning aligns with this designation. She concluded by saying that the rezone supports the General Plan's goals, particularly Chapter 1, Goal 1, which promotes preserving the character of existing single-family neighborhoods by supporting compatible development. The proposed R-1-14 zoning maintains consistent setbacks with surrounding R-1-14 and R-1-20 lots (30' front yard, 8' side yard, 15' rear yard), ensuring neighborhood compatibility and functionality. Ms. McNamara stated purpose of the R-1-14 zone is to establish quiet, low-density residential neighborhoods ideal for families. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings and compatible public/quasi-public uses (e.g., schools, parks, churches). She explained that the Planning Commission is tasked with evaluating whether the R-1-14 zone's purpose and intent are appropriately fulfilled in this location. A total of 30 notices were mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius, and a public notice sign was posted on the property on Friday, August 15. As of the date of the report, there no public comments had been received. Ms. McNamara said that staff recommended approval of the rezone from GC to R-1-14 based on its compliance with the General Plan and Future Land Use Map. Chair Packer opened the meeting to the Public Hearing. Rob Herberger stated that his backyard backs up to this property and is hoping for a trees to be planted or something else to ensure privacy for his property. Chair Packer closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Lott asked for confirmation of adjacent lot sizes. Commissioner Sommerkorn said that the lots would be compatible with the surrounding single-family lots. Commissioner Sevy made a motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the rezone request for 2053 West Grassy Plain Drive from General Commercial to R-1-14 Single Family. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (7-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay Commissioner Lott: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay 6- PUBLIC HERAING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR APPROXIMATELY 1800 SOUTH 550 WEST FROM R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUREAL DISTRIC, A-1 LIGHT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AND A-5 HEAVY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO R-1-6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R-M MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Melinda Greenwood, Community Development Director presented the findings in the staff report, including the applicants request to rezone approximately 52 acres of property to a mixture of R-M and R-1-6. She explained the current uses of the properties included agricultural, equestrian and undeveloped properties. The zoning in the nearby area includes largely residential agricultural uses or large single family lots. Ms Greenwood continued her presentation and reviewed portions of the 2022 General Plan that support the application. One of the guiding principles of the General Plan is to provide diver housing. The application is supported by this principle, as the project includes a variety of housing from large lot single family to small lot single family as well as townhomes. She explained the future land use map doesn't speak to density but depicts the area as being single family. Although the application requests some of the area to be rezoned for townhomes, overall, with two-thirds of the applicant's proposal showing single family, the majority of the rezone request does fit the future land use map. She explained that Chapter 1 of the General Plan contains a goal of 'Provide a range of housing options and price points that help ensure Kaysville is an affordable place to live.' She continued with additional goals from the General Plan that supports the application, specifically because the development would enhance connectivity in the area. Ms. Greenwood then discussed Chapter 3 of the General Plan, which contains the State mandated objectives for moderate income housing. Due to the focus the State has on increasing housing supply at attainable pricing and reporting and compliance determinations, she suggested the weight of the goals and objectives in Chapter 3 should hold greater weight. Specifically, Chapter 3 states we will provide a full range of housing options and rezone for density that would facilitate the production of moderate income housing. Ms. Greenwood reviewed the specific of the rezone application and proposed project, which includes 293 housing units and would be governed by a development agreement. The project would entail 102 townhomes and 191 detached single family homes, some with at least 12,000 square feet in size and some with lots as small as 3,500 square feet. The project would also include community amenities and a bike park that would be open to the public. Due to technical difficulties with the audio for the meeting, Chair Packer asked the Commissioners if they would like to make a motion to pause the meeting to restart the audio system so that those watching from home would be able to hear the audio. The Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of pausing the meeting for 15 minutes to get the audio system back up and functioning. Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay Commissioner Lott: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Ms. Greenwood thanked those in attendance for their patience and continued her presentation. She addressed concerns from residents who felt inadequately informed about city planning items. In response, she emphasized the city's efforts to improve transparency and public engagement. She referenced a QR code provided to assist residents in signing up for agenda notifications and news alerts from the city. Ms. Greenwood then detailed the city's formal public noticing process, explaining that ordinances require notices to be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Due to the scale of the current project under consideration, notices were mailed to approximately 65 residents, focusing on six strategically selected locations near the highest residential density. Additionally, the city posted notice on the State's Public Meeting Notice website, the city's own website, and Facebook. As of 6:30 PM on the day of the meeting, the city had received roughly 30 emails and several phone calls related to the project. The majority of the communications expressed opposition to the proposed rezone, citing concerns about increased housing density, the introduction of townhomes, smaller lot sizes, traffic and road safety, infrastructure capacity, the potential loss of a rural atmosphere, impacts on nearby schools, and reduced property values. A few residents expressed support for the rezone. In response to the infrastructure concerns, Ms. Greenwood clarified that city staff and utility providers, including secondary water, sewer, storm water, and power representatives, met in early June to review the project. She stated that while there are engineering challenges, such as the need for grinder or lift pumps due to sewer line elevation, there are no infrastructure capacity issues that would prevent development. She noted that if there were insufficient water or sewer capacity, staff would not have brought the application forward for consideration. Ms. Greenwood also acknowledged concerns related to the adjacent Equestrian Center and proposed building heights, reiterating the broader set of community impacts frequently raised in similar rezoning cases. One of the more significant unresolved issues related to road connectivity. Ms. Greenwood indicated that the city prefers, along with the applicant, to extend 550 West to connect from the existing subdivision northward down to Angel Street. However, a key segment of land needed for this road extension is owned by the Sewer District, which declined to sell the necessary property when approached earlier in the year. Due to this, other unfinalized components within the proposed Development Agreement particularly regarding the road, staff recommended that the item be continued to the next planning commission meeting scheduled for October 9. Ms. Greenwood emphasized the importance of gathering public feedback at this stage, noting that large projects often evolve based on community input and planning commission direction. She concluded by introducing the applicant, who was present to offer additional information. Chair Packer invited the applicant, Mr. Matt Loveland of Symphony Homes, to come and speak to the Commissioners. Matt Loveland of Symphony Homes opened his remarks by summarizing the proposed development and clarifying details. He described the project as a unique opportunity to develop approximately 50 contiguous acres within Kaysville, jointly submitted by Symphony and Ivory Homes. The proposed development would consist of 193 detached single-family homes and 102 attached single-family units (townhomes), totaling 295 units. Mr. Loveland emphasized the intent to create something special that respects the character of Kaysville, given both companies' long-standing presence in the community. He explained that the development aims to address vital infrastructure needs and would include a public bike park to serve as a new community asset. Mr. Loveland stated that the developers had taken a measured, community-focused approach from the beginning, with early outreach to city staff and elected officials starting roughly a year prior. At the suggestion of city leaders, the team held a community open house in January, sending notices to approximately 750 households via the Sunset Equestrian HOA and distributing door hangers to over 200 additional homes. The open house drew around 150 attendees, representing 72 households. At the open house, attendees rotated through four stations: 1) an overview of the master plan and discussion of attainable housing, 2) building typologies and land use, 3) community character and architectural preferences, and 4) parks and open space. Feedback was gathered using a mix of sticker voting and handwritten sticky notes. Mr. Loveland stated that every note was reviewed and considered. Key Findings from Community Feedback - Attainable Housing: Opinions were divided, with roughly equal numbers in favor and opposed. Some respondents expressed conditional support depending on location and context. - Building Typologies: Traditional single-family homes received broad support. Cottage-style homes saw unanimous approval with no opposition. Luxury townhomes were more divisive (approx. 50/50), while transit-oriented high-density concepts (like Farmington Station) were strongly opposed. - Architecture: No clear consensus emerged, but there was noticeable preference against cookie-cutter designs. Mr. Loveland acknowledged the diverse aesthetic preferences and committed to architectural variety across the project. - Amenities: Residents favored dispersed passive recreation (e.g., trails, natural open space) over consolidated active spaces like ball fields. Residents also suggested creative ideas such as a botanical garden, mini-golf, and more organic playgrounds. - Design Engagement: A landscape architect was present during the open house to sketch ideas in real-time based on resident input. Mr. Loveland continued saying that the application includes a combination of R-1-6 (single-family) and RM (multi-family) zoning and explained what was envisioned for each zone. - R-1-6 Zone: o Intended to provide a transition from surrounding low-density neighborhoods. o Perimeter lots would be a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. to buffer neighboring properties. o Interior lots range from 6,000 to 8,000 sq. ft., with variation in lot shapes and sizes. o No changes requested to base R-1-6 setbacks, though some lots would be allowed reduced frontage (minimum 50 ft., average 60 ft.) to facilitate design flexibility. - RM Zone: o Includes both detached single-family homes (on 3,000-5,000 sq. ft. lots) and attached townhomes. o Mr. Loveland emphasized that although the RM zone allows up to 15.6 units per acre, this project would fall well below that threshold, and development would be explicitly restricted through the Development Agreement. o Approximately 43% of the total acreage would consist of these smaller detached units, representing Symphony's new effort to provide attainable housing in a shifting market. o Townhomes would have minimum lot sizes of 2,800 sq. ft., each with a two-car garage, and some units with garages at the rear to improve streetscape aesthetics. Mr. Loveland noted that many of the homes displayed as examples are currently built by Symphony and Ivory, and any new product types would reflect architectural variety and design quality to avoid repetition and enhance curb appeal. He continued to explain the community amenities and HOA for the proposed area. - Planned amenities include a community pool, pickleball courts, playgrounds, and interconnected trails. - Amenities would be distributed throughout the neighborhood, ensuring that residents are always within close walking distance. - A separate HOA would be established for the new development, independent of the Sunset Equestrian HOA. All amenities would be privately owned and restricted to residents within the new community. Mr. Loveland addressed the future of the adjacent Equestrian Center, clarifying several key points: 1. The Equestrian Center is a privately owned business. 2. It is not legally required to remain open or be preserved as equestrian use in perpetuity. 3. It was not included in the required open space calculation for the existing subdivision and is not part of the Sunset Equestrian HOA. 4. The property is subject to standard Kaysville zoning laws and any proposed changes would follow the regular public process. Mr. Loveland proposed the development of a public bike park on a portion of the property, to be owned by Kaysville City. The bike park would include features such as a pump track, jump lines for varying skill levels, and natural play elements. Mr. Loveland referred to the Nine Line Bike Park in Salt Lake City as the benchmark for quality and design, and expressed strong personal support for outdoor recreation opportunities for youth. Mr. Loveland continued to share some of the traffic and connectivity concerns. Regarding road connections and traffic concerns: - The proposed layout includes the extension of 550 West and Sea Biscuit, connecting to the existing Sunset Equestrian subdivision. - A traffic impact analysis indicated that most traffic would flow south toward two arterial roads due to a new interchange, reducing the likelihood of regular traffic moving north into Sunset Equestrian. - The analysis estimated that only 25% of traffic from northern residents would use Sunset Equestrian as a regular exit point. - Trails would be added to connect with the existing trail system and expand recreational access. Mr. Loveland concluded by reiterating that no apartments were proposed in the development, and that all homes would be owner-occupied. He acknowledged the density exceeds two units per acre but emphasized that the mix of housing types is designed to serve current and future Kaysville residents, including young families seeking affordability. He requested the opportunity to address public comments after the hearing and participate in Q&A with the commission if desired. Chair Packer explained that the public comment period is an opportunity for individuals to share their perspectives, voice concerns, or offer support. However, he emphasized that this is not intended as a forum for dialogue or real-time Q&A between speakers, the applicant, or the Commission. While residents are encouraged to pose questions as part of their comments, the Commission would not respond during their allotted time. Instead, they would listen attentively and record concerns for later review. Following the conclusion of all public comments, Chair Packer noted that the applicant would be invited back to address any relevant points raised by the public. Afterward, the Planning Commission would deliberate among themselves. He reiterated that the Planning Commission's role is to provide a recommendation, while the final decision on the proposed rezone would be made by the City Council in a future meeting. Finally, Chair Packer reminded attendees that due to the complexity and scale of the application, the item was expected to be continued to a later date, allowing for additional consideration and possible revisions. He then formally opened the floor for public comment, inviting residents to approach the podium, state their name, and share their remarks in no particular order. Jason Sanders, a resident and property owner in the Sunset Equestrian neighborhood, expressed concern regarding the proposed development and the future of the Equestrian Center. He stated that his decision to purchase two properties in the neighborhood was based on the expectation backed by a recorded plat signed by the city and county officials that the equestrian center would remain in place and that the land was designated for either open space or equestrian use. Mr. Sanders pointed out that the neighborhood's identity is tied to its equestrian theme, citing horse-themed street names and horse-only trails as examples. He questioned the validity and durability of Development Agreements, asking why a new one is being proposed when, in his view, the city is allowing an existing agreement to be set aside. He voiced concern that Development Agreements may be easily altered over time, regardless of community input or prior commitments. Mr. Sanders also criticized the community input process used by the applicant, particularly the sticky note and voting exercise conducted at the open house. Although he participated in the event and spoke at length with Symphony Homes representatives, he felt the input was collected in a way that limited dissent and framed responses to support the applicant's plans. He described the questions and voting setup as 'leading' and noted that residents were not informed that their feedback would be presented as justification for the development during public hearings. He further expressed personal disappointment in his interactions with Symphony Homes, noting that although he initially had positive experiences with company leadership during his home-buying process, subsequent efforts to maintain communication regarding the new development were not reciprocated. Mr. Sanders clarified that he does not oppose development in general but emphasized that growth should be done responsibly, with respect to existing agreements and recorded land use restrictions. He concluded by stating that a lawsuit is being filed in opposition to the proposed use of the equestrian property. Keith Halls spoke in opposition to the proposed road connection from the development to Sunset Drive. Mr. Halls noted that his property is located directly across from the proposed access point and emphasized his 40 years of experience living on Sunset Drive. He stated that the location involves a blind corner, which already presents significant safety risks. According to Halls, local police had recently issued multiple speeding citations in the area, underscoring traffic concerns. He argued that adding approximately 300 new households accessing Sunset Drive at that point particularly with vehicles attempting to make left turns both northbound and southbound would create serious hazards. He referenced a recent three-car collision near Sunset Drive and Western Avenue, which occurred despite clear sight lines, to illustrate the potential dangers of placing an access road at a blind corner. Mr. Halls proposed that, instead of the planned access, the development should include half-acre lots fronting Sunset Drive, consistent with what he said some residents had previously been led to expect. He suggested that traffic from the subdivision should be directed to Angel Street and routed through the existing roundabout, which he described as a safer design. He also expressed concern about the lack of sidewalks, which he felt would pose risks to children walking to school. Additionally, he recommended the inclusion of soccer and football fields, citing the success and community use of facilities at Ponds Park as an example. Mr. Halls concluded by urging the Commission to carefully consider traffic safety and access issues on Sunset Drive as part of its evaluation of the proposal. Tara Oveson reiterated concerns about traffic and safety. She shared a personal experience, noting that her daughter was struck by a car earlier in the week while riding her bicycle across Western Avenue. Fortunately, her daughter sustained only minor injuries, but Ms. Oveson emphasized this incident as evidence of the dangers already present in the area. She explained that her children frequently ride their bikes to school at Endeavor and Centennial, and she is deeply concerned about the impact of adding nearly 300 new homes and an estimated 600 vehicles to the neighborhood. With only three planned access points, including one connecting Sunset Drive, Ms. Oveson said the additional traffic would significantly increase risks for children and other pedestrians. She stressed that the curve on Sunset Drive, referenced by the prior speaker, is especially hazardous. Ms. Oveson acknowledged the difficulty with extending the road connection because the Sewer District has declined to sell the necessary property, but she suggested the city should press more strongly for a safer solution. She cited her own experience during development of her property, when she was required to give up 20 feet of land to accommodate sidewalks along Sunset Drive, as precedent for requiring adjustments in the interest of public safety. She urged the Commission to address the road alignment issue to better protect children and residents in the area. Matthew Mann objected to the proposed rezoning for the Symphony development. Mann cited the 2022 Kaysville City General Plan, specifically page 15, which describes Kaysville as a family-oriented bedroom community and encourages that large vacant or underdeveloped parcels be developed as conservation subdivisions. He noted that such subdivisions are intended to provide a range of single-family housing types while clustering development in a way that preserves the city's small-town, pastoral, and open feel. Mr. Mann argued that the proposed development does not align with these stated values, goals, or the future land use map. He further raised concerns about traffic impacts, stating that the addition of nearly 293 dwellings would significantly worsen congestion at the end of Sunset Drive, where the current roadway system is already strained. He urged the city to prioritize completion of the Angel Street expansion to Shepherd Lane before considering approval of a project of this magnitude. Mr. Mann recommended that if the development were to proceed, all access points should be located exclusively on Angel Street and not on South Sunset Drive. He encouraged coordination between the city, the developer, and the Central Davis Sewer District to ensure that safe access via Angel Street could be achieved. Mr. Mann concluded by respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission deny the rezoning request to safeguard both the interests and safety of the existing community. Mason Tippitts, a resident in the Sunset Equestrian neighborhood, expressed concerns about the disparity in amenities between the existing HOA and the proposed new HOA for the Symphony development. Mr. Tippitts stated that because existing residents would lose their views and open space if the equestrian property were redeveloped, they felt the current HOA should have access to amenities planned for the new community, such as the pool and library. He suggested these amenities be located closer to the cul-de-sac for easier access. Mr. Tippitts also recommended that additional trees be planted within the development to offset the increased number of homes. He expressed opposition to having townhomes near existing residences and suggested they instead be placed closer to the sewer plant. He also requested that the planned pickleball courts include basketball hoops to allow flexibility for youth recreation. Finally, Mr. Tippitts mentioned hearing discussions about adding more homes near Mare Drive in Snow Horse and asked whether similar changes would occur in that area. Amy Headlee spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. She explained that she and her family moved to Kaysville five years ago from Salt Lake County, where they experienced negative impacts of high-density housing and increasing rental properties, including rising crime and even incidents of gun violence. She emphasized that their decision to move to Kaysville was based on the community's larger lot sizes and lower density. Ms. Headlee stated that the site map for the proposal appears misleading, as many neighbors initially assumed the border lots represented half-acre parcels. She said the lots shown behind her property appear closer to quarter-acre size, which she felt was too small given the existing neighborhood character. She expressed strong opposition to the inclusion of townhomes, citing concerns that such housing often transitions from entry-level owner-occupied homes to long-term rental properties, altering neighborhood stability. Her primary request was that the lots bordering existing homes be required to remain half-acre in size, with additional buffering provided before transitioning to higher-density areas. She questioned whether the proposed zoning designations (R-1-6 and RM) aligned closely enough with the commitments presented by the applicant. Specifically, she worried that approving smaller-lot zoning now could allow the developer greater flexibility in the future to deviate from the proposed plan. Headlee urged the Commission to require zoning that more precisely reflects the commitments made, ensuring appropriate buffering and protecting the character of adjacent neighborhoods. Dave McSwain expressed opposition to the proposed Symphony development, focusing primarily on traffic and density concerns. He stated that traffic on the south end of Sunset Drive is already heavy, often requiring him to wait for 10 to 16 cars before being able to enter his own driveway. He argued that introducing an additional road connection from a development of this size would overwhelm the area, particularly given its proximity to both a blind curve and the recently constructed roundabout, which he described as already congested. Mr. McSwain emphasized that the project should not be considered until the Angel Street extension is completed, as additional access points are necessary to make the development of this scale viable. He also voiced frustration with changes in the developer's plans over time. At earlier meetings, he recalled being told there would be only four lots with greater buffering on the east side of the property, which he said no longer matches the current proposal. He further raised concerns about ownership versus rental arrangements, stating that indications of 60% ownership and 40% other arrangements raised questions about whether a significant portion of the units could become rental properties, a possibility he opposed. Mr. McSwain concluded by stating that he is not opposed to development in general but does not believe the current proposal represents good development for the area. He cited both the inconsistency of the plans and the mismatch with existing zoning and neighborhood character as reasons for his opposition. Steven Hatch stated that he is not opposed to development in principle, nor to the idea that Utah's housing shortage may require higher-density housing options. He acknowledged the quality of homes built by both Symphony and Ivory Homes and expressed openness to seeing them as builders in the area. However, he raised several concerns with the current proposal. Mr. Hatch's primary objection centered on the lot sizes being presented as single-family homes. According to the applicants' materials, detached homes would average 3,500 square feet per lot, only slightly larger than the 2,800 square feet proposed for townhomes. Mr. Hatch stated that although these homes may technically be classified as single-family, their size and scale would feel like town homes in practice, creating an effect like developments near Station Park. He argued that this density is incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and inconsistent with the 'Kaysville feel.' While he clarified that he does not expect half-acre lots, Mr. Hatch suggested that 6,000 square foot lots would be more appropriate and would represent a significant improvement compared to the proposed 3,500 square foot lots. Mr. Hatch also objected to the tradeoff of the 18-acre Equestrian Center being replaced by a 1-acre bike park. As a mountain biker himself, he stated that a bike park of that size would be inadequate, describing it as better suited for toddlers rather than a true community amenity. Rick Jones, a resident at 1809 South Sunset Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed road connection planned directly in front of his home. He stated that this access point would primarily serve the new townhome section of the development and would funnel significant additional traffic onto Sunset Drive, creating increased pressure on an already burdened roadway. Mr. Jones proposed an alternative, suggesting that subdivision access be redirected toward Angel Street and Shepherd Lane, with multiple entrances provided in that area rather than relying on Sunset Drive. He argued that this would better distribute traffic and alleviate concerns for existing residents living along Sunset. In addition to traffic concerns, Mr. Jones raised objections to the proposed bike park, noting that if built as described, it would attract additional outside visitors and generate increased traffic at weekends. He stated that he was opposed to the bike park entirely, characterizing it as an unnecessary source of congestion rather than a community benefit. Paul Belnap, a resident on Sunset Drive, disclosed that his son is a city employee but stated that they have intentionally kept communication about this development separate. He then spoke about his long history in the community, noting that his family had lived on Sunset Drive for 45 years, beginning when the area was still unincorporated county land requiring half-acre lots. He recalled that in the early 1990s, as development pressures increased, citizen committees were formed in West Kaysville to determine appropriate zoning densities. Through collaboration with residents, city officials, and developers such as Woodside Homes, the outcome established half-acre zoning east of Sunset Drive and three-quarter acre zoning west of Sunset Drive to help preserve the area's small-town and open character. Mr. Belnap explained that he has worked with developers in the past, including Symphony Homes, to help bring infrastructure such as water to support growth. He stated that while he has never opposed responsible development and recognizes Symphony's track record of building quality homes, his personal property has never been for sale. He emphasized his desire to maintain his small farm and the rural feel of the area. Mr. Belnap's main concern focused on the density of the current proposal and the potential for a significant percentage of rental properties within the community. He cautioned that a high share of rentals-potentially approaching 40% of units-can negatively affect neighborhood stability, create challenges for HOAs, and alter the character and nature of the community. While acknowledging that not all residents want or need half-acre lots, Mr. Belnap urged the Commission to avoid approving the level of density and rental potential included in the proposed rezoning, as it could erode the values long associated with Kaysville's west side. Brad Walters, a Symphony homeowner and land seller to Ivory Homes, spoke in cautious opposition to the proposed development. While acknowledging that both Symphony and Ivory are respectable builders, he emphasized that they are not local developers and remain businesses motivated by profit rather than by long-term ties to Kaysville. Mr. Walters expressed concern that a major stakeholder, the Central Davis Sewer District, was not directly involved in the discussion, even though its property and decisions are critical to the project's viability and long-term planning. He also questioned whether emergency services could adequately support the added population, citing a recent delayed response to an incident near his property. Mr. Walters warned about the risks of an economic downturn, referring to his own experience bidding on the Sunset Equestrian property in 2008 when financial collapse left the area in turmoil, and he recommended that the city require a contingency plan from the developer. He was particularly troubled by Symphony's description of the project as a 'beta' housing initiative, comparing it to releasing an untested technology product and arguing that Kaysville should not serve as an experimental site. Finally, Mr. Walters opposed the proposed bike park, noting shifts in recreational habits toward electric bikes and instead suggesting that the developers invest in a community pool. He estimated the project value at roughly $200 million with developer profits near $100 million and argued that reinvesting $5-6 million into a pool would provide a more meaningful, lasting amenity for residents. Patrick Scott spoke in support of the proposed development. Mr. Scott explained that he was heavily involved in the original Sunset Equestrian Estates project while employed as a development manager with Woodside Homes, giving him direct knowledge of prior discussions surrounding the Equestrian Center. While he acknowledged personal misgivings about how the equestrian property was handled 15 years ago, he emphasized that circumstances have changed significantly since that time. Mr. Scott stated that larger lots, such as half-acre or third-acre parcels, are no longer practical or attainable for most young families. He noted that the region's housing market has shifted dramatically in the past 15 years, with home values rising sharply citing examples of homes that once sold for around $400,000 now costing approximately $1.2 million despite being essentially the same floor plan and finish level. According to Mr. Scott, this reality underscores the need for greater density to provide more affordable and attainable housing options. He addressed concerns about traffic and school impacts, acknowledging that some are valid but suggesting that others are overstated. In particular, he pointed out that student populations in local schools have declined as the neighborhood has aged, leaving fewer children in both schools and community programs. He argued that new families moving into attainable housing would help restore balance and vibrancy to the community. Mr. Scott concluded by stating that while design details can and should be adjusted to improve safety and livability, he is fully in favor of increased density as a means of creating attainable housing for younger families in Kaysville. Bryan Carling, a longtime Kaysville resident, spoke in favor of the Symphony development. Mr. Carling explained that he had previously attempted to develop his own three-acre property, which he and his wife had purchased more than 20 years ago. At the time, the area was still part of the county, but Mr. Carling worked with other landowners-personally paying for a survey and helping organize approximately 30 acres of land for annexation into Kaysville City. He recalled the rural character of the area in earlier years, including rabbit farms and agricultural properties, and stated that annexation was pursued with the goal of eventually securing city services. Mr. Carling described his family's long history in Kaysville, noting that he has lived in the city for over 30 years and that all five of his children were born, raised, and graduated from Davis High. He expressed concern that none of his children could now afford to buy a home in Kaysville, observing that rising prices and higher interest rates have made housing unattainable for younger generations. He characterized this as residents 'raising the drawbridge' after securing their own housing, leaving little opportunity for others to stay in the community. Mr. Carling explained that he eventually sold his property to Symphony Homes after city officials, including the Mayor, suggested that a small-scale independent application like his would not succeed. He stated that Symphony has invested heavily, demonstrated reliability, and consistently delivered quality developments over several decades. In his view, Symphony has acted honestly and in good faith, and he expressed trust in their ability to deliver what is proposed through a binding Development Agreement. On traffic concerns, Mr. Carling noted that current congestion on Sunset Drive is partially due to the closure of Shepherd Lane, and he suggested that reopening and improving Shepherd Lane would alleviate some of the pressure. He expressed confidence in city staff's ability to address traffic issues through the planning process. Mr. Carling concluded by strongly encouraging the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the rezone, allowing the City Council to work out final details and conditions. Matt House raised objections focused on rentals and traffic impacts. He began by stating that while he acknowledges the need for higher density housing in Utah, he believes such development should be restricted to family ownership rather than rentals. He argued that corporate investors often purchase homes in new developments and turn them into rental properties, undermining the goal of creating affordable housing for families. House strongly urged that no rentals be permitted within the proposed subdivision. Mr. House also highlighted the scale of anticipated traffic impacts, noting that 300 homes would initially generate approximately 600 vehicles, but over time particularly as children reach driving age this number could realistically rise to 900 or more vehicles. He described this increase as unmanageable for the area. He disputed the applicant's assertion that traffic would

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

Kaysville City is dedicated to a policy of non-discrimination in admission to, access to, or operations of its programs, services or activities. If you need special assistance due to a disability, please contact the Kaysville City Offices at 801-546-1235.

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

A member of the governing body may participate in meetings by telephone providing that at least three members of the commission are present in person at the meeting, no more than two members of the governing body participate by telephone, and the governin

Other Information

Supporting documentation for this agenda is posted on the city's website at www.kaysvillecity.com. A recording of this meeting will be posted on the city's website at the following link: https://www.kaysvillecity.com/AgendaCenter.

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

23 East Center Street
KAYSVILLE, UT 84037
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Contact Name

Anne McNamara

Contact Email

amcnamara@kaysville.gov

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

September 22, 2025 02:29 PM

Notice Last Edited On

September 22, 2025 02:29 PM

Deadline Date

August 28, 2025 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.