General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Kaysville

Public Body

Kaysville Planning Commission

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

August 27, 2026 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

August 27, 2026 09:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

08/27/26 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 27, 2026 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, August 27, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kaysville City Hall located at 23 East Center Street. Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Chair Young, Commissioners Megan Sevy, Wilf Sommerkorn, Jeramy Burkinshaw, David Moore, and Michael Packer Staff in Attendance: Katie Ellis, Assistant City Attorney and Mindi Edstrom, Business License Officer Public Attendees: City Councilmembers Abbi Hunt and Josh McBride, City Manager Jaysen Christensen, Nick Racker, Heidi Racker, Michelle Bennett, Page Bennett, Natalie Whittier, Susan Harris, Jill Dredge, Lauri Cragun, and Curtis Randall 1- WELCOME AND MEETING ORDER[BM1.1] Chair Young welcomed all in attendance at the Kaysville City Planning Commission meeting. 2- DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST There were no conflicts of interest. 3- OATH OF OFFICE FOR DANE MONEY AS KAYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATE Ms. Edstrom led Dane Money in the Oath of Office for Kaysville Planning Commission. 4- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MAJOR B HOME OCCUPATION FOR NATALIE WHITTIER LOCATED AT 433 NORTH 300 EAST Ms. Edstrom presented the conditional use permit application for Natalie Whittier to operate Garden Gate Preschool as a Major B Home Occupation at 433 North 300 East. She explained that the preschool would operate Tuesday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. with approximately eight to nine students. Ms. Whittier would be the only employee. Parents would use the applicant's driveway for student drop-off and pick-up. Ms. Edstrom noted that vehicles should be managed so they do not block neighboring driveways, mailboxes, or sidewalks. She stated that the property provides adequate area for drop-off and pick-up and that the proposed hours should help minimize conflicts with typical school and commuter traffic. Ms. Edstrom reported that the required notice had been posted on the property and that staff had not received any calls, emails, or other inquiries regarding the application. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicable conditions outlined in Kaysville City Code. Commissioner Burkinshaw asked Ms. Whittier how she planned to manage drop-off and pick-up to minimize congestion in the neighborhood. Ms. Whittier explained that she had observed traffic conditions during the proposed hours and had not identified congestion concerns, noting that most school and work traffic had subsided by 9:00 a.m. She stated that if congestion became an issue, she would work with parents to address it and believed her neighbors would also communicate any concerns to her. Commissioner Packer moved to approve the conditional use permit for a Major B Home Occupation for Natalie Whittier at 433 North 300 East with no additional conditions. Commissioner Burkinshaw seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Money: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Packer: Yay 5- VARIANCE CONSIDERATION FOR NICOLAS RACKER LOCATED AT 768 CHRISTOPHER CIRCLE Ms. Ellis reviewed the process for considering the variance application. She explained that staff would present their findings, the applicant would have an opportunity to present, and the Commission could then ask questions, deliberate, and determine whether to approve or deny the variance. She explained that Utah Code establishes five criteria that must each be satisfied before a variance may be granted. She emphasized that a variance cannot be based on economic considerations or a self-imposed condition. The Commission's determination should therefore be based on whether all five statutory criteria were met rather than whether the circumstances appeared fair, whether an error had occurred, or whether the proposed variance would have a visual impact. Ms. Ellis reviewed each criterion and staff's findings: 1. Unreasonable hardship: Staff found that literal enforcement of the ordinance would not create an unreasonable hardship unnecessary to carry out the purpose of the land use ordinance. The property could continue to be used with the existing residence and accessory structure. Staff considered the inability to connect the structures with a breezeway for protection from inclement weather to be an inconvenience rather than a hardship. Correcting a contractor's error was also considered a self-imposed condition. 2. Special circumstances: The applicant identified the property's location on a corner lot as a special circumstance. Staff found that other corner lots exist within the same zone and are subject to similar setback requirements intended to address visibility and privacy concerns. Staff therefore did not find special circumstances unique to the property. 3. Substantial property right: Ms. Ellis explained that other property owners within the zone may expand a primary structure, construct an accessory building, or connect an accessory structure to a primary dwelling provided applicable setbacks are met. Staff found that the applicant could exercise those same rights with a different design. Although redesigning the project could result in additional expenses, economic considerations and self-imposed conditions could not serve as the basis for granting a variance. 4. General Plan and public interest: Staff acknowledged that granting the variance would not substantially affect the General Plan. However, staff maintained that uniformly applying setback requirements was also in the public interest. 5. Spirit of the ordinance and substantial justice: Staff found that granting a variance to accommodate a preferred design or correct an error would create an exception to setback requirements. Ms. Ellis stated that the intent of the ordinance was to apply setbacks uniformly. Based on its determination that all five required criteria had not been satisfied, staff recommended denial of the variance application. The applicant, Nicholas Racker, addressed the Commission and requested a variance of approximately 8.75 feet from the required 30-foot rear setback to allow a breezeway connection between the primary residence and an accessory structure that was already permitted and under construction. Mr. Racker explained that the request resulted from an unforeseen construction issue rather than his original design. The approved plans contemplated a level concrete slab between the garage and backyard. During construction, his contractor determined that the driveway grade would be too steep to comply with code. Based on his engineer's recommendation, the garage floor was lowered approximately three feet, creating a below-grade area between the structures. He said this resulted in drainage, standing water, rodent, and potential fall concerns. He stated that he contacted the Building Department regarding possible solutions and was advised that the area could potentially be covered and connected to the residence with a breezeway. He subsequently learned that connecting the structures would cause the accessory structure to be treated as part of the primary structure and therefore subject to the 30-foot setback required in the Residential Agriculture (R-A) zone. He previously sought a rezone to R-1-20, which the Planning Commission recommended for approval, but the City Council ultimately denied. Mr. Racker argued that the property's circumstances were unusual because it is a corner lot within a relatively small number of R-A properties surrounded primarily by R-1-20 properties. He also noted that neighboring homes appeared to have setbacks substantially smaller than the setback that would remain on his property if the variance were granted. He emphasized that the variance would not relocate or enlarge the accessory structure but would only allow the breezeway connection. He stated that the connection would not be visible from either adjoining street and would not convert the accessory structure into living space. Mr. Racker disagreed with staff's characterization of the request as one based on convenience or design preference. He argued that the contractor's error created an actual drainage and safety issue that he was attempting to remedy. He further stated that leaving the area unfinished could negatively affect the property and potentially neighboring property values, while enclosing the area would provide a finished structure and allow water to be appropriately directed elsewhere on the property. Addressing the statutory variance criteria, Mr. Racker asked the Commission to consider the right to remedy a legitimate safety and drainage condition as the substantial property right at issue. He also argued that the variance would not adversely affect the General Plan or neighborhood character and would remain consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Racker acknowledged that all five statutory criteria must be satisfied before a variance could be granted and asked the Commission to evaluate each criterion based on the specific circumstances of the property, including the construction issue, the resulting below-grade condition, the corner-lot configuration, and the limited nature of the requested breezeway connection. Chair Young asked Mr. Racker to explain why the breezeway was necessary and whether the project could be completed safely without connecting the accessory structure to the residence. Mr. Racker explained that he had considered placing a lean-to or patio covering over the below-grade area to prevent water from entering it. However, he was advised that any roof covering would count toward the accessory structure's allowable square footage, and the existing structure was already at or near the maximum permitted size. Commissioner Sevy asked Mr. Racker to clarify the location and orientation of the affected area. He identified the below-grade rectangular area adjacent to the accessory structure and explained that it included a slot drain but remained susceptible to standing water, mosquitoes, and rodents entering beneath the garage door. Chair Young asked how connecting the structures with a breezeway would resolve those concerns. Mr. Racker explained that attaching the accessory structure to the primary residence would allow the covered area to be considered part of the primary structure rather than additional accessory structure square footage. The connection, however, would then subject the structure to the 30-foot setback applicable to the primary residence, which prompted the variance request. Commissioner Sommerkorn further clarified that City Code limits accessory structures based on lot and building-area calculations. He explained that adding a roof over the affected area as part of the accessory structure would exceed the applicable limitation. Connecting it to the residence with a breezeway would instead make it part of the primary structure, resolving the accessory structure size issue but triggering the primary structure setback requirement. Chair Young thanked Mr. Racker and Commissioner Sommerkorn for the clarification and invited any additional questions before the Commission began its deliberation. Commissioner Sommerkorn reiterated that Utah law requires all five statutory criteria to be satisfied before a variance may be granted. He emphasized that failure to meet even one criterion would require denial of the variance. Regarding unreasonable hardship, Commissioner Sommerkorn expressed concern that the circumstances constituted a self-imposed hardship. Although the applicant attributed the construction issue to the contractor, he noted that the contractor was acting on behalf of the property owner. Chair Young added that even if the condition were not considered self-imposed, correcting the construction issue appeared primarily to create an economic hardship, which could not serve as the basis for a variance. Commissioner Burkinshaw agreed that contractor errors can result in costly corrections for property owners but that such situations are not uncommon. Commissioner Sommerkorn noted that when existing regulations prevent an otherwise reasonable proposal, an applicant may seek a change to the applicable regulations or zoning. He referenced a previous situation in which the City Council amended regulations to accommodate a type of residential addition. In this case, Mr. Racker had pursued a rezone that would have allowed the proposed connection to meet the applicable setback. Although the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone, the City Council denied the request, leaving the existing zoning requirements in place. Regarding special circumstances, Commissioner Sommerkorn stated that the corner-lot condition was not unique to the property because the same setback requirements apply to other corner lots within the zone. Chair Young agreed, noting that the number of corner lots identified by the applicant did not appear sufficiently uncommon to constitute a unique circumstance. Commissioner Sommerkorn also addressed whether the variance was essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zone. He stated that other properties within the zone are subject to the same requirements and do not possess a right to construct within the required setback. He acknowledged that the final two criteria concerning the General Plan, public interest, and spirit of the land use ordinance were more subjective and could potentially be found to have been satisfied. However, he did not believe the application satisfied the first three statutory criteria and therefore did not believe the variance could be granted. Commissioner Burkinshaw agreed with Commissioner Sommerkorn' s analysis and stated that he did not believe the application satisfied all five statutory requirements. He expressed sympathy for the applicant and acknowledged the difficulty and expense of the situation but emphasized that the Commission was required to evaluate the request according to the statutory variance criteria. Chair Young agreed. Commissioner Sommerkorn moved to deny the variance request for the property at 768 West Christopher Circle based on the staff report and staff's analysis of the criteria required under state law, specifically noting the Commission's determination that the first three statutory criteria had not been met. Commissioner Sevy seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Money: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Packer: Yay 5- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 13, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Sommerkorn made a motion to approve August 13, 2026 minutes and Commissioner Packer seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (6-0). Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Money: Yay Commissioner Burkinshaw: Yay Commissioner Sevy: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commissioner Packer: Yay 6- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Edstrom reported that Brad McIlrath would begin employment with Kaysville City on Monday and expressed enthusiasm about his addition to the Community Development Department. She also reminded Commissioners about the upcoming APA conference in Layton and encouraged those interested in attending to contact her regarding registration. Commissioner Sommerkorn provided an update regarding the Commission's previous recommendations for the detached accessory dwelling unit ordinance. He stated that the City Council had discussed the recommendations and was expected to continue its review during an upcoming work meeting. He noted that staff had prepared a matrix outlining the various state requirements, policy considerations, and recommendations. Commissioner Sommerkorn identified two additional issues that may warrant consideration as the DADU ordinance moves forward. First, he discussed unusually shaped properties where determining front, side, and rear yards can be difficult. He suggested considering a mechanism that would provide limited flexibility for applying DADU setback requirements to irregularly shaped lots, potentially through staff or Planning Commission review. Commissioner Packer explained that the concern arose from a discussion regarding a cul-de-sac property where the home was located approximately 200 feet from the roadway. Because of the configuration of the lot and orientation of the home, an area that functionally appeared to be a side or rear yard could potentially be classified as a front yard. He suggested reviewing how other municipalities address similar situations while acknowledging that introducing discretion could create additional complications. Commissioner Sommerkorn also raised a concern regarding the City Code definition of a 'main structure.' Because a dwelling is considered a main structure, a detached ADU could potentially be classified as a second main structure and become subject to existing setback requirements for main buildings, including 20-foot side-yard requirements in certain circumstances. He cautioned that applying those requirements could significantly limit the number of properties capable of accommodating a DADU and potentially conflict with the intent of the new DADU regulations. Chair Young clarified that even a detached ADU would be considered a main structure under the existing definition. Commissioner Sommerkorn confirmed and suggested that the city consider whether a DADU-specific exception or modification was necessary. Commissioner Burkinshaw agreed that the issue warranted consideration but emphasized that existing setbacks also serve to protect neighborhood character and should be modified carefully. Ms. Edstrom reported that the next Planning Commission meeting would be September 10 and that a conditional use permit for another preschool was currently anticipated for the agenda. She stated that staff would continue to keep the Commission informed regarding the City Council's consideration of the DADU ordinance. 7- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Sommerkorn motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 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

September 04, 2026 10:18 AM

Notice Last Edited On

September 04, 2026 10:18 AM

Deadline Date

August 27, 2026 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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