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

Commissioner Young stated that she was enthusiastic about the proposal. She described the historic church as the centerpiece of the development and expressed appreciation for the applicants' efforts to preserve the structure. She noted that the applicants had explored numerous possibilities for the building, including potential religious, public, and community uses. Commissioner Young stated that preserving the church was worthwhile even if only for its architectural significance and suggested that it could potentially serve as a gathering place or museum in the future. Commissioner Young also expressed support for the architectural design of the proposed brownstone-style townhomes. She stated that the density appeared modest, the buildings provided a strong street presence, and the development was highly walkable. Overall, she felt the project was well designed and compatible with the City Center area. Commissioner Toller stated that he generally agreed with the comments expressed by the other commissioners. He then asked the applicant to clarify the length of the driveway parking spaces associated with the townhome units and whether larger vehicles could be accommodated without extending into pedestrian areas. Mr. Calquin responded that the driveways were designed with a minimum length of twenty feet, with some units providing slightly greater depth due to site geometry. He stated that the parking dimensions met applicable standards and would accommodate typical vehicles. Commissioner Young then asked about the structure shown adjacent to the playground area in the center of the site. Commissioner Toller noted that the structure was intended to house refuse containers and solid waste facilities. Commissioner Young commented that refuse collection areas are often overlooked during site planning and stated that she appreciated seeing those facilities incorporated into the project design from the outset. Following the discussion, Commissioner Toller indicated that he was prepared to make a motion if the Commission was ready to proceed. Chair Packer asked whether all commissioners felt they had sufficient information and were prepared to consider action on the application. Commissioner Toller stated that he appreciated the thoughtful redesign of the project and the efforts made to address concerns raised during previous reviews of the property. He recalled that when an earlier proposal had been discussed by the City Council and Mayor, concerns had been expressed regarding the density of the development. Commissioner Toller observed that the current proposal significantly reduced the residential density while increasing the commercial component of the project. Commissioner Toller stated that the revised plan provided a more appropriate balance of residential and commercial uses and was better suited to the character of the area. He further noted that the property is adjacent to existing commercial uses and that the proposed mixed-use development appeared compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and City Center area. Commissioner Toller made a motion to recommend approval of the rezone request and Mixed-Use Overlay together with the associated Development Agreement, and forward a positive recommendation to the City Council and Commissioner Young seconded the motion. Following the motion and second, Mr. Calquin requested clarification regarding the language contained in the development agreement related to the sequencing of construction. He noted that the applicants had previously expressed a desire to construct the foundations for the commercial and residential portions of the project concurrently and asked whether the motion would affect that possibility. Mr. Christensen stated that the current language of the development agreement required certain commercial construction milestones before residential permits could proceed and suggested that clarification may be needed regarding whether simultaneous foundation work could be permitted. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that the issue would ultimately be decided by the City Council but suggested that consideration be given to allowing the foundations for both the commercial and residential buildings to be poured and inspected concurrently. Commissioner Toller responded that his motion was intended to approve the application as presented, including the staff recommendation and development agreement. He noted that details regarding construction sequencing could continue to be reviewed by staff and the City Council as part of the final approval process. Chair Packer asked whether the Commission was comfortable acknowledging the applicant's request while leaving the matter for further consideration during the City Council review. Commissioner Young indicated that she supported allowing flexibility for that discussion to occur. Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that, while he did not believe the issue needed to be included as a formal condition of the motion, he would recommend that staff and the City Council consider the applicant's request regarding concurrent foundation construction. Commissioner Toller then agreed to amend his motion to include a recommendation that consideration be given to allowing the foundations for both the commercial and residential buildings to be poured and inspected concurrently, subject to staff review and City Council approval. Commissioner Young affirmed that her second remained in place following the amendment. 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: Nay 6- PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ENACTING A NEW SECTION OF CODE: 17-31-6 MICRO-EDUCATION ENTITIES AND HOMEBASED MICROSCHOOLS Ms. McNamara presented a proposed ordinance amendment related to micro education entities and home-based micro schools. She explained that during the 2025 legislative session, the Utah Legislature adopted legislation allowing micro education entities with up to 100 students and establishing home-based micro schools as permitted uses in all zoning districts, subject to local regulation. She noted that additional revisions to the legislation were adopted during the 2026 legislative session, prompting the City to update its code to address the new requirements. Ms. McNamara reviewed the definitions included within the proposed ordinance and explained that the purpose of the amendment was to clarify how Kaysville would regulate micro schools under the updated state law. She outlined several provisions included in the draft ordinance. These included limiting micro education entities and home-based micro schools to locations on minor arterial streets, collector streets, significant local streets, or private streets where permission had been granted by the property owner. The ordinance also proposed parking requirements of one parking space per employee and one parking space per five students. Ms. McNamara explained that the draft ordinance would establish maximum student capacities based on lot size, with smaller lots limited to fewer students and larger lots potentially accommodating between fifty and one hundred students. Additional provisions included limiting operating hours to approximately 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m., prohibiting micro schools on lots smaller than 8,000 square feet, and requiring operators to obtain a City business license. Ms. McNamara reported that the required public hearing notice had been posted on May 29, 2026, and that staff had not received any public comments regarding the proposal. She stated that the General Plan was considered neutral with respect to the ordinance and that staff recommended forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the proposed regulations governing micro education entities and home-based micro schools. Chair Packer asked how much flexibility the Planning Commission had in reviewing the ordinance and whether the proposed language was largely intended to align with state requirements. Ms. McNamara responded that the draft ordinance was intended as an initial proposal and that the Planning Commission was free to recommend modifications if desired. She explained that staff's goal was to establish a framework that would allow the City to regulate micro education entities in compliance with state law while addressing local concerns before such uses were proposed within the community. Commissioner Young requested clarification regarding the distinction between a home-based micro school and a micro education entity. Referring to the definitions presented on the screen, she asked staff to explain the practical differences between the two uses. Ms. McNamara explained that, based on her understanding, a home-based micro school was limited to a maximum of sixteen students, while a micro education entity could accommodate a larger number of students. She noted that the distinction primarily related to student capacity and the scale of the operation. Ms. McNamara then deferred to City Attorney McNamara for any additional legal clarification regarding the state statutory definitions and requirements. Commissioner Sommerkorn noted that recent amendments adopted by the Utah Legislature modified the original legislation governing micro education entities. He explained that while earlier versions of the law established a maximum enrollment of one hundred students, the Legislature later revised the language to allow occupancy based on the capacity permitted by applicable building and fire codes. He stated that the current draft ordinance appeared to align with those statutory changes. Commissioner Sommerkorn then asked City Attorney Ellis whether she was comfortable that the proposed ordinance complied with the updated state requirements. Ms. Ellis responded that staff had carefully reviewed the legislative amendments and worked to ensure that the proposed ordinance was consistent with current state law. Ms. McNamara reminded the Commission that a public hearing was required before further discussion could occur. Chair Packer opened the public hearing and invited comments from the public. Public Hearing Ms. Crabb introduced herself as the owner of a local micro school and expressed appreciation for the City's efforts to establish clear regulations. She explained that her school currently serves numerous students and maintains a substantial waiting list, demonstrating significant community demand for alternative educational opportunities. Ms. Crabb stated that she had worked through a lengthy approval process to establish her program and emphasized the value of having clear standards and predictable regulations in place. She thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their efforts and stated that the proposed ordinance would provide important guidance for future operators. Hearing no additional comments, Chair Packer closed the public hearing. Chair Packer thanked Ms. Crabb for her comments and stated that it was helpful to hear directly from someone operating a micro school within the community. He noted that the City wanted to remain both compliant with state law and supportive of educational opportunities while maintaining appropriate regulations. Commissioner Toller asked staff to confirm that the proposed ordinance reflected the requirements of the legislation as amended during the 2026 legislative session. Ms. McNamara confirmed that the ordinance had been drafted to comply with the updated state law. Commissioner Toller then asked for clarification regarding the proposed street classifications. He questioned how the City would determine whether a particular street qualified as a significant local street or collector street and whether those determinations would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Ms. McNamara explained that the City maintains a Major Streets Plan identifying classifications such as arterial and collector streets. She noted that Public Works staff administer those classifications and that staff would be able to determine whether a proposed location met the ordinance requirements before approving an application. Commissioner Toller next questioned the provision allowing micro schools on private streets with owner permission. He asked whether approval would require consent from all property owners on a private street or only certain owners. Ms. McNamara explained that the intent was to require authorization from the governing entity responsible for the private street, such as a homeowners association. Commissioner Toller suggested that the language be clarified to explicitly state that requirement. Ms. McNamara agreed that additional specificity could be incorporated into the ordinance. Commissioner Sommerkorn agreed that clarifying the language would be beneficial. Commissioner Young returned to the ordinance definitions and asked for clarification regarding the distinction between a private school and a micro education entity. She noted that the definition indicated that a micro education entity provides educational services for compensation but is not considered either a public or private school and questioned the practical difference between those categories. Ms. McNamara responded that she would need to review the specific state statutory language and consult further with legal counsel to provide a complete explanation. She acknowledged that the distinction was not immediately clear from the definitions alone and indicated that staff would review the issue further. Chair Packer then asked about the proposed operating hours, noting that the ordinance would allow operations until 9:00 p.m. He questioned whether that timeframe was typical. Ms. McNamara explained that the proposed hours were intended to accommodate after-school activities, tutoring programs, extracurricular events, and similar educational functions. She reiterated that the ordinance was intended to provide a baseline framework and that the Commission could recommend modifications if it felt changes were warranted. Chair Packer commented that many school-related activities, performances, and events regularly extend into the evening hours and indicated that the proposed timeframe appeared reasonable. Commissioner Toller stated that he was generally comfortable forwarding a recommendation to the City Council despite several items requiring additional clarification. He noted that the ordinance would ultimately be adopted by the City Council and expressed support for allowing staff to continue refining the language before it advanced for final consideration. Chair Packer observed that one amendment discussed by the Commission involved clarifying the language related to private streets and owner authorization. Ms. McNamara agreed that additional revisions could be made to clarify the intent of that provision. Commissioner Young returned to the discussion regarding the definitions contained in the ordinance. She indicated that she was still trying to better understand the distinction between micro education entities and private schools and wanted to ensure that the Commission fully understood what was being regulated. Ms. Ellis suggested that the distinction appeared to be based primarily on scale and statutory definitions. She explained that a micro education entity is a specific type of educational use defined by state law and subject to enrollment limitations, whereas a private school may operate on a much larger scale. Commissioner Sommerkorn agreed with that interpretation. Commissioner Young questioned whether micro education entities could effectively be considered private schools and expressed concern regarding language stating that they were not private schools. Ms. Ellis responded that the definitions were established by state statute and indicated that staff would further review the language and seek clarification as necessary. Commissioner Young acknowledged that the issue would likely require additional research. Chair Packer summarized that the Commission's primary concern was ensuring that the ordinance functioned properly regardless of any subsequent clarifications staff might make. At that point, Ms. Crabb approached the podium and asked a question regarding the proposed student enrollment limits based on lot size. She stated that she wanted to ensure she understood the relationship between the lot-size limitations and the occupancy requirements established by state law. Ms. Crabb observed that the ordinance appeared to allow up to sixteen students on smaller lots consistent with the definition of a home-based micro school, while larger lots could accommodate greater enrollment as a micro education entity. She asked whether occupancy limitations based on building size would continue to apply. Commissioner Toller noted that lots larger than one acre could potentially accommodate between fifty-one and one hundred students under the proposed ordinance. Ms. Crabb asked whether the state occupancy standards would still govern student capacity in addition to the local lot-size requirements. Ms. McNamara explained that the state law had recently shifted away from lot-size-based limitations and now tied maximum enrollment to the occupancy capacity permitted under applicable building and fire codes. She stated that the City's proposed lot-size requirements would serve as an additional local regulation layered on top of those occupancy standards. Commissioner Birkenshaw clarified that both requirements would effectively apply: occupancy limitations established by building and fire codes, as well as the City's proposed lot-size thresholds. Ms. McNamara agreed and noted that staff could further evaluate whether additional references to state occupancy standards should be incorporated into the ordinance language. Commissioner Sevy asked for clarification regarding where micro education entities could be located within the City. Ms. McNamara explained that such uses could only be established on properties meeting the minimum lot-size requirements and located on qualifying street classifications, including designated arterial streets, collector streets, significant local streets, or approved private streets where the required permissions had been obtained. Commissioner Sevy also noted that operators would be required to obtain a business license. Commissioner Sommerkorn confirmed that the business license requirement was established by state law. Commissioner Toller then asked whether staff faced any deadline for adopting the ordinance or whether additional review time was available. Ms. Ellis responded that no immediate statutory deadline existed but noted that staff had already received inquiries regarding micro education entities. She explained that establishing local regulations before applications were submitted would provide greater clarity for applicants and the City. Otherwise, applications would default to the provisions of state law in the absence of a local ordinance. Commissioner Young commented that the proposed ordinance appeared to be a good starting point and acknowledged that the regulations could be revisited and refined in the future as the City gained more experience with micro education entities. Ms. McNamara agreed and explained that staff viewed the ordinance as an initial framework intended to establish reasonable standards while providing an opportunity to evaluate future applications and make adjustments if necessary. She noted that the recent interest in micro schools made it important for the City to begin developing regulations sooner rather than later. Mr. Christensen provided additional background regarding the legislation and the City's interest in the issue. He explained that Kaysville had experienced an unusually high level of interest in micro education entities compared to many other communities along the Wasatch Front. He stated that staff had contacted other cities during the legislative process and found that many communities had received few or no inquiries regarding micro schools, while Kaysville had already seen multiple applications or proposals. Mr. Christensen noted that the growing interest appeared to be driven in part by families seeking alternative and potentially more affordable educational options. He explained that micro education entities are regulated differently than traditional private schools and may not be subject to the same operational requirements that apply to larger educational institutions. Commissioner Young asked whether staff felt the proposed lot-size requirements and related standards struck an appropriate balance between accommodating micro schools and protecting residential neighborhoods. Mr. Christensen responded that staff had attempted to develop a balanced approach. He explained that the goal was to avoid requiring operators to locate exclusively in institutional buildings while also preventing situations where micro schools would be established on lots that were too small to accommodate parking, traffic, and operational needs. He stated that the proposed standards were intended to allow flexibility while ensuring that sites could reasonably support the use. Commissioner Toller then referenced language in the staff report discussing additional considerations such as parking, noise, and operational impacts. He questioned whether the Planning Commission was reviewing the complete ordinance or only a summary of the proposed regulations. Ms. Ellis clarified that the full ordinance language had been drafted and included in the meeting materials, although the staff report summarized only the key provisions for discussion purposes. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked whether staff believed the ordinance was ready to be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. McNamara responded that the ordinance had been fully drafted and was ready for recommendation if the Planning Commission was comfortable proceeding. She noted, however, that the Commission could recommend revisions if desired. The Commission briefly reviewed the ordinance language concerning private streets. Ms. Ellis located the provision specifying that micro schools on private streets would require consent from all property owners with legal access rights to the private street, or approval from the governing homeowners association where applicable. Commissioner Toller noted that the clarification addressed his earlier concern regarding private street authorization. Commissioner Sevy asked whether establishing a micro education entity in a residential home would require a zoning change. Commissioner Sommerkorn explained that state law allows these uses in all zoning districts and that a rezone would not be required. He compared the statutory treatment of micro education entities to the way charter schools are permitted under state law. Commissioner Toller noted that the proposed ordinance would still prohibit micro schools on lots smaller than 8,000 square feet. He asked whether building size and occupancy limitations would continue to be regulated through building and fire codes rather than through zoning. Commissioner Sommerkorn confirmed that occupancy limits would be governed by applicable building and fire code requirements and that those standards would operate in conjunction with the zoning regulations being considered by the Commission. Commissioner Toller reviewed the proposed student capacity standards and observed that, under the draft ordinance, a property of approximately one-half acre could potentially accommodate between thirty-one and fifty students, subject to the applicable lot-size requirements and occupancy limitations. During the discussion, Chair Packer and Commissioner Toller briefly referenced other state-mandated land uses and noted that some uses are required by state law regardless of local preference. The discussion was informal and related to the City's obligation to comply with state statutes when adopting local ordinances. As discussion concluded, Chair Packer asked whether there were any additional questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Toller then stated that, based on staff's explanation, the ordinance would provide the City with a useful administrative framework for reviewing future applications. He noted that staff had indicated a desire to establish regulations before additional applications were submitted and acknowledged that amendments could be made in the future if practical experience revealed areas needing refinement. Commissioner Toller stated that he supported forwarding the ordinance to the City Council and allowing staff the flexibility to incorporate revisions and clarifications discussed by the Commission, including language related to private streets and any additional technical edits necessary to improve the ordinance. Commissioner Toller then made the motion to recommend approval of the proposed Micro Education Entities and Home-Based Micro Schools Ordinance and forward it to the City Council, with staff authorized to incorporate revisions and clarifications based on the Planning Commission's discussion. Commissioner Sommerkorn 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: Nay 7- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 28, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Young made a motion to approve the May 28, 2026 minutes and Commissioner Sommerkorn seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay 8- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Christensen expressed appreciation for Ms. Greenwood's service to the City. He stated that she had served Kaysville for approximately four and a half years and described her as one of the hardest-working, most reliable, and professional staff members he had worked with. He noted that she was highly respected throughout City Hall and that her departure would be greatly felt by staff and the community. Mr. Christensen reported that the City was actively recruiting to fill the vacant planning position. He stated that the recruitment period would close the following week and that staff hoped to have a replacement hired by late July or early August. In the meantime, he explained that staff would be sharing responsibilities, with Ms. McNamara taking on additional duties and the City considering outside assistance for certain projects. Mr. Christensen specifically noted that the City must adopt regulations addressing detached accessory dwelling units before the October 1 state deadline and indicated that outside consulting assistance might be utilized to ensure the City remained on schedule. Chair Packer thanked staff for the update. Ms. Edstrom then reviewed upcoming agenda items. She noted that the proposed rezone application for the Sunset Equestrian Center property was scheduled for the June 25 meeting. Ms. McNamara explained that the applicant was seeking to rezone the property to R-1-6 residential and stated that staff anticipated significant public interest and attendance. She reported that public comments had already begun arriving regarding the application. Commissioner Sommerkorn asked whether the ownership and homeowners association issues previously discussed in connection with the property had been resolved. Ms. McNamara responded that, from the City's perspective, there was nothing preventing the property owner from moving forward with the application process. Chair Packer observed that the topic would likely be discussed extensively during the public hearing regardless of the legal status of those issues. Ms. Edstrom noted that discussion of the proposal had already begun on social media and encouraged commissioners to review the public comments if interested. Commissioner Birkenshaw commented that the topic had generated substantial public engagement in a short period of time. Ms. Ellis added that the City Council had recently discussed the issue during a Council meeting and had provided some indication of its general position regarding future development in that area. Ms. Edstrom also informed the Commission that Commissioner Cornelius's term would conclude at the end of June. She thanked him for his service and stated that he had been a valuable member of the Commission. She reported that the City had opened the application process for a new alternate commissioner and had already received applications. Commissioners were invited to share information about the vacancy with interested residents before the application deadline. Ms. Edstrom further reminded the Commission that officer elections would occur during the first meeting in July. She noted that the Commission would select a Chair and Vice Chair for the coming year Commissioner Toller then noted that he had already received inquiries from residents and attorneys regarding issues associated with the Sunset Equestrian Center property, including questions about development agreements and the City's role in enforcement matters. He indicated that he would not be present for the June 25 meeting but suggested that commissioners would benefit from understanding the City's legal position regarding those issues before the public hearing. Ms. Ellis responded that staff would be prepared to explain the City's position when the item came before the Commission. Commissioner Toller concluded by observing that the Commission's responsibility would be limited to evaluating the requested zoning change, while broader issues relating to Development Agreements and enforcement would ultimately be matters for the City Council and City administration. 9- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Young made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 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

June 18, 2026 12:13 PM

Notice Last Edited On

June 18, 2026 12:13 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.