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

February 12, 2026 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

February 12, 2026 09:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

02/12/26 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2026 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, February 12, 2026 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, and David Moore Staff in Attendance: Melinda Greenwood, Katie Ellis, and Anne McNamara Public Attendees: City Councilmen Joshua McBride and Abbi Hunt, Luke Johnson, Tim Hodges, Dale Hanks, Kara Olsen, Staci Metcalfe and Justin Metcalfe 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- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE LOCATED AT 1 WEST 100 SOUTH FROM PB PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS TO CC CENTRAL COMMERCIAL Anne McNamara presented an application submitted by Justin Metcalfe requesting a zone change for property located at the corner of 1 West 100 South. The request was to rezone the parcel from Professional Business (PB) to Central Commercial (CC). Ms. McNamara explained that the City's Future Land Use Map designates the property as Commercial; therefore, the proposed rezone would be consistent with the General Plan and would not constitute a deviation from adopted land use policy. Ms. McNamara stated that the primary purpose of the requested zone change was to allow for different and taller sign types than are permitted in the Professional Business zone. She noted that the existing grade differential on the site limited sign visibility under current Professional Business sign regulations, and the Central Commercial zone would permit increased sign height to address those constraints. Regarding public noticing, Ms. McNamara reported that 45 notices were mailed to surrounding property owners. The city received one phone inquiry asking about the nature of the proposed sign; however, no concerns or objections were expressed. Staff recommended approval of the requested rezone from Professional Business to Central Commercial. Ms. McNamara then invited the applicant to come forward to respond to any questions from the Commission. Applicant Justin Metcalfe addressed the Commission and stated that his insurance office has operated at the location for just over 20 years. He explained that the Professional Business zone allows only a monument sign up to five feet in height, which he indicated would not be visible due to the site being situated below street grade at the corner location. He stated that installing a compliant monument sign would not provide meaningful visibility and would represent a significant cost without benefit. Mr. Metcalfe noted that the business recently transitioned from a captive to an independent insurance agency, increasing the need for visible branding and identification. He indicated that the proposed rezone would allow a sign comparable in scale to other nearby commercial signage, referencing a sign across the street in the Central Commercial zone of approximately ten feet in height. He clarified that he was not seeking a large or tall commercial sign but rather a modestly taller sign located within the landscaped area north of the building that would be visible from Main Street. In response to Commission questions, Mr. Metcalfe confirmed the property has vehicular access from 50 West/100 South but reiterated that visibility from Main Street is limited due to grade changes and site orientation. He described the intended sign location as within the front yard area between existing trees, providing visibility to traffic traveling along Main Street. Commissioners and staff acknowledged that surrounding properties, including those across the street, are zoned Central Commercial. Staff confirmed that most adjacent properties share the requested zoning designation. Chair Packer asked if there were additional questions from the Commission. Hearing none, he directed the applicant to be seated and announced that the Commission would open the required public hearing for the rezone request. Chair Packer opened the meeting to the Public Hearing. Dale Hanks asked about the proposed size and dimensions of the sign associated with the request. Mr. Metcalfe responded that the sign was anticipated to be approximately 10 feet in height and located between existing trees on the property; however, he noted that a final design had not yet been completed and that sign companies were still being consulted. At that point, staff member Melinda Greenwood clarified the Public Hearing procedures, stating that dialogue and back-and-forth discussion are generally not conducted during public comment. She advised that speakers should provide their comments or questions within the allotted time, and that responses would be provided after the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks concluded by stating his concern regarding the potential size of the sign and its impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Chair Packer closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Metcalfe provided additional clarification regarding the anticipated sign size. He stated that the conceptual sign under consideration would be approximately 10 feet in height and about 5 feet in width, positioned between existing trees on the property. He indicated the intent was to maintain a scale smaller than nearby commercial signs and to avoid adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent residential areas. He noted that the concept was preliminary and that sign design had not been finalized. Commissioner Sommerkorn inquired about the maximum sign dimensions permitted under the requested Central Commercial zoning. Ms. McNamara explained that the maximum height allowed in the Central Commercial zone is 30 feet. She further noted that sign area is regulated by frontage, at 1.5 square feet per linear foot of frontage up to a specified cap (generally up to 300 square feet; lower maximums may apply depending on street frontage conditions). Ms. Greenwood added that, if a sign permit meeting zoning standards were submitted, the city would be obligated to approve it administratively. She stated that limitations on sign size or height could only be imposed through a Development Agreement. At the request of Chair Mike Packer, staff displayed the zoning map. Ms. McNamara identified the subject parcel as currently zoned Professional Business, surrounded on most sides by Central Commercial zoning, with Multiple-Family Residential (RM) zoning to the south. She confirmed that the property immediately north is city-owned. Ms. Greenwood explained that the city obtained that parcel during a prior intersection reconstruction project and has intentionally maintained minimal landscaping due to the presence of underground utilities requiring access. Chair Packer stated that although the 30-foot maximum height could initially raise concern, the surrounding properties to the north and east already have the same Central Commercial zoning and corresponding sign allowances. He expressed that the requested rezone would be consistent with the surrounding commercial context and would not appear out of place along the corridor. Commissioner Moore concurred, noting that nearby properties such as Defay Orthodontics and other commercial uses in the area have larger signage and that the request was compatible with neighborhood character. Chair Packer added that other businesses in the corridor, including Zions Bank and similar uses, also have the same zoning entitlements for signage. Commissioner Young expressed concern regarding the proximity of the subject property to nearby residential uses. She noted that the site is located near the transition into a residential neighborhood and stated that she was hesitant about the long-term implications of the requested Central Commercial zoning, particularly the potential for a future 30-foot sign. While she indicated support for the applicant's conceptual sign proposal and acknowledged the business visibility challenges described, she stated concern that approval of the rezone would enable larger signage allowances over time. She also commented generally that lower poe signage can sometimes appear more visually prominent at street level than taller signage, depending on context. Ms. Greenwood reminded the Commission that the Central Commercial zone would also permit electronic message board (EMC) signage. She referenced a prior EMC sign approved for Charlie's Car Wash on 400 West, which generated complaints from nearby townhome residents due to brightness and proximity to upper-story windows. She noted that, in some cases, taller signage may reduce direct visual intrusion at residential window height but emphasized that future property ownership or use changes could result in signage different from the applicant's current concept. Ms. Greenwood further explained that the Professional Business zoning designation was likely originally applied along portions of Main Street to allow conversion of residential properties to limited commercial use while maintaining more restrictive sign and development standards to buffer remaining residential uses. She noted that relatively few properties in the city are zoned Professional Business, most of which are located along Main Street corridors. At the request of the Commission, Ms. Greenwood displayed additional map imagery and site views illustrating the subject property's relationship to surrounding development, including nearby commercial signage such as the Kaysville Clinic sign to the north. Chair Mike Packer acknowledged Commissioner Young's concerns regarding the residential transition but noted that surrounding properties along the corridor already have Central Commercial zoning and associated sign allowances. He stated that if concerns existed regarding the appropriateness of those allowances near residential areas, they may relate more broadly to zoning code standards rather than to the individual rezone request under consideration. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated he was generally supportive of the requested rezone from Professional Business to Central Commercial. He noted that while the applicant indicated no intention to pursue the full maximum sign allowances, future property ownership or use changes could result in larger signage. He said that he was comfortable recommending approval of the rezone without additional conditions but would also support a Development Agreement limiting sign size if other Commissioners preferred that approach. Commissioner Moore asked whether the applicant was simply requesting the same zoning entitlements already granted to nearby commercial properties. Chair Packer acknowledged that the request would align the property with certain adjacent commercial zoning; however, Commissioner Young questioned whether continuation of that zoning pattern near residential areas was desirable, expressing concern about incremental expansion of larger signage allowances along the corridor. Ms. Greenwood clarified that while Central Commercial zoning exists north of the subject property, the immediate surroundings include Professional Business and residential zones (RM and R-1-8). She explained that residential zones do not permit commercial signage and that the requested rezone would represent a substantial increase in allowable signage intensity compared to the property's current zoning context. She stated that the policy question before the Commission and ultimately the City Council was whether those additional allowances were appropriate at this location. Commissioner Young indicated a preference for limitations such as prohibiting electronic message board signage or imposing a height restriction but acknowledged that such restrictions would require a Development Agreement and could create additional administrative complexity for the city. Chair Packer stated he was comfortable recommending approval of the rezone and, like Commissioner Sommerkorn, would also support inclusion of a Development Agreement if the Commission deemed it necessary. He then indicated the Commission was nearing readiness to proceed toward action on the item. Commissioner Sommerkorn made a motion to recommend to the City Council to approve this address from Professional Business to Central Commercial. Commissioner Sommerkorn also wanted staff to convey to the City Council the concept of a development agreement if they wanted to limit sign size, height or type. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (3-1). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Nay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay 4- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR THE PIONEER PARK PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1285 SOUTH ANGEL STREET (PARCELS # 080220044 AND #084320836) FROM R-A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUPUBLIC USE Ms. McNamara presented a city-initiated rezone for two parcels comprising Pioneer Park. She explained that the parcels are currently zoned Agricultural Residential (RA), which is not uncommon for parks located in larger-lot residential areas, but staff determined that the Public Use (PU) zone is a more appropriate designation for city-owned park and governmental facilities. She stated that the purpose of the rezone is to align zoning with existing public ownership and use, and to standardize zoning for municipal properties. She noted that the parcels are currently surrounded by R-1-LD and RA zoning, which reflects surrounding residential development patterns, but that the Future Land Use Map identifies the park as a distinct public land use. Public noticing included 64 mailed notices, and no public comments or inquiries were received. Staff recommended approval of the rezone from Agricultural Residential to Public Use for both parcels. Chair Packer asked which existing city properties are zoned Public Use. Ms. McNamara responded that Barnes Park is zoned Public Use and noted that the city previously amended the PU zone to allow an electronic message board sign at that location. She stated that other parks in the community are currently zoned RA or R-1-LD, reflecting historical zoning rather than intended public function, resulting in inconsistency. She indicated Barnes Park is the clearest example of a park already zoned PU. Chair Packer asked whether rezoning parks to a public use designation is typical practice. Ms. Greenwood added that many cities have dedicated parks or open space zones and reiterated that the proposed rezone is administrative 'housekeeping' intended to apply appropriate zoning to city-owned facilities without changing park use or function. She noted that other public facilities such as the cemetery, Davis Technical College, and the Utah State Botanical Center are also zoned Public Use. Ms. Greenwood further explained that accurate zoning for parks improves land use analysis by preventing large public lands from being counted as residential acreage in community land use statistics. Chair Packer thanked staff for displaying the zoning map, noting it clarified the relationship between the park parcels and surrounding zoning. Chair Packer opened the meeting up for the Public Hearing. No speakers were present, so Chair Packer closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Young made a motion to recommend the City Council to rezone Pioneer Park at 1285 South Angel Street. Commissioner Sommerkorn seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay 5- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR THE TRAPPERS PARK PROPERTY AT 2185 WEST 200 NORTH (PARCELS #115920229, #115910151, #11593001, AND #151680439) FROM R- Ms. McNamara presented a city-initiated rezone for multiple city-owned parcels located on the west side of the city near 2185 West 200 North. She described the affected properties as including two northern parcels, a looped park area to the south, and two smaller trail parcels. She noted that the parcels do not currently have assigned addresses; however, staff is preparing and submitting an address affidavit to Davis County to establish official addressing. Ms. McNamara stated that, like the previously discussed Pioneer Park rezone, the request is housekeeping in nature and intended to align zoning with the parcels' existing public ownership and use. The properties are currently zoned R-1-LD and Agricultural Residential, and staff recommends rezoning them to Public Use to maintain consistency with other city-owned parks and public facilities. She noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as parkland. Regarding public noticing, Ms. McNamara reported that 98 notices were mailed. Staff received one email inquiry requesting clarification about the trail portion of the property and four phone calls from residents responding to the posted sign on the property asking about the city's intent. She stated that once staff explained that the rezone would not change park use or function and was only to apply appropriate zoning, no concerns were expressed. Based on consistency with the General Plan and lack of opposition, staff recommended approval of the rezone of the subject parcels at 2185 West 200 North from R-1-LD and Agricultural Residential to Public Use. Chair Packer opened the the Public Hearing. Luke Johnson stated that his property is located near the western trail connection associated with the park area and that he and several neighboring properties along Wellington Drive and Bonneville maintain horses. He expressed concern that the proposed Public Use zoning designation could result in increased public access and activity along what he described as a private or restricted equestrian trail corridor historically intended for use by adjacent horse property owners. Mr. Johnson stated that when the property was originally conveyed to the city by the neighborhood, the intended use of the trail corridor differed from its current condition. He asserted that the original agreement provided adjacent horse property owners with right-of-way access from 200 North to the south end of the trail for purposes including horse trailer access and emergency access to animals. He stated that installation of fencing and narrowing of the trail opening had limited access and that the corridor is currently being used by pedestrians and cyclists, including electric bicycles, which he described as unsafe in proximity to horses. He further expressed concern that members of the public have entered onto his private property adjacent to the trail and that increased public designation could create safety risks and potential liability issues. Mr. Johnson requested that the portion of the corridor functioning as a horse trail remain zoned residential or agricultural rather than Public Use and that signage be installed indicating that the trail is not intended for general public use. He stated his position that public access on the equestrian corridor is unsafe for both horses and trail users and requested that the city maintain the existing non-public status of that portion of the property. Tim Hodges addressed the Commission and stated he shared the concerns expressed regarding the equestrian trail portion of the property. Mr. Hodges stated that the trail area is primarily used by adjacent horse property owners for access to their properties and that public use of the corridor has created conflicts and safety concerns when horses are being exercised. He requested consideration of excluding or 'carving out' the equestrian trail portion from the proposed Public Use zoning, noting that in his view the corridor does not function as a public trail. Mr. Hodges also raised concerns related to the historical conveyance of the property to the city. He stated that the land was dedicated to the city by the neighborhood under a development agreement requiring that a park be constructed within a specified timeframe. He asserted that only a portion of the park improvements has been completed and stated his understanding that the city may be in default of the original agreement. He expressed concern that rezoning the property to Public Use while contractual obligations remain unresolved could affect potential legal remedies available to the homeowners' association if enforcement action were pursued. He requested that the City Attorney review the contractual implications of the zoning change prior to final action and advised the Commission to consider potential liability issues associated with rezoning while the agreement remains in effect. Kara Olsen resides in proximity to the previously referenced equestrian properties, addressed the Commission. Ms. Olsen stated she sought clarification regarding the city's plans for the park parcels, particularly how the proposed Public Use zoning might affect the existing Trappers Park area on the south side of the site. She also asked what future use was anticipated for the northern portion of the property, noting that it is currently undeveloped and had previously been used temporarily as a skate park. She expressed that she viewed the prior skate park use as a positive activation of the space and asked generally how rezoning to Public Use might influence future use or development of those areas. Chair Packer closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Greenwood provided additional background regarding the western park and trail parcels. She explained that the Schick Farms Estates HOA originally established the park area as a private community amenity and, around 2018, requested that the city assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities due to the HOA's inability to maintain it. The city entered into an agreement with the HOA at that time and has since maintained and managed the property as a public park. Ms. Greenwood clarified that zoning designation does not determine whether the public may access the property; because the city owns the land, it is currently considered a public park and open to public use regardless of whether it is zoned Agricultural Residential or Public Use. She stated that rezoning to Public Use would not change public access or current management practices. Ms. Greenwood further explained that the agreement with the HOA included provisions restricting organized sports activities at the park for a specified period (approximately fifteen years), several years of which remain. She stated that the Parks Department currently manages the property consistent with those restrictions and treats the site as a public park, including the trail areas. She noted that rezoning would not affect existing contractual obligations and that, if future legal or contractual issues arose, zoning could be amended if necessary. She also stated that the city has no intent to sell or develop the property and that such actions would conflict with the existing agreement; rezoning to Public Use would further reflect its intended public function. Regarding trail use, she noted that the city considers the southern corridors as trails and allows general public enjoyment of the park, while adjacent property owners may post private property signage on their own land if desired. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated his understanding that park zoning classification does not determine the level of public access or management practices, which are instead governed by the Parks Department. He indicated that rezoning would not affect whether the property is publicly used but acknowledged that residents had raised concerns regarding historical agreements and current management. He suggested those matters may warrant discussion between residents and city officials but are separate from the zoning decision. Chair Packer stated he had visited the site to better understand conditions and observed the presence of horses and animal uses along the trail corridor. He acknowledged concerns regarding vehicle access and animal safety raised during public comment and stated those issues would likely need to be addressed through Parks Department management policies rather than zoning regulations. He concluded that the concerns discussed were distinct from the zoning question before the Commission. Commissioner Sommerkorn reiterated agreement with prior discussion that residents had raised legitimate concerns regarding trail use, access, and historical agreements with the city, but stated those matters were separate from the zoning determination before the Commission. He emphasized that rezoning would not affect those issues and encouraged continued dialogue between residents and the city to address them. Chair Packer added that several Commissioners had recently met with Cole Stephens, Director of Parks, who indicated that planning for development of the northern portion of the park property is underway. Chair Packer stated that a skate park is not anticipated for that location, as it was not part of the original agreement and was determined not to be an appropriate fit. He stated that rezoning the property to Public Use is logical given city ownership and existing park designation. He acknowledged that concerns raised by residents regarding trail safety, access, and animal use were valid and should be considered by the Parks Department and City Council but noted that the Planning Commission does not have authority to resolve those operational matters within the zoning action. Chair Packer stated his view that the zoning change itself would not materially alter current park use or management and therefore should not be the basis for addressing the broader concerns discussed. Commissioner Sommerkorn added that the item would proceed to the City Council and that residents would have an additional opportunity to present their concerns at that level. Commissioner Sommerkorn then made a motion recommending that the City Council approve the rezoning of the subject parcels at 2185 West 200 North from R-1-LD and Agricultural Residential to Public Use and Commissioner Young seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay 6- CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE Ms. Greenwood presented proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. She noted the Commission last updated its rules approximately two years prior and expressed appreciation to the Assistant City Attorney, Katie Ellis, for assisting with the current revisions. Ms. Greenwood explained that the City Council recently amended its own rules of procedure and that staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt similar updates for consistency. Due to the extent of revisions, staff did not prepare a redline version and instead summarized key changes. Ms. Greenwood highlighted proposed revisions to Article 7, Section 8.2, addressing continuances. She explained that when an item is continued without a date certain, the amendment would require the item to be re-noticed before returning to the agenda to ensure transparency and public awareness. She acknowledged this would create additional staff work but stated it reflects best practice and marks a commitment to transparency and allows the public to be adequately informed. She also described a new section providing simplified guidance on parliamentary procedure for meeting conduct. Proposed changes in Article 10 address public civility and would prohibit speakers from yielding or transferring their allotted public comment time to another individual, consistent with City Council practice. Ms. Greenwood reported that Commissioner Toller, who was absent from tonight's meeting, had submitted written comments on this provision for Commission review. She explained staff's rationale that allowing time-sharing could create inequities among speakers and inconsistent treatment of the public. Ms. Greenwood further outlined proposed rules governing conduct of attendees and distribution of materials in Council Chambers. These provisions would establish limits on the size of signs brought into meetings, prohibit distribution of flyers or sign-up sheets within the chamber unless supervised by the individual distributing them, and clarify that only official city sign-in sheets are circulated by staff. She stated these measures respond to recent situations in which unofficial sign-up sheets were circulated among attendees, causing confusion regarding whether information was being collected by the city or private individuals. The proposed rules are intended to maintain order, avoid disruption, and ensure transparency regarding who is requesting public information. Ms. Greenwood concluded that staff recommends adoption of the proposed rules as presented. She stated that if the Commission wished to adopt the revisions without modification, staff recommends repealing the existing Rules of Procedure and replacing them with the updated version due to the absence of a tracked-changes document. Chair Packer stated that the proposed Rules of Procedure revisions appeared logical and necessary and reflected topics the Commission had discussed in recent meetings. He indicated he had no significant concerns with the proposed changes. Commissioner Sommerkorn referenced comments submitted by absent Commissioner Toller and asked staff to address those points. Ms. Greenwood responded that provisions regarding remote participation and public civility are within the Commission's discretion. She noted that, although the City Council recently chose to emphasize in-person attendance, allowing remote participation for Commissioners could assist with maintaining quorum and is permissible if the Commission wishes to include it. She also stated that the bylaws already allow the Commission to suspend or modify procedural rules on a case-by-case basis, such as adjusting public comment time limits or allowing additional time for applicants or professional representatives when appropriate. Ms. Greenwood added that the Commission could continue the item to a future meeting if members preferred broader participation before adopting revisions. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked for clarification on City Council practice regarding speakers yielding their public comment time to others. Staff confirmed that City Council does not allow time to be transferred between speakers and that the proposed language mirrors Council rules. Commissioner Young stated she supported prohibiting the practice, noting it can create inequity and administrative difficulty in tracking speaking time and speaker identity. She expressed that a clear prohibition would improve fairness and consistency in public comment procedures. Ms. Greenwood elaborated on staff's rationale for clarifying rules regarding allocation of public comment time. She explained that allowing individuals to yield their speaking time to others had created expectations in past meetings and could result in disproportionate speaking time if multiple individuals transferred time to a single speaker. She noted this practice can place the Chair and Commission in an awkward position and that formalizing procedures or requiring a Commission decision to adjust time limits on a case-by-case basis would provide clearer expectations and fairness. Commissioner Sommerkorn commented that prohibiting time transfers would help avoid procedural confusion and referenced similar issues observed in other legislative bodies. He also noted that only four Commissioners were present and expressed a preference to obtain input from absent members before adopting revisions. Chair Packer agreed, stating he supported continuing the item to allow broader Commission participation and indicating there was no urgency requiring immediate adoption. Commissioner David Moore then made a motion to continue consideration of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure amendments to the next regular meeting to obtain additional Commissioner input. Commissioner Sommerkorn seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay 7- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 22, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Young made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 22, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sommerkorn seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay 8- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Greenwood provided an update on upcoming Planning Commission business. She stated that the Commission would reconvene in two weeks on February 26, with three items currently anticipated on the agenda: (1) continued consideration of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure amendments; (2) a returning application from Symphony Homes; and (3) a proposed ordinance establishing a process for evaluating business classifications not expressly listed as permitted or conditional uses in city zoning regulations. She explained that the ordinance responds to a requirement from the prior legislative session directing municipalities to adopt a formal process for addressing unlisted or ambiguous land use classifications. The proposed ordinance would create a new chapter outlining that process and add clarifying language to zoning districts specifying that uses not listed are prohibited unless evaluated through the new procedure. She noted public hearing notice for that ordinance would be posted the following day. Ms. Greenwood advised the Commission that preparation of the Symphony Homes staff report may be delayed due to her scheduled vacation the following week and limited remote connectivity. She indicated the meeting packet may not be distributed until the Monday preceding the meeting but stated that the application largely reflects previously reviewed materials with only minor revisions. She summarized that the applicant has adjusted the alignment of a proposed Sunset road connection slightly south to reduce impacts to adjacent residents, is likely withdrawing a request for increased building height, and has made several other minor refinements. Chair Mike Packer asked whether a public hearing would be required for the Symphony Homes item. Ms. Greenwood responded that no public hearing would be held, although written public comments could still be submitted through the city's standard channels. 9- ADJOURNMENT Chair Packer adjourned the meeting at 8:14 pm.

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

February 23, 2026 01:19 PM

Notice Last Edited On

March 13, 2026 11:05 AM

Deadline Date

February 12, 2026 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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