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

April 23, 2026 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

April 23, 2026 09:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

04/23/26 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 23, 2026 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, April 23 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, David Moore, Paul Toller, Erin Young, and Eries Cornelius Staff in Attendance: Katie Ellis, Mindi Edstrom, Melinda Greenwood, and Anne McNamara Public Attendees: City Councilmember Abbi Hunt, Sharon Dutcher, Dallas Nessen, Dee Nessen, Brent Coulam, Terry Smith, Christy Smith, Chris Bisell, Racher Peterson, Lauren Starkey, Chris Durtschil, Mike Gerrard, Kyle Anderson, Sorin Villa, Troy Stevens, Isabella Tolman, Colter Harris, Evelyn Mayer, Skylar Walker, Ryan Steele, Tom Kerr, Liz Jackson, and Christine Richman 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- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MAJOR HOME OCCUPATION FOR CRAIGS CONCRETE PUMPING FOR CRAIG MONTEGOMERY LOCATED AT 345 EAST SHEPARD LANE Mindi Edstrom explained that the applicant, Craig Montgomery, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate Craig's Concrete Pumping as a Major Home Occupation B at his residence located at 345 East Shepard Lane. The property is approximately one acre in size and is zoned A-1, which allows for larger lots with sufficient space to accommodate limited business-related vehicle storage. Ms. Edstrom stated that the home is set back significantly from the roadway, making it less visible from the street. The applicant currently stores a work truck and a concrete pumping truck at the rear of the property, which are screened from view and do not create a visual nuisance or negatively impact surrounding properties. The use of the home will function solely as a base of operations, with no on-site business activity conducted. There will be no employees or customers visiting the property. Ms. Edstrom noted that the required public notice sign had been posted the previous Monday, and as of the meeting, staff had not received any phone calls, emails, or public inquiries regarding the application. Based on the information provided, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Major Home Occupation B at 345 East Shepard Lane, subject to applicable conditions outlined in Kaysville City Code Section 17-30-8. Commissioner Toller inquired about the statement in the staff report indicating that the applicant had been made aware of Major Home Occupation B regulations and had agreed to comply. He asked whether staff had directly discussed these requirements with the applicant. Ms. Edstrom confirmed that staff had reviewed the requirements with the applicant. She explained that if the nature or intensity of the business were to change such as the addition of more vehicles, employees, or customer visits the applicant would be required to return to the City to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Toller asked for clarification regarding the number and type of vehicles allowed under the ordinance. Staff clarified that the allowance is evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the business and the ability of the property to accommodate the equipment without creating impacts. Ms. Edstrom explained that the applicant's pickup truck would be considered a personal vehicle used for business purposes, while the concrete pumping truck would be classified as the primary work vehicle. Ms. Greenwood further clarified that city code includes general limitations, such as restrictions on large vehicles or trailers exceeding certain lengths, but also provides discretion to the Planning Commission in determining appropriateness based on the specific circumstances of each application. Commissioner Toller confirmed that the intent was not to increase the total number of work-related vehicles beyond what is typically allowed, but rather to understand how the vehicles in this application are categorized. Staff reiterated that all vehicles would be stored on-site and screened from view, and that the size and layout of the property adequately accommodate the proposed use. Commissioner Cornelius made to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Craig's Concrete Pumping for 345 East Shepard Lane with no additional conditions. Commissioner Moore second the vote and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Cornelius: Yay 4- PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE KAYSVILLE CITY CENTER SMALL AREA PLAN Consultant Liz Jackson, representing GSBS Consulting, presented the draft Kaysville City Center Small Area Plan. She explained that the plan builds upon the City's 2022 General Plan and is intended to serve as a guiding vision and decision-making tool rather than a rigid regulatory document. The focus area was refined through public input to include Historic Main Street, Main Street North, and Mutton Hollow. Ms. Jackson outlined the plan framework, which includes vision statements, guiding principles, policies, and phased implementation actions. She emphasized that the plan promotes incremental, context-sensitive development, prioritizing gradual change, adaptive reuse, and maintaining community character. She summarized the public engagement process, which included three surveys, two open houses, stakeholder committee meetings, community advisory committee meetings, and other outreach events. Key themes identified from community input included the need for improved safety and walkability, clearer parking access and signage, preservation of historic character, expanded gathering spaces, and careful, predictable growth. Ms. Jackson reviewed the proposed vision statement and guiding principles, which emphasize maintaining Kaysville's hometown identity, supporting local businesses, enhancing public spaces, and creating a connected and welcoming city center. She also highlighted recurring concerns related to traffic safety on Main Street, noting coordination with Utah Department of Transportation and limitations on certain design options, such as angled parking on Main Street. Ms. Jackson continued the presentation of the City Center Small Area Plan, focusing on key opportunity sites and conceptual redevelopment ideas. She highlighted the Historic Main Street civic area, including the former library, Police Department and City Hall site, as a prime location for potential public gathering space. Two conceptual options were presented, both emphasizing plaza space, landscaping, seating, and opportunities for small community events. Public feedback on the future of the library building was noted as divided between keeping and renovating the building and demolishing in in favor of a civic gathering space. Ms. Jackson also discussed the Zions Bank property area as a redevelopment opportunity, with potential for Main Street scale storefronts, activated outdoor spaces, and improved pedestrian connectivity, including a greenway linking to surrounding civic uses. For Main Street north, she described the area as a transition zone with opportunities for reinvestment, infill development, and enhanced connectivity. The intersection at Main Street and 200 North was identified as a key node for future redevelopment and improved design standards. The Mutton Hollow area was presented as a significant long-term opportunity site, with visibility from I-15 and potential for mixed-use development. Concepts included experiential retail, small-scale 'village style' commercial areas, housing options, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, while acknowledging access limitations and the need for future infrastructure planning. Ms. Jackson emphasized that all concepts are visionary and illustrative and intending to guide future decision-making efforts rather than dictate specific development outcomes. She presented the implementation strategies portion of the City Center Small Area Plan, explaining that the strategies are organized by policy, action, geographic area, timeline (short-, mid-, long-term, and ongoing), and potential partners and funding tools. Ms. Jackson noted the Small Area Plan strategies are directly tied to the plan's goals and are intended to guide future decision-making rather than serve as mandates. Ms. Jackson also indicated that timing categories remain flexible and may be adjusted based on Commission feedback. Under Goal 1 (re-establishing a connected, walkable city center), she outlined key actions including improving pedestrian crossings, enhancing safety and visibility through design features such as curb extensions and median refuges, strengthening sidewalk continuity, improving lighting and wayfinding, and coordinating with Utah Department of Transportation to manage vehicle speeds along Main Street. Under Goal 2 (reinforcing Main Street as the heart of Kaysville's community), Ms. Jackson highlighted strategies to encourage active ground-floor uses, particularly at key intersections such as Main Street and 200 North, support development standards that promote street activity, plan for a civic plaza integrated with surrounding public buildings, and implement streetscape improvements such as seating, trees, lighting, and shade to enhance the pedestrian experience. Ms. Jackson invited questions and feedback from the Commission as the discussion of implementation strategies continued. Under Goal 3, Ms. Jackson explained that public feedback emphasized a strong desire to preserve historic character, though the City currently lacks formal historic preservation tools. She outlined a range of potential approaches for consideration, including maintaining the current status quo, expanding public awareness and education, establishing local landmark designations, creating a historic overlay district, and adopting design guidelines for historic areas. She noted these options are provided as a framework for future policy decisions in coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission. Additional strategies included ensuring new development is compatible with historic scale and character, and encouraging adaptive reuse of historic structures through incentives, guidance, or potential grant opportunities. Under Goal 4, Ms. Jackson summarized strategies to maintain Kaysville's 'hometown' scale and identity. She explained this generally reflects community preferences for smaller-scale, pedestrian-oriented development rather than large, high-intensity projects. Recommended actions included establishing design standards tailored to specific subareas, requiring transitions in building height and massing near residential neighborhoods, guiding zoning updates to reflect appropriate scale, and discouraging large auto-oriented developments that conflict with the desired character. Commissioner Toller asked whether maintaining the proposed building heights and scale would require code amendments. Ms. Jackson responded that code amendments would likely be necessary, particularly to clarify expectations for mixed-use areas identified in the General Plan. She explained that while height limits exist in current zoning, additional standards may be needed to define appropriate building heights and forms Liz Jackson responded that existing zoning standards would likely need to be reviewed and potentially amended to align with the General Plan's direction toward mixed-use development and desired building scale. Under Goal 5 (making the city center a place to spend time), Ms. Jackson explained that community feedback emphasized the need for spaces that encourage people to stay and gather rather than simply pass through. Recommended actions included incorporating seating, shade, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities into streetscapes; integrating placemaking elements such as public art and wayfinding that reflect local identity; and designing flexible public spaces capable of supporting both everyday use and community events. Under Goal 6 (supporting local businesses and economic vitality), she highlighted strategies to strengthen existing businesses and encourage locally oriented development. These included improving pedestrian access and visibility, promoting incremental infill development, encouraging experiential and community-focused commercial uses, and coordinating infrastructure improvements to minimize disruption to businesses. She also noted that tools such as a Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA), development agreements, and private investment could support these efforts. Under Goal 7 (guiding change with clarity and predictability), Ms. Jackson emphasized the importance of using the Small Area Plan as a consistent reference for decision-making. Recommended actions included incorporating the plan into staff review processes, providing clear guidance to applicants early in development proposals, improving application materials and checklists, aligning zoning and design standards with the plan, and using the plan to prioritize capital improvements and funding opportunities. Ms. Jackson concluded the presentation and invited questions and feedback from the Planning Commission. Ms. Greenwood provided additional context regarding the purpose and use of small area plans. She explained that such plans are increasingly common, particularly in areas like historic districts or key corridors, and are used to provide more detailed guidance in a specific location of a city than what a general plan typically provides. Ms. Greenwood emphasized that the small area plan is a non-binding, discretionary document intended to guide decision-making rather than dictate outcomes. She clarified that the City does not pressure property owners to develop or redevelop land, except in rare cases involving significant health, safety, or nuisance concerns. Instead, the plan serves as a tool to help staff, the Planning Commission, City Council members and applicants understand community expectations and evaluate whether proposed developments align with those expectations. Ms. Jackson added that small area plans are becoming more common as communities seek to better manage growth and provide clearer expectations. She explained that while zoning and development codes establish what is allowed, small area plans help define the desired character, feel, and form of development within specific areas. Chair Packer stated that the small area plan does not change decision-making authority, noting that final decisions remain with the City Council. He emphasized that elected officials remain accountable to the community and that the public process will continue to allow for input and discussion. He added that the plan provides an opportunity to refine existing codes and better guide future development while maintaining local control. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked whether visual maps and graphics could be presented to help illustrate the concepts for the public. Ms. Jackson responded that visuals and conceptual graphics are included within the plan and offered to display them. She noted that these materials help communicate the look, feel, and connectivity concepts for the different city center areas, and that the plan builds on existing efforts such as regional and local active transportation planning. Ms. Jackson presented visual graphics and conceptual maps illustrating connectivity, safety, and placemaking improvements within the City Center. She explained that a primary focus of the plan is improving connectivity, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Concepts included potential greenways, protected bike routes, and improved north-south and east-west connections. She noted that community feedback identified challenges with safely crossing the city, particularly east to west, and discussed possible solutions such as underpasses or overpasses near I-15 and enhanced bicycle infrastructure along corridors like 100 East and 200 North. Ms. Jackson also reviewed conceptual pedestrian safety improvements along Main Street, including potential locations for high-intensity activated crosswalk signals, additional crossings, and sidewalk enhancements. She noted that while specific locations are not fixed, the plan identifies opportunities for future evaluation in coordination with agencies such as Utah Department of Transportation and City staff. She further discussed opportunities to enhance parking awareness and circulation, noting that improved wayfinding and connectivity could help residents better utilize existing parking and encourage movement between destinations. Ms. Jackson highlighted conceptual improvements near City Hall and the former library site, including potential plaza space, landscaping, pedestrian refuge areas, and enhanced crossings to better connect public parking areas with Main Street businesses, creating a more cohesive and walkable environment. Commissioner Young asked about the process for implementing improvements on Main Street, given that it is owned by Utah Department of Transportation, including whether the City would request approval, funding, or both. Ms. Greenwood explained that UDOT typically manages its own roadway projects, while any additional improvements requested by the City such as landscaping or modified crossings would generally require a 'betterment agreement,' with the City responsible for funding those enhancements. She noted that such improvements can be costly and are subject to UDOT approval, permitting requirements, and timing constraints, including pavement moratoriums that restrict roadway modifications for several years after resurfacing. Ms. Greenwood added that portions of Main Street and segments of 200 North are under UDOT jurisdiction, which limits local flexibility. However, she noted that areas outside of UDOT control provide the City with greater ability to implement improvements independently. Commissioner Sommerkorn requested that the consultant review conceptual plaza options for the former library site. Ms. Jackson presented two primary concepts: one retaining the existing library building and one removing it. She explained that community feedback was evenly split between preserving the structure and creating a larger open plaza. If retained, the building could be repurposed for uses such as a community center, event space, or museum, with surrounding plaza and pedestrian connections to Main Street. If removed, the site could accommodate a larger, more flexible public gathering space with features such as event areas or seasonal amenities, improving visibility and connectivity to adjacent businesses. Chair Packer then opened the public hearing, outlined the procedures for public comment, and invited members of the public to come forward, state their name, and provide input within the allotted time. Rachel Peterson expressed concern that existing park spaces are underutilized and suggested the City focus on activating current amenities rather than adding new ones. She referenced past community events, such as Movies in the Park, and encouraged increased programming. Regarding the former library site, she advised against developing a reception center, noting similar existing uses in the area. She suggested alternative community-oriented amenities such as a skating rink or public pool. Ms. Peterson also cautioned against overbuilding retail, citing examples from nearby areas such as North Salt Lake and Station Park where retail turnover and vacancies have occurred. She emphasized the importance of attracting sustainable businesses. Additionally, she expressed opposition to additional car washes in the community and raised concerns about traffic circulation impacts near the elementary school due to a recently implemented one-way street, noting challenges for parent pick-up and drop-off patterns. Jill Dredge expressed concerns regarding the origins and necessity of the proposed changes, referencing prior discussions related to the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) and removal of certain residential properties from its boundaries. She noted that Kaysville is already a desirable community and questioned the need for significant updates. She raised concerns about the financial impact of the proposed improvements, including potential tax increases and competing funding priorities such as a new fire station and recreation facilities. She stated uncertainty about how the City would fund the proposed concepts. Ms. Dredge also expressed concern about the potential for forced or rapid change and its effect on community character. She emphasized that residents value Kaysville's existing identity and expressed caution about altering it. Additional concerns included increasing traffic congestion, particularly near freeway access points, and the potential impact of added density. She questioned proposed roadway changes, such as medians on Main Street, given existing traffic conditions. She reiterated that financial implications were her primary concern. Terry Smith, a non-resident property owner adjacent to Kaysville, expressed concern regarding a proposed trail connection shown in the plan that appears to cross private property along Holmes Creek. He stated that he does not support a public pathway or bikeway through his property and questioned how such a proposal could be considered without a property owner's consent. He emphasized that the property has been privately owned for many years and raised concerns about privacy and use impacts. Mr. Smith requested clarification on how trail alignments could be proposed across privately owned land and how future land use assumptions are being made for nearby properties. Laurene Starkey thanked the Planning Commission for their engagement and acknowledged the extensive work that has gone into the plan. She expressed concern about the potential financial impacts on residents, particularly seniors and those on fixed incomes, noting possible future tax increases. She asked whether the small area plan could provide stronger protections for historic buildings, stating concern that existing provisions may lack enforceability. She emphasized the importance of preserving historic character and referenced past development changes that were disappointing to residents. Ms. Starkey also raised concerns about proposed roadway features such as medians on Main Street, including potential maintenance and functionality issues. She characterized the plan as presenting many possible ideas and encouraged careful consideration of which elements should be pursued. Additionally, she expressed caution regarding the use of tools such as Community Reinvestment Areas and Tax Increment Financing, noting their growth in recent years and suggesting the City carefully evaluate their use. Skylar Walker acknowledged the challenges of managing growth and expressed support for guiding change in a way that reflects community values. He raised concerns about congestion in the Market Street/Boro Street business area, noting limited on-site parking and reliance on street parking, which creates challenges for employees and customers. He stated that this has made it difficult for businesses to operate and invest in the area. Mr. Walker suggested that the plan could include smaller, practical improvements to address these issues, such as modifying traffic patterns or implementing angled parking on Market Street. He emphasized that relatively low-cost, incremental changes could have a meaningful impact alongside broader long-term planning efforts. Val Starkey expressed support for aspects of the plan, particularly the opportunity to enhance the Zions Bank property and expand walkability and business activity south of Main Street. He also noted the City's library project as a successful example of thoughtful planning and investment. He raised concerns about the availability of raw survey questins, stating that residents may benefit from access to the underlying responses and questions used during public engagement. Mr. Starkey also emphasized the importance of prioritization and timing, noting that the City has multiple competing projects and limited financial resources. He stated that while the plan presents positive ideas, careful consideration will be needed to balance goals with available funding and community capacity. Brent Coulam shared observations about changes along Main Street and emphasized that Kaysville's downtown is relatively small compared to other cities. He expressed concern about increasing traffic in the area, noting existing congestion during events and daily conditions near local schools. He also raised concerns about the financial impact of proposed improvements, particularly the potential effect on property taxes for residents on fixed or limited incomes. He encouraged the Planning Commission to carefully consider these impacts when making decisions. Chris Durtschil expressed support for elements of the plan, including the focus on preserving historic character, maintaining a human-scale environment, and improving wayfinding. She noted that better signage and visibility of parking and pedestrian connections would benefit the community. She also suggested consideration of lighting or brightness standards for businesses, stating that excessive nighttime brightness can impact the desired character of the area. Tom Kerr shared concerns about comparisons between Kaysville's Main Street and other cities. He noted that areas such as Bountiful and Vernal have significantly more available parking, particularly behind businesses, which differs from Kaysville's conditions. He emphasized that planning approaches used in those cities may not be directly applicable to Kaysville. He also encouraged a process that prioritizes local resident input in decision-making, referencing examples where communities are directly involved in determining the future use of key properties. Rachel Peterson requested additional information and public discussion regarding proposed trail alignments along Holmes Creek. She expressed concern about potential pathways being located near or adjacent to residential backyards and emphasized the importance of increased public awareness and input on such decisions. Chair Packer closed the public hearing on the item. He then invited staff to respond to questions or address concerns raised during public comment before proceeding with further Planning Commission discussion. Ms. Greenwood responded to questions and concerns raised during public comment, particularly regarding funding, property rights, and implementation of the small area plan. She explained that, in general, development costs are borne by private developers rather than the City. When property owners choose to develop, they are responsible for associated infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities. The plan itself does not impose taxes or require funding commitments; it is a non-binding, visionary document intended to guide future decision-making. Ms. Greenwood noted that certain improvements-such as relocating crosswalks or adding streetscape features could likely require City funding, but any such decisions would be made by the City Council and would compete with other budget priorities during a regular budget process. She emphasized that the plan was developed based on community input gathered through surveys, open houses, and public engagement, and represents common themes identified from that public input and feedback rather than proposals imposed by staff or consultants. Regarding concerns about private property, she clarified that elements shown in the plan such as trails or pathways are visionary, conceptual and aspirational. They would typically only be implemented if property owners chose to develop, and as part of that development process. The City does not require development or force improvements on private property. She further explained that tools such as Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are separate from the plan and are not currently in place. While they could be potential funding mechanisms in the future, no such funding currently exists. Ms. Greenwood confirmed that survey data and public comments are available in the appendices and on the project website, provided verbatim without alteration. She addressed historic preservation concerns, stating that the small area plan does not create enforceable protections. Any regulatory 'teeth' would require adoption of a separate ordinance by the City Council. She noted that Kaysville currently has minimal historic preservation regulation and that any future changes would need to balance preservation goals with private property rights and available City resources and staffing. Commissioner Sommerkorn added that the plan should be viewed as a 'catalog' or vision of community preferences, with actual implementation dependent on future Council decisions, prioritization, and available funding. He reiterated that the Small Area Plan is aspirational and does not mandate implementation. He explained that any enforceable historic preservation measures would require the City to adopt separate ordinances, similar to zoning regulations, which have not yet occurred. He noted that implementing historic preservation regulations can be resource-intensive, requiring dedicated staff for review and enforcement, and would ultimately be a policy decision for the City Council based on priorities and available resources. Ms. Greenwood added that historic preservation considerations involve a range of factors, including whether regulations should apply to residential or commercial properties. She emphasized the need to balance preservation goals with private property rights, community preferences, and the City's staffing capacity. Commissioner Young stated that the plan is beneficial in identifying gaps, such as the lack of historic preservation protections, and helps initiate important community discussions about future direction. Chair Packer agreed, noting that the plan serves as a proactive tool to guide future policy decisions. He referenced prior experiences, such as the proliferation of car washes, where regulations were implemented only after issues arose, and emphasized that the plan helps the City anticipate and address such concerns earlier. Commissioner Sommerkorn added that previous zoning regulations allowed certain uses, such as car washes, until community impacts became apparent, prompting updates to City ordinances. Chair Packer reiterated that concerns raised by the public, including traffic and financial impacts, are valid considerations. He emphasized that the plan does not alter existing decision making processes, and that any future changes such as ordinance updates would still require public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council approval. Ms. Greenwood explained that the plan provides both a long-term vision and a working tool for staff. She noted it may generate future action items, such as design guidelines or additional studies, and can help guide discussions with developers to ensure alignment with community expectations and desires. Commissioner Cornelius asked how the plan was developed. Ms. Greenwood explained that the process originated from the 2022 General Plan, which identified the need for further city center planning. The city secured grant funding, selected a consultant, and conducted extensive public engagement, including surveys and outreach efforts. She emphasized that the plan is driven by community input gathered through the public outreach efforts. Ms. Jackson explained that the draft plan and accompanying renderings were developed directly from public input, including survey responses, open house feedback, and a design charrette process. She noted that concepts were refined iteratively, with adjustments made based on community reactions to elements such as green space, parking, and site layout. Ms. Greenwood added that property owners were invited to participate in stakeholder meetings, and some provided input regarding their future plans. She clarified that while certain property owners engaged in the process, others chose not to participate. She emphasized that the plan reflects a combination of community feedback, stakeholder input, and property owner perspectives where available. Ms. Greenwood further reported that public engagement included strong participation, with over 500 responses in the initial survey, followed by additional feedback through subsequent surveys and open house interactions. Ms. Jackson confirmed that later surveys gathered more targeted input on design elements and renderings, resulting in continued refinements of the plan. Commissioner Cornelius expressed appreciation for public participation, noting that resident feedback helps inform more thoughtful decision-making and contributes to meaningful discussion during the review process. Chair Packer echoed this sentiment and acknowledged that public comments, including concerns about areas not fully addressed in the plan such as the Mutton Hollow business area, provide valuable insight that may not otherwise be captured. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that the plan is aspirational in nature and serves to establish priorities and a range of options for future consideration by the City Council. He indicated general support for the plan and its role in guiding future decisions regarding ordinances, funding, and development. Commissioner Young expressed support for the plan, emphasizing the importance of proactive planning to guide future development rather than reacting to proposals as they arise. She noted that the plan provides helpful visuals, language, and direction, particularly for a key area of the city. She offered minor suggestions, including adding more street-level perspectives of the civic plaza area, enhancing visual renderings for the Mutton Hollow area to better reflect an inviting, village-like environment, and considering additional incorporation of public art elements. Commissioner Sommerkorn commented on the flexibility of the proposed plaza area, noting that the plan intentionally does not prescribe specific uses. He explained that a variety of amenities could be considered in the future, such as an amphitheater, splash pad, playground, or picnic areas, and that these elements could be further evaluated and refined if and when the project moves forward. Ms. Greenwood agreed and emphasized the importance of considering community preferences when determining future uses of the space. Commissioner Toller acknowledged the significant effort invested in the plan and the public input received. He stated that the Planning Commission's role is to provide a recommendation to the City Council and raised the question of whether the Commission should make additional edits prior to forwarding the plan or transmit it along with the meeting record and recommendations. He suggested that certain clarifications could be beneficial, including ensuring maps do not imply improvements extending beyond city boundaries, refining language related to historic preservation to avoid overly restrictive interpretations, and maintaining flexibility for future development types that may not align exactly with the illustrative vision. Chair Packer acknowledged these considerations. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked whether the Commission preferred to make clarifications prior to forwarding the plan. Commissioner Toller indicated that, given the importance of the document, it would be appropriate to incorporate suggested revisions before transmitting it to the City Council, though he noted that forwarding the plan without edits would not be detrimental. Commissioner Toller also addressed a concern raised during public comment regarding signage, noting that the City already has sign regulations that address brightness levels and illumination standards, though additional considerations such as audio impacts may warrant future discussion. The Commission discussed procedural options for moving forward. Commissioner Sommerkorn suggested continuing the item to allow additional review and refinement. Ms. Greenwood clarified that continuing the item to a date certain would avoid the need for re-noticing and would allow Commissioners time to provide specific feedback. She recommended continuing the item to the next regular meeting on May 14, 2026, noting that the later May meeting would likely have a full agenda with another public hearing item. Commissioners discussed providing written comments to staff for incorporation into the draft plan prior to the continued meeting. Commissioner Sommerkorn suggested that staff could compile feedback or provide an updated version or addendum reflecting the Commission's input to assist in final review before making a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Sommerkorn made the motion to continue consideration of this plan to the next meeting on May 14, 2026, and to allow time for Commission members to provide their specific comments to the staff for their incorporation into the plan or in the consideration for the plan. Commissioner Eries seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Cornelius: Yay 5- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 23, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Toller made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cornelius seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Moore: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Cornelius: Yay 6- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Greenwood reported that the Symphony development project would return to the City Council for continued discussion on May 21, 2026. She also confirmed that the City Council had approved all recent park rezones, completing the rezone of six park properties, and noted that staff may bring forward additional city-owned properties for similar zoning updates in the future. Commissioner Young encouraged participation in the Utah State University Community Wellness survey, noting that it provides valuable data to help cities identify health-related needs and opportunities for improvement. Ms. Greenwood stated that staff would distribute the survey link to the Planning Commission. Ms. Greenwood also informed the Commission of upcoming ordinance work related to micro-education entities and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs). She explained that recent State Legislation requires municipalities to allow detached DADUs on lots of 11,000 square feet or larger, with an implementation deadline anticipated in October. She noted that while the state law establishes minimum requirements, the City may adopt regulations related to setbacks, height, and other development standards. Ms. Greenwood stated that DADUs have been a frequent inquiry from residents, particularly for accommodating aging family members or providing housing options for younger family members. She indicated that staff would bring forward discussion items to gather input from the Planning Commission prior to drafting a formal ordinance. Commissioners discussed considerations related to DADUs, including infrastructure capacity, occupancy requirements, privacy concerns, and whether both internal and detached units should be permitted on a single property. Ms. Greenwood noted that these topics would be included in future discussions and that staff would prepare a list of policy considerations for Commission review. 7- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Packer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 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

May 11, 2026 01:09 PM

Notice Last Edited On

May 11, 2026 01:09 PM

Deadline Date

April 23, 2026 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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