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

June 11, 2026 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

June 11, 2026 09:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

06/11/26 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 11, 2026 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, June 11, 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 Megan Sevy, Erin Young, Paul Toller, Wilf Sommerkorn and Jeramy Burkinshaw Staff in Attendance: Katie Ellis, Mindi Edstrom, and Anne McNamara Public Attendees: City Councilmember Josh McBride and Abbi Hunt, Ryan Wilde, Jacalyn Wilde, Brian Harris, Shelley Harris, Jonah Harris, Jennifer Borup, Lauri Cragun, Michael Kunzler, Steve Kindred, Katie Kindred, Kathy Gill, Victoria Carlston, Tyler Edgar, Jennifer Edgar, Aubrie Sowell, Anne Crabb, Conzalo Calquin, Bonnie Baker, Maryanne Nybo, LaMar Nybo, Hannah Minanandana, Siraplih Minanandana, Terry Deru, Lori Noorlander, Tucker Hunsaker, 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 TEMPORARY MERCHANT-FARM STAND LOCATED AT 1872 WEST 75 SOUTH FOR VICTORIA CARLSTON Ms. Edstrom presented a request from Victoria Carlston for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a farm stand at her residence located at 1872 West 75 South. She explained that the proposal was consistent with the Farm Stand Ordinance adopted by the City the previous year and would become the third farm stand approved within Kaysville, demonstrating community interest in this type of use. Ms. Edstrom reviewed the location of the property and explained that the site is a single-family residence where the applicant proposed constructing a small farm stand near the street frontage. She displayed aerial and street-level images of the property and identified the proposed location of the stand. The applicant proposed operating the stand from the date of approval through November 8, consistent with the seasonal nature of the use and within the maximum 180-day operational period permitted by City ordinance. Ms. Edstrom explained that the proposed farm stand would sell products including baked goods and other items prepared and packaged in compliance with the Utah Cottage Food Act. She reviewed the applicable ordinance standards, noting that the stand would comply with required setbacks, including maintaining at least a ten-foot setback from adjacent property lines. The stand would operate only between dawn and dusk, with all structures and materials being secured or removed at the end of each day. The applicant also proposed utilizing an A-frame sign consistent with ordinance requirements, including size limitations and placement standards. The sign would be located within the permitted distance of the farm stand to provide visibility to passing traffic. Ms. Edstrom reported that the required public notice sign had been posted on June 4 and that staff had not received any phone calls, emails, or inquiries regarding the application. She remarked that the applicant appeared to have done an excellent job communicating with neighbors about the proposal. Based on the application's compliance with the Farm Stand Ordinance and the absence of public concerns, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to any conditions the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under Kaysville City Code Chapter 17-30-8. Commissioner Toller made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit without additional conditions. Commissioner Young seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay 4- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1113 WEST 150 SOUTH (PARCEL #11-274-0010) FROM R-1-20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-4 ONE TO FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Ms. McNamara presented a request from Brian Harris to rezone property located near the intersection of Flint Street and 150 South. She explained that the site currently contains a single-family residence and is surrounded primarily by properties zoned R-1-20, along with some Residential Agricultural (RA) zoning and nearby City-owned property. Ms. McNamara noted that the application presented a unique circumstance because various elements of the General Plan could be interpreted as both supporting and opposing the request. To assist the Commission in evaluating the proposal, staff prepared a summary of applicable General Plan policies and goals. Ms. McNamara reviewed several General Plan provisions that could support the request, including Chapter 1, Goal 8, which encourages a range of housing options; Chapter 3, Goal 1, which supports providing housing opportunities to meet varying economic and lifestyle needs; and Chapter 3, Goal 1, Implementation Measure C, which directs the City to give strong consideration to rezoning applications that are supported by General Plan objectives and provide additional housing opportunities. She also reviewed General Plan provisions that could weigh against approval of the application, including Chapter 1, Goal 1, which emphasizes preserving Kaysville's small-town atmosphere; Objective 1.1, which seeks to preserve single-family neighborhoods; and Chapter 1, Goal 6, which focuses on maintaining the established character of the community. Ms. McNamara emphasized that the Future Land Use Map designates the Flint Street area for single-family residential development and that approval of the request would represent a departure from that planned land use pattern. Ms. McNamara reported that 67 public hearing notices had been mailed to surrounding property owners. Staff received two phone calls seeking information regarding the purpose of the rezone and the nature of the proposed project. In addition, seven written comments were submitted, all expressing opposition to the application. The concerns raised included potential traffic and visibility issues at the Flint Street intersection, increased residential density, and compatibility with surrounding single-family lots and neighborhood character. Given the mixed direction provided by the General Plan, Ms. McNamara explained that staff's recommendation was not a traditional recommendation for approval or denial. Instead, staff advised the Planning Commission to give the application strong consideration in accordance with the Moderate Income Housing Element of the General Plan, while also weighing the competing policies that support preservation of existing single-family neighborhoods. She concluded by noting that the applicant had prepared additional materials and would provide further details regarding the proposed development for the Commission's consideration. Applicant Brian Harris addressed the Planning Commission and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the proposal. He explained that he and his wife had been Kaysville residents for more than twenty-three years and had raised all four of their children in the community. He stated that one of the primary motivations behind the application was the future housing needs of their youngest son, who is down syndrome. Mr. Harris explained that he and his wife had spent many years considering how to provide long-term housing and support options for their son while also planning for their own future needs as they age. He stated that the proposal was intended to create opportunities for independent living for their son while also allowing space for caregivers to remain nearby when necessary. He noted that a single accessory dwelling unit would not fully meet those future needs and that the proposal sought to create two small residential units rather than a larger home. He emphasized that the concept consisted of a one-bedroom unit and a two-bedroom unit and was not intended to significantly increase density or create a large multifamily development. Mr. Harris stated that his family had been considering these long-term housing arrangements since learning more than twenty years earlier that their son would have Down syndrome. He explained that providing a secure and supportive living environment had been an important family goal and was a key factor behind the application. Turning to the specifics of the property, Mr. Harris stated that the lot currently contained more than 7,000 square feet of buildable area while meeting all existing setback requirements. He explained that the proposed development would occupy slightly more than 2,000 square feet of that buildable area, representing less than one-third of the available space on the lot. He further noted that the proposal had been designed based on current zoning standards and did not rely upon future changes that may result from the City's implementation of recent state legislation regarding accessory dwelling units. Mr. Harris acknowledged concerns that had been raised regarding density and neighborhood character but stated that he believed those concerns should be considered in light of recent state legislation expanding opportunities for accessory dwelling units. He reiterated that the proposal was modest in scale and intended to address a specific family need rather than create a significant increase in residential density. Mr. Harris also addressed compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that a duplex containing six garage bays existed on a nearby property along Flint Street and that another duplex was located two houses away. Based on those existing residential patterns, he did not believe the proposal was inconsistent with the character of the area. He further observed that neighboring properties, including the church located across the street and an adjacent horse corral, would experience limited direct impacts from the proposed development. In closing, Mr. Harris encouraged the Planning Commission to give strong consideration to the application and stated that he believed the proposal represented a reasonable and thoughtful approach to meeting his family's future housing needs while remaining compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Packer opened up the meeting to the Public Hearing. Terry Deru addressed the Planning Commission in support of the rezone request. Mr. Deru stated that he lived approximately one-quarter mile from the subject property and had been a resident of Davis County for approximately forty years. He expressed his belief that a modest two-unit residential development on the property was consistent with both state housing policy and the specific circumstances of the site. Mr. Deru referenced recent state legislation encouraging additional housing opportunities on existing residential lots and noted that state law reflects a broader policy objective of increasing housing supply, reducing infrastructure costs, and providing families with flexibility to accommodate aging parents, adult children, individuals with special needs, caregivers, or rental opportunities. Mr. Deru further argued that the subject property possessed unique characteristics that distinguished it from a typical interior subdivision lot. He noted that the property was located on the corner of Flint Street, a heavily traveled roadway, and observed that the existing home had been positioned toward the eastern portion of the lot, leaving a large open area adjacent to Flint Street. He characterized the remaining area as creating the appearance of an undeveloped lot and suggested that additional development could improve the overall appearance and utilization of the property. Mr. Deru also noted that the property was located across from a church and in proximity to other multifamily and duplex developments. He stated that, in his opinion, the area already contained a mixture of residential uses and was not exclusively single-family in character. He expressed disagreement with concerns that the proposal would negatively impact neighborhood character and instead suggested that the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. Deru stated that the proposal was modest in scale, would have limited visual impact, and would not substantially alter the character of the neighborhood. He further noted that the proposal would provide additional housing opportunities without contributing to urban sprawl, would be owner-occupied, would comply with applicable building and safety codes, and could enhance overall property values. He concluded by stating that he believed the public benefits of the proposal outweighed the concerns that had been raised and encouraged the Planning Commission to support the application. Steve Kindred addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone request. Mr. Kindred stated that he resided immediately south of the subject property and thanked the Commission for its service to the community. He emphasized that his comments were not personal in nature, noting that he knew the Harris family and other individuals who had spoken in support of the application. Rather, his concerns centered on the land use implications of the proposed zoning change and its effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kindred stated that he did not believe the proposed rezone was compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. He referenced discussions regarding the construction of an accessory building containing residential units and expressed concern about the scale and intensity of the proposed development, particularly given its proximity to neighboring homes. As the adjacent property owner, he felt the impacts would be more significant to those immediately surrounding the site than to residents living farther away. Mr. Kindred further stated that he believed the proposal conflicted with General Plan policies intended to preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods. He expressed concern that allowing additional residential units on the property would represent a departure from the single-family development pattern envisioned for the area. Mr. Kindred also raised concerns regarding traffic and safety along Flint Street. He described the intersection of Flint Street and 150 South as already being difficult for motorists and stated that visibility challenges currently exist when entering or exiting the roadway. He expressed concern that construction of an additional structure near the intersection could further reduce sight distance and create additional traffic hazards. In closing, Mr. Kindred referenced the staff report and noted that staff had not provided a positive recommendation for approval of the application. He encouraged the Planning Commission to give substantial weight to the analysis contained within the staff report and respectfully requested that the existing zoning remain unchanged. He thanked the Commission for its consideration. Michael Kunzler addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone request. Mr. Kunzler stated that he resided at 215 Wilmer Drive, directly across the street and diagonally adjacent to the subject property. He explained that the parcel was clearly visible from his backyard and that his property would be among those most directly affected by any change in zoning. Mr. Kunzler stated that his family had lived in the area for many years and had witnessed significant growth and development throughout West Kaysville. While acknowledging that growth is a natural part of community development, he expressed concern that much of the open space that once characterized the area had already been developed. In his view, the subject property represented one of the few remaining open areas that continued to contribute to the rural, low-density character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kunzler explained that when his family purchased their home, they did so with the understanding that the surrounding properties were zoned for low-density residential uses. He stated that the existing zoning designation helped shape expectations regarding future development patterns and the overall character of the neighborhood. He emphasized that his opposition was not directed toward the applicant personally but rather toward the proposed zoning change itself. Mr. Kunzler expressed concern that approval of a higher-density residential zoning designation would be inconsistent with the existing character of the surrounding area and would permanently alter one of the last remaining open spaces in that portion of West Kaysville. He stated that the neighborhood had already experienced substantial development over the years and that preserving the current zoning was important to maintaining the area's open feel, established character, and quality of life. Mr. Kunzler concluded by respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission deny the rezone application and retain the property's current zoning designation. He thanked the Commission for its consideration. Lauri Cragun addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone request. Ms. Cragun explained that she had attempted to submit comments electronically but was unsuccessful and therefore chose to attend the meeting in person. She emphasized that her comments were not directed against the Harris family or their personal circumstances and expressed appreciation for what they were attempting to accomplish. Ms. Cragun stated that she was somewhat confused by the request given the recent adoption of Senate Bill 284 concerning detached accessory dwelling units. She noted that the Planning Commission was actively discussing implementation of the new state requirements and suggested that the City should take additional time to consider how those regulations would be applied before approving zoning changes intended to accomplish similar objectives. Ms. Cragun referenced recent Planning Commission discussions regarding detached accessory dwelling units and recalled conversations about standards being considered by other communities. She specifically mentioned discussions regarding height limitations and neighborhood compatibility, noting concerns that multi-story detached units could alter the character and appearance of established residential neighborhoods. Drawing from her own experience, Ms. Cragun explained that when she built her home in West Kaysville in 2004, she created living quarters for her elderly parents as part of the principal residence. She described the addition as approximately 1,500 square feet with two bedrooms and a common living area. She stated that the dwelling was integrated into the primary residence, shared utility connections, and maintained a unified architectural appearance. She further noted that several other homes within her neighborhood had implemented similar arrangements while remaining compliant with existing zoning regulations. Ms. Cragun stated that, in her opinion, the applicant could potentially create an accessory dwelling arrangement on the property without requiring a zoning change. She suggested that alternative approaches existed that would allow additional living space while maintaining consistency with existing neighborhood standards. Ms. Cragun also discussed the importance of private covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) within the Old Farm subdivision. She explained that the subdivision's CC&Rs were a significant factor in her decision to purchase property in the neighborhood and helped preserve the large-lot residential character that residents expected. While acknowledging prior Planning Commission discussions regarding the City's inability to enforce private covenants, she expressed concern that homeowners should be made more aware of existing CC&Rs during the permitting process. She stated that failure to recognize those restrictions could negatively affect established neighborhoods and the expectations of property owners who purchased homes based on those standards. She urged the Commission to consider those neighborhood character concerns when evaluating the rezone request. Anna Crabb addressed the Planning Commission in support of the proposed rezone request. Ms. Crabb explained that she had attended the meeting for another agenda item but felt compelled to comment after hearing the discussion. She stated that she is the parent of a child with disabilities and wanted to share her perspective regarding the challenges faced by families caring for individuals with special needs. Ms. Crabb explained that the transition to adulthood can be especially difficult for individuals with disabilities and their families. She described the uncertainty surrounding housing and long-term care arrangements as one of the most significant concerns parents face as their children become adults. She stated that meeting basic housing needs can be challenging and expressed hope that communities would support families seeking reasonable solutions that allow individuals with disabilities to maintain independence while remaining close to family support systems. While acknowledging that the City must follow applicable laws, ordinances, and planning regulations, Ms. Crabb encouraged the Commission to consider opportunities to accommodate housing arrangements that serve individuals with disabilities whenever reasonable. She stated that she was not fully familiar with the specific zoning mechanisms involved in the application but believed that if a lawful and reasonable path existed to support the family's goals, it should be considered. Ms. Crabb concluded by noting that individuals with disabilities and their families often face unique challenges and that local communities have opportunities to provide meaningful support through thoughtful housing decisions. She encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the human impacts associated with the request and expressed support for the proposal. Katie Kindred addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone request. Ms. Kindred stated that she was not opposed to the Harris family creating an accessory dwelling unit for their son and expressed support for housing solutions that would meet the family's needs. However, she distinguished between the concept of an accessory dwelling unit and the requested zoning change. Ms. Kindred expressed concern that rezoning the property to a higher-density residential designation could have long-term implications beyond the applicant's current intentions. She stated that while the present proposal may be modest in scope, a zoning change would remain with the property and could permit future development that differs significantly from what is currently being proposed. Ms. Kindred suggested that if an accessory dwelling unit could be constructed under existing zoning regulations or through provisions available under state law, that approach would be preferable to changing the zoning designation of the property. She stated that retaining the existing zoning would better preserve the character of the neighborhood while still allowing the Harris family to pursue housing options for their son. Ms. Kindred further expressed concern that future property owners could potentially redevelop the site more intensively if the zoning were changed. As an example, she questioned whether a future owner could remove the existing residence and construct a fourplex or other higher-density development on the property. She concluded by encouraging the Commission to explore alternatives that would allow an accessory dwelling unit without requiring a rezoning of the property. Jennifer Borup addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone request. Ms. Borup stated that she resided at 749 Chelsea Drive within the Old Mill Farms subdivision. She noted that she did not personally know the Harris family but expressed sympathy for their circumstances and the challenges associated with caring for family members with special needs. Ms. Borup explained that several families within her neighborhood had faced similar situations involving individuals with disabilities, aging parents, and other family members requiring additional care. She stated that those families had successfully created living arrangements through accessory dwelling units under existing zoning regulations and that those arrangements had functioned well without creating conflicts within the neighborhood. Ms. Borup emphasized that her primary concern was not the Harris family's desire to provide housing for their son, but rather the long-term implications of changing the zoning designation of the property. She stated that while the current application was being presented as a solution for a family with special needs, any zoning change approved by the City would apply to the property generally and would not be limited to a specific family or circumstance. She expressed concern that future property owners could utilize the zoning in ways that were not currently contemplated. Ms. Borup also referenced concerns previously raised by other residents regarding the impacts of larger accessory structures. She noted that a nearby property had constructed a two-story accessory building with a residential unit above it and stated that the structure had significantly altered privacy conditions for adjacent property owners. She expressed concern that similar outcomes could occur if additional properties were rezoned to allow more intensive residential development. Ms. Borup concluded by stating that many residents purchased homes in large-lot neighborhoods with the expectation of privacy, open space, and lower-density development patterns. She expressed concern that changing the zoning designation of the property could set a precedent that would undermine those expectations and negatively affect other half-acre residential neighborhoods throughout Kaysville. She thanked the Commission for its consideration. Chair Packer closed the public hearing. Chair Packer invited Mr. Harris to respond to the comments and concerns raised by members of the public and to provide any additional information he felt would be helpful to the Commission's consideration of the application. Mr. Harris stated that one of the things he appreciated most about Kaysville was that residents cared deeply about the community and wanted to preserve the qualities that make it a desirable place to live. At the same time, he observed that communities inevitably experience change and that local governments and residents must find ways to adapt to evolving circumstances. He noted challenges associated with water availability, changing development patterns, and the increasing difficulty many young adults face in finding affordable housing opportunities within the community. Mr. Harris addressed several comments related to accessory dwelling units, noting that recent state legislation had already changed the landscape regarding detached accessory dwelling units. He stated that many of the concerns expressed about future development potential could ultimately be affected by the City's implementation of state-mandated ADU regulations. He explained that his request was not motivated by those legislative changes and that he had been considering housing options for his son for more than twenty years. He noted that his inquiry to City staff regarding the rezone had actually occurred before he became aware of the recently adopted state legislation. Mr. Harris emphasized that his primary objective was not to create a permanent higher-density zoning entitlement for the property but rather to provide housing accommodations that would allow his son to live independently while remaining close to family support and potential caregivers. He stated that if an alternative mechanism existed that would permit two small residential units without permanently rezoning the property, he would be willing to consider such an option. Mr. Harris specifically indicated that he would be open to alternatives such as a waiver, variance, or other regulatory approach if available, as his goal was to address a family housing need rather than to secure broader development rights associated with R-4 zoning. Mr. Harris further stated that some of the concerns expressed about future rental opportunities and more intensive development under R-4 zoning were not objectives of his proposal. He explained that he had no interest in creating a non-owner-occupied rental property and that his intent had always been to maintain owner occupancy while providing housing for family members and caregivers. He concluded by reiterating that he was willing to consider alternative approaches that would achieve those goals while addressing concerns raised by neighboring residents and invited questions from the Commission. Chair Packer opened Commission discussion on the rezone request. He first expressed appreciation for the applicant's circumstances and acknowledged the challenges associated with finding long-term housing solutions for family members with special needs. He stated that he supported the broader goal of providing a variety of housing types and housing opportunities within the community. Chair Packer noted, however, that the request presented a difficult planning question. He explained that while the proposed residential density itself was not necessarily inappropriate, the location and zoning context created concerns. He stated that rezoning a single parcel in the middle of an established neighborhood with a different zoning designation is generally viewed cautiously by planning commissions because of the precedent it can create and the long-term implications for future development. Chair Packer emphasized that the Commission must evaluate not only the applicant's current intentions but also what future property owners could potentially do with the property under the proposed zoning designation. He stated that this broader consideration is an important part of the Commission's responsibility when evaluating rezoning requests. He further noted that the City was still in the process of developing regulations to implement recently adopted state legislation regarding accessory dwelling units. Because those regulations had not yet been finalized, there may be alternative housing options available in the future that could help address the applicant's needs without requiring a permanent zoning change. Chair Packer reiterated that he hoped a workable solution could be found for the applicant's family but acknowledged that the proposed R-4 zoning designation on a single parcel within an established neighborhood would likely be difficult for the Commission to support. He concluded by noting that any action taken by the Planning Commission would be a recommendation only and that the final decision would ultimately rest with the City Council at a future public hearing. Commissioner Young stated that the application highlighted the very reasons she was supportive of the recently adopted state legislation allowing detached accessory dwelling units. She expressed enthusiasm for the flexibility that detached ADUs could provide for housing family members, promoting independence, and addressing housing needs while maintaining neighborhood character. Commissioner Young noted that detached ADUs could offer privacy, accessibility, and housing opportunities without requiring a rezoning of property. Commissioner Young indicated that she was hesitant to support a zoning change for a single parcel when alternative housing options would soon be available through the City's implementation of the new ADU regulations. She observed that the combination of the primary residence, an internal accessory dwelling unit, and a future detached accessory dwelling unit could provide significant flexibility for the applicant's family while preserving the existing zoning pattern of the neighborhood. For those reasons, she stated that she would be inclined to support the use of internal and detached ADUs rather than a rezoning request. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that his views were similar to those expressed by Commissioner Young. He noted that the City had considered and approved rezonings involving larger properties and broader development areas in the past, but he viewed the current request differently because it involved a relatively small parcel located within an established neighborhood. He explained that changing a single half-acre lot from R-1-20 to R-4 represented a substantial increase in allowable density and a significant departure from the surrounding zoning pattern. Commissioner Sommerkorn referenced the General Plan policies discussed by staff, particularly those focused on preserving neighborhood character. He observed that the applicant had already indicated that an internal accessory dwelling unit existed within the home and that upcoming state-mandated changes would likely permit a detached accessory dwelling unit as well. In his view, those opportunities would allow the property to accommodate multiple residential units while remaining consistent with the existing zoning designation. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that, while the proposed rezoning could provide additional flexibility, he believed the applicant could achieve many of the desired objectives through existing and forthcoming housing options. As a result, he was not inclined to support the rezone request. Commissioner Birkenshaw stated that he largely agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Young and Sommerkorn. He acknowledged the personal nature of the request and expressed respect for the applicant's circumstances and concerns. However, he noted that rezoning a single parcel within an established neighborhood presented significant challenges. He stated that concerns regarding future development potential and the long-term implications of the zoning designation weighed heavily in his consideration of the application. Commissioner Birkenshaw further observed that the City's forthcoming ADU ordinance would likely address many of the applicant's housing objectives. Based on those considerations, he stated that he did not support the requested rezoning. Chair Packer concurred with the comments of the other commissioners. He noted that the presence of nearby duplexes and other housing types demonstrated that a variety of residential uses existed in the area. However, he emphasized that a rezoning request differs from evaluating a specific development proposal because the Commission must consider the long-term land use implications associated with the zoning designation itself. Chair Packer stated that while the applicant's situation was unique and understandable, land use decisions frequently involve unique circumstances, and the Commission must evaluate each request based on the broader planning principles that guide development throughout the City. Chair Packer stated that rezoning the property to R-4 would significantly alter the allowable development potential of the parcel and would reduce the City's ability to control future uses on the property. He indicated that those concerns made it difficult for him to support the requested rezoning. He then invited any additional comments from the Commission before proceeding with further discussion or a motion. Commissioner Birkenshaw made a motion to recommend denial of the rezone request for property located at 1113 West 150 South from R-1-20 to R-4. Commissioner Sommerkorn seconded the motion, and the vote was in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Toller: Nay 5- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 EAST CENTER STREET (PARCEL #11-108-0021) FROM A-1 LIGHT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO CC CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A MU MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAY Ms. McNamara presented a request to rezone the existing Presbyterian Church property located at 80 East Center Street and apply a Mixed-Use Overlay. She explained that the applicant proposed redevelopment of the site through construction of ten attached townhome units, the addition of commercial space, and preservation and reuse of the existing historic church building. Ms. McNamara reviewed the existing zoning and noted that the property is currently zoned A-1. She explained that the Future Land Use Map identifies the site as a religious use area, although the City's zoning code does not contain a specific religious-use zoning designation. She stated that several goals and policies within the General Plan support consideration of the proposal, including objectives related to providing a variety of housing opportunities, strengthening the City Center, enhancing downtown activity, and encouraging redevelopment that supports existing commercial areas. Ms. McNamara stated that the proposal aligns with General Plan goals focused on creating a distinct City Center, expanding the heart of the community, providing a range of housing options and price points, and encouraging redevelopment that strengthens existing commercial districts. She further noted that the Housing Element of the General Plan supports providing a full range of housing opportunities throughout the community. Ms. McNamara reviewed the proposed site plan, explaining that the development would include ten attached townhome units, two newly constructed commercial buildings, and the preservation and adaptive reuse of the existing Presbyterian Church. One commercial building would front Center Street, while another would be located toward the rear of the property. She noted that all required parking would be provided on-site. Although the proposed commercial square footage represented approximately 29.87 percent of the total project area, Ms. McNamara stated that staff believed the proposal met the intent of the Mixed-Use Overlay because it incorporated a meaningful commercial component and activated the site with both residential and commercial uses. Ms. McNamara explained that because the application involved a mixed-use development, a development agreement had been prepared and was included as part of the request. She summarized several key provisions of the agreement. One provision requires the applicant to obtain a valid building permit and complete footing and foundation inspections for Building B, the two-story commercial building fronting Center Street, prior to issuance of building permits for the townhome units. Another provision requires the applicant to improve and make the existing Presbyterian Church available for commercial use within twenty-four months. Ms. McNamara also outlined several historic preservation commitments included within the development agreement. These commitments require repairs to the church roof while maintaining the existing roofline, preservation of the bell tower, and replacement of the original bell. She noted that, because the City currently lacks a formal historic preservation ordinance, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the proposed preservation measures adequately address the historic character of the building and site. Architectural renderings of the proposed development were presented, showing the Center Street frontage, the proposed commercial buildings, the existing church structure, and the overall design character of the project. Regarding public outreach, Ms. McNamara reported that 65 public hearing notices had been mailed to surrounding property owners. Staff did not receive any phone calls regarding the application but did receive two written comments through the online comment portal. Both comments expressed concerns related to increased traffic and vehicle speeds, particularly due to the property's proximity to the elementary school located across the street. Based on the proposal's consistency with several General Plan objectives and the conditions contained within the development agreement, Ms. McNamara stated that staff recommended approval of the rezone request and Mixed-Use Overlay for the Presbyterian Church property, subject to the proposed development agreement. She concluded by noting that the applicant was present and available to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Gonzalo Calquin, architect and representative for the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the Presbyterian Church property. He explained that he was working with Ryan and Jackie Wild, whom he described as lifelong Kaysville residents with a strong passion for the community and the project. Mr. Calquin stated that the applicants viewed the project as an opportunity to revitalize an important area near Main Street and Center Street while preserving the historic church building and introducing high-quality development to the site. He noted that Ryan Wild possessed a strong artistic vision for the project and was committed to creating a development that would contribute positively to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Calquin explained that the proposal was intended to be more than a typical residential development. He stated that the applicants had already identified commercial users interested in occupying the proposed commercial spaces and that those future tenants were committed to bringing activity and investment to the area. He noted that, unlike some mixed-use developments where commercial components are secondary to residential construction, the applicants were committed to ensuring the commercial portions of the project were developed and occupied. Referring to the development agreement, Mr. Calquin noted that the applicants had agreed to begin construction of the commercial building fronting Center Street prior to the residential townhome portion of the project. He stated that this commitment demonstrated the applicants' dedication to creating a true mixed-use development rather than relying solely on residential construction. Mr. Calquin described the proposed residential units as 'brownstones' rather than conventional townhomes. He stated that the applicants were highly focused on architectural quality and intended to construct attractive brick buildings that would complement the historic church structure and contribute to the visual character of the area. He expressed the opinion that the project would significantly improve the appearance of Center Street and help revitalize a portion of the City Center that currently lacked investment and activity. Mr. Calquin emphasized the importance of preserving and reactivating the historic church building. He noted that the church had remained largely unused in recent years and stated that the project would provide an opportunity to restore the structure and make it available for future commercial occupancy, thereby bringing new life and purpose to the historic building. Addressing concerns regarding traffic and parking, Mr. Calquin stated that the project exceeded parking requirements. He explained that each townhome unit would be provided with four parking stalls, including two garage spaces and two driveway spaces. In addition, the commercial portions of the development would provide more than thirty-six parking stalls. He noted that many of those stalls would be available for guest parking during evenings and other times when commercial uses were not operating. Mr. Calquin stated that, compared to many similar mixed-use developments, the proposal was significantly over-parked and that parking availability should not be a concern. He further noted that the traffic analysis submitted with the application concluded that the project would not create significant traffic impacts and adequately addressed concerns regarding traffic generation and circulation. Mr. Calquin concluded by expressing enthusiasm for the project and stated that the applicants welcomed public input and questions from the Planning Commission. He indicated that the project team was available to address any concerns regarding the proposal. Chair Packer thanked the applicant for the presentation and then opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. LaMar Neybo addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed rezone and mixed-use development. Mr. Neybo stated that he had lived approximately one block east of the property for forty-six years and expressed his deep appreciation for Kaysville and its unique character. He noted that his wife had previously created a historical map of Kaysville for local Cub Scouts and emphasized the importance of preserving the City's historic identity. Mr. Neybo stated that one of Kaysville's greatest strengths is its desirability as a place to live and attributed much of that appeal to the community's historic character, walkability, and overall quality of life. He expressed concern that the proposed development would alter those qualities and introduce a level of residential intensity that he believed was inconsistent with the surrounding area. Mr. Neybo also raised concerns regarding site design and circulation. He noted that the development appeared to rely on a single access point and questioned how the site would function during winter conditions, particularly during significant snowstorms. He expressed concerns about snow storage, emergency vehicle access, and overall traffic circulation within the development, suggesting that a single point of ingress and egress could create operational and safety challenges. With respect to the historic church, Mr. Neybo stated that much of the justification for the project appeared to be centered on preservation of the church structure. He questioned whether the proposed adaptive reuse would truly preserve the historic value of the building. While acknowledging that the church may no longer function as an active religious facility, he stated that converting the building to commercial or other uses could diminish the significance of its original purpose and historic character. Mr. Neybo referenced other historic buildings within Kaysville that have been lost over time and expressed concern that the proposed development represented a substantial change in the character of the area. He encouraged the Planning Commission to carefully consider the long-term impacts of the proposal and stated his belief that the project was not consistent with preserving the historic nature and identity of Kaysville. He concluded by respectfully urging the Commission to deny the requested zoning change. Tucker Hunsaker addressed the Planning Commission in support of the proposed development. Mr. Hunsaker stated that he resided at 41 South 100 East, directly across from the existing five-unit residential development on 100 East. He noted that he had actively opposed the previous development proposal for the property, including organizing a petition and participating in neighborhood outreach efforts. Mr. Hunsaker stated that, in his opinion, the current proposal was substantially improved from the previous application. He explained that the applicant and property owners had engaged neighboring residents throughout the process and had been more responsive to neighborhood concerns. He stated that many residents recognized the property would eventually redevelop and that their primary concern had been ensuring that any development was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and completed in a responsible manner. Mr. Hunsaker expressed support for the preservation of the historic church building and stated that maintaining the structure had been an important consideration for many residents. He also indicated that he supported the inclusion of commercial uses within the project and believed the proposal provided a better balance of residential and commercial development than the previous application. Mr. Hunsaker noted several remaining concerns, including potential traffic and pedestrian safety issues near Kaysville Elementary School. He stated that traffic speeds, stop-sign compliance, and the absence of a crosswalk in the area were existing concerns that should be considered. He also expressed interest in learning more about the future commercial tenants and the final building heights proposed for the project. Mr. Hunsaker stated that the revised site design, including rear-loaded garages and driveways, represented a significant improvement over the prior proposal and addressed many of the concerns previously raised by neighboring residents. He concluded by stating that he felt considerably more comfortable with the current application and supported the project while acknowledging that some questions remained to be addressed. Chair Packer closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Toller asked about the ownership and maintenance of the proposed playground and adjacent common area shown on the site plan near Building E. Specifically, he inquired whether the area would be owned in common by the development or whether it would belong to the owner of Building E. Mr. Calquin responded that the specific ownership structure had not yet been finalized, as the site plan remained conceptual. However, he anticipated that the development would be governed by a homeowners association and that the playground and open space areas would serve as common amenities for residents. He explained that the commercial buildings would likely be established as separate lots or condominium units, but those details had not yet been determined. He emphasized that the playground was intended as a residential amenity and would be available for use by residents throughout the development. Commissioner Toller noted that open space had been a significant concern during previous discussions regarding redevelopment of the site. He expressed the opinion that the playground and open space areas should remain dedicated as open space and not be reserved for future development. Commissioner Toller then referenced the development agreement requirement that Building B, the commercial building fronting Center Street, be constructed prior to the residential townhomes. He asked whether the applicant was comfortable with that requirement. Mr. Calquin responded affirmatively and stated that the applicants had recently discussed the requirement with staff. He reiterated that the project team already had prospective commercial users interested in the building and that they were committed to constructing the commercial component as part of the project. Commissioner Toller next asked about the relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent former Zions Bank property to the west. He inquired whether the proposed buildings would directly abut the existing paved parking area on the neighboring property. Mr. Calquin explained that the development would not directly abut the neighboring parking lot. He stated that the project would maintain approximately a sixteen-foot setback from the western property line, which was influenced in part by existing overhead utility lines. He noted that additional setback and landscaping existed on the neighboring property, resulting in a separation between the developments. Commissioner Toller also asked whether there was an elevation change across the site from east to west. Mr. Calquin confirmed that the property contained grade changes and explained that the proposed brownstone units would step with the natural slope of the site. He stated that the rear access drive would also follow the natural grade to minimize retaining walls and preserve existing drainage patterns. Commissioner Toller indicated that his question was partly related to the possibility of future access easements or additional points of ingress and egress. In response, Mr. Calquin stated that the site had been designed to meet all applicable fire access requirements and that emergency access had been reviewed as part of the project design. He explained that the development included a code-compliant fire lane and turnaround area capable of accommodating emergency vehicles, including fire apparatus. Mr. Calquin stated that, based on the size of the development and the findings of the traffic study, the proposed access arrangement was adequate for the anticipated level of traffic. Commissioner Toller thanked the applicant and indicated that he had additional questions for staff that he would address later in the discussion. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked a follow-up question regarding the western boundary of the property. Referring to the site plan, he sought clarification regarding the location of the property line and the area between the proposed development and the adjacent property. Commissioner Birkenshaw noted that the blue dashed line shown on the plan represented the edge of the power line easement rather than the property boundary. Mr. Calquin explained that the site plan had been slightly cropped in the presentation, making the property line difficult to identify. He clarified that the proposed building would be located approximately sixteen feet from the western property line. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked whether the area between the building and the property line would remain part of the development and who would be responsible for its maintenance. He questioned whether the area should be incorporated into the homeowners association and landscaped as part of the project. Mr. Calquin responded that the area would be included as part of the overall development and indicated that landscape maintenance would likely be the responsibility of the homeowners association. He acknowledged that the landscaping shown on the current plan was conceptual and noted that a final landscape plan would be submitted as part of the development review process. Commissioner Young asked whether a future use had been identified for the historic church building and whether it might continue to function as a church. Mr. Calquin responded that no specific tenant or use had been identified at this time and that the future use remained undetermined. He explained that one of the challenges associated with preserving the building is its relatively small size and limited functionality as a modern congregation space. While the structure has significant historic value, he stated that it may no longer be practical for use as an active church facility. Mr. Calquin stated that the applicants were committed to investing in the preservation and restoration of the building and making it available for future occupancy. He noted that the development agreement allows a twenty-four-month period to complete the improvements and prepare the structure for a future user. He explained that because of the unique nature of the building, finding an appropriate tenant would likely require additional time and flexibility. Chair Packer commented that the future use would likely need to be compatible with the building's historic character and jokingly remarked that it would not be suitable for a tire store. The comment was made in a lighthearted manner while discussing the types of future commercial uses that might occupy the building. Ms. Wilde responded to Commissioner Young's question regarding the future use of the historic church building. She stated that she and Mr. Wilde have a great deal of respect for the building, its history, and its religious significance. She explained that, during the early stages of evaluating the property, they explored numerous options for preserving and reusing the structure. Ms. Wilde stated that they met with representatives of the Presbyterian Church in an effort to determine whether there was interest in retaining or reoccupying the building for religious purposes. She also discussed conversations with City staff regarding whether the City might have interest in accepting ownership of the building for a public purpose, such as a museum or community facility. She noted that several concepts had been explored over the course of the project, including the possibility of converting the building into a preschool, but none had ultimately proven feasible. Ms. Wilde explained that while a future tenant had not yet been identified, the applicants had actively investigated a variety of potential uses and remained committed to finding an appropriate occupant for the building. Mr. Wilde added that the primary challenge in securing a tenant had been the condition of the building and the costs associated with its rehabilitation. He stated that many interested parties had expressed concern regarding the investment necessary to restore and occupy the structure. For that reason, the applicants elected to move forward with repairs and improvements themselves to make the building more attractive and functional for future tenants. Mr. Wilde explained that the applicants had already engaged engineers to evaluate the structure and planned to make significant improvements, including replacing windows and addressing deferred maintenance issues. He stated that the goal was to restore the building to a condition where potential tenants could more easily envision occupying and utilizing the space. Ms. Wilde and Mr. Wilde emphasized that preserving the church was an important component of the project and that, even if a tenant was not immediately secured, the applicants intended to restore and maintain the building. Mr. Wilde commented that, at a minimum, the structure would become a restored and visually appealing landmark rather than remaining vacant and deteriorated. The applicants also noted that they had already identified prospective occupants for the proposed commercial buildings. They explained that one prospective user was associated with a software-related business serving clients internationally, while another was a brokerage-type office user. They stated that neither use would generate substantial traffic or employee counts and therefore would have minimal impact on surrounding streets and neighborhoods. Mr. Wilde concluded by responding to Commissioner Toller's earlier question regarding the development agreement requirement that the commercial building be constructed prior to the residential units. He stated that, while the applicants accepted the requirement, constructing the commercial and residential components simultaneously would likely be more efficient from a construction and cost perspective due to economies of scale. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the City's desire to ensure that the commercial component of the project was completed as part of the overall development. Commissioner Sommerkorn commented that constructing the commercial building and residential portions of the project simultaneously would likely provide construction efficiencies, particularly with respect to concrete work and foundation construction. He noted that constructing the buildings together could reduce costs and simplify the construction process. Mr. Wilde agreed and stated that the applicants would prefer to obtain permits and complete foundation work for both the commercial and residential components at the same time. He explained that doing so would be more economical and efficient from a construction standpoint. Commissioner Toller stated that he believed the purpose of the development agreement requirement was to ensure that the commercial component of the project was actually constructed and not deferred indefinitely while the residential units were completed. He indicated that the provision appeared intended to guarantee that the development remained a true mixed-use project rather than becoming solely residential. Commissioner Birkenshaw then asked for clarification regarding the scope of improvements planned for the historic church building. Specifically, he inquired whether the applicants intended to fully renovate the interior or whether the building would remain largely unfinished pending a future tenant. Mr. Wilde explained that the applicants intended to focus primarily on structural stabilization and exterior restoration. He stated that repairs would include masonry work, roof improvements, window replacement, and other necessary upgrades to address deferred maintenance and preserve the building. He noted that those items represented some of the most significant costs associated with rehabilitating the structure. Mr. Wilde further explained that the interior would generally remain unfinished because a future tenant's needs were not yet known. He stated that the applicants did not want to invest substantial resources into a specific interior configuration only to have a future occupant remove or modify those improvements. Examples of potential future uses discussed with interested parties had included retail, specialty shops, and other commercial uses. Ms. Wilde added that preserving the historic appearance and character of the building was an important goal of the project. She stated that the applicants wanted to maintain the overall architectural integrity of the church and ensure that any improvements were compatible with the character of the surrounding development. She noted that the project had been intentionally designed to reflect the historic nature of the area and to feel like an extension of Old Town Kaysville rather than a modern suburban development. Commissioner Birkenshaw summarized his understanding that the applicants intended to complete the structural, exterior, and code-related improvements necessary to prepare the building for occupancy while leaving the final interior build-out to a future tenant. The applicants confirmed that understanding. Ms. Wilde further noted that improvements would also include upgrades necessary to comply with current building and accessibility requirements, including modifications to restroom facilities and other code-related improvements as needed. Mr. Calquin added that any future commercial use of the church building would still be required to undergo the normal tenant improvement and permitting process through the City. Following the applicant's responses, Chair Packer indicated that the Commission could proceed with discussion. He noted that issues related to water service and long-term water availability would be addressed through the City's normal development review process and water planning requirements. Chair Packer stated that City staff routinely reviews water demands associated with development proposals and ensures that adequate planning occurs for future water needs. Chair Packer stated that, regardless of the outcome of the application, issues such as water availability and service capacity would continue to be reviewed through the City's development process. He noted that City staff routinely evaluate water demands associated with development proposals and plan for future infrastructure needs. Chair Packer then shared several observations regarding the proposed development. He stated that he appreciated the effort to preserve the historic Presbyterian Church building and noted its significance to the community. As a history major, he commented on the importance of the structure and referenced its connection to William Allen, a prominent local architect responsible for designing many historic buildings throughout Kaysville and surrounding communities. Chair Packer stated that preserving the church represented an important opportunity to retain a valuable piece of Kaysville's history. Chair Packer also expressed appreciation for the parking design. He noted that parking is frequently a concern with higher-density developments, but in this case each residential unit would have a two-car garage and driveway parking, in addition to the shared commercial parking available on site. He stated that the project appeared to provide sufficient parking and would help minimize parking impacts on surrounding streets. Chair Packer further observed that the project would introduce additional housing opportunities within walking distance of Main Street businesses. He stated that locating residents near the downtown area could help support existing businesses while reducing reliance on vehicle trips and additional parking demand in the commercial district. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that he supported the proposed zoning designation and noted that the property logically extended the existing commercial and mixed-use character of the surrounding area. He commented that the proposal represented a substantial improvement over the previous application considered for the site and agreed with public comments indicating that the current plan was significantly more compatible with the neighborhood.

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

June 18, 2026 12:11 PM

Notice Last Edited On

June 18, 2026 12:11 PM

Deadline Date

June 11, 2026 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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