General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Kaysville

Public Body

Kaysville Planning Commission

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Planning Commission Meeting

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

October 8, 2026 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

October 8, 2026 09:00 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

10/08/26 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Kaysville City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 8, 2026 The Planning Commission meeting was held on Thursday, October 8, 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 Wilf Sommerkorn, Paul Toller, Dane Money and Mike Packer Staff in Attendance: Brad McIlrath, Community Development Director, Katie Ellis, Assistant City Attorney and Mindi Edstrom, Business License Officer, and City Planner, Tyson Stoddard. Public Attendees: City Councilmember Josh McBride 1- WELCOME AND MEETING ORDER 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- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO GOVEN THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ANIMAL STRUCTURES AND DWELLINGS Ms. Ellis presented a proposed text amendment regarding animal separation requirements. She explained that the issue was identified during the City Council's review of the detached accessory dwelling unit regulations. Current City Code requires certain animals and animal-related structures to maintain specified separation distances from a 'dwelling,' with distances varying depending on the type of animal. Ms. Ellis explained that the Code does not currently distinguish between a primary dwelling and a detached accessory dwelling unit. The proposed amendment would change the applicable language from 'dwelling' to 'primary dwelling' so that the construction of a DADU would not affect existing animal separation requirements. Staff recommended a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Money asked whether the required separation would apply only to the primary dwelling rather than a DADU. Mr. McIlrath confirmed that it would. He explained that one concern identified during the DADU discussions was that constructing a DADU in a backyard could potentially cause an existing structure used to house animals to become nonconforming. The proposed amendment would clarify that the required separation is measured from the primary dwelling and not from a DADU. Chair Young opened the public hearing. No public comments were received, and the public hearing was closed. Chair Young clarified that the applicable separation requirements relate to distances from dwellings rather than property lines. She stated that the proposed amendment appeared straightforward in specifying that the separation would be measured from the primary dwelling. Commissioner Packer stated that he had no concerns with the amendment and felt the proposed language clearly reflected the intended regulation. Commissioner Packer moved to recommend approval of the text amendment regarding DADUs and animal separation requirements. Commissioner Money seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (5-0). Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Money: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commission Toller: Yay Commissioner Packer: Yay 4- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR LAND USE APPEALS TO BE HEARD BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Ms. Ellis presented a proposed text amendment regarding the hearing of variance requests. She explained that the City had previously amended its ordinance to transition certain land use appeals from the Planning Commission to an Administrative Law Judge but had inadvertently omitted variances. The proposed amendment would provide that variance requests also be heard and decided by an Administrative Law Judge. Chair Young opened the public hearing. No public comments were received, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Sommerkorn stated that he supported having both land use appeals and variance requests heard through this process. He asked whether City Code defines the qualifications for an Administrative Law Judge. Ms. Ellis explained that Title 2, Chapter 8 addresses the position and noted that the City had recently issued a request for proposals for an Administrative Law Judge. The Commission confirmed that the Code requires the individual to be an attorney licensed to practice law and not an employee of the City. Mr. Sommerkorn noted that some municipalities use appeal hearing officers who are not necessarily attorneys but have significant land use or related legal experience. He suggested that requiring a licensed attorney could potentially limit the City's options, although he acknowledged that any broader change to those qualifications would be a separate policy discussion. Commissioner Toller asked why Ms. Ellis had questioned whether variance hearings should remain with the Planning Commission following the Commission's recent consideration of a variance. Ms. Ellis stated that the Commission had done an excellent job applying the five required variance criteria in that case. However, she noted that Commission membership changes over time and that having an independent hearing officer could also avoid situations where commissioners may have personal connections to an applicant or neighboring property owner. Commissioner Toller expressed concern with transferring variance decisions to an Administrative Law Judge. He stated that, as a matter of public policy, he believed the process could create a perception or practical disadvantage for residents who may feel they need legal representation to effectively present their case before an Administrative Law Judge. He indicated that this concern would be the basis for his opposition to the amendment. Ms. Ellis clarified that an applicant would not necessarily need an attorney. She explained that the variance application process would remain substantially the same, including consideration of the five statutory variance criteria and a hearing on the request. The primary change would be that the Administrative Law Judge, rather than the Planning Commission, would evaluate the application and determine whether the required criteria had been met. Mr. Sommerkorn stated that he understood Commissioner Toller's concern regarding the formality associated with an Administrative Law Judge. He noted that in his experience, many municipalities use hearing officers with substantial land use or legal experience who are not necessarily attorneys. Those proceedings are generally more formal than a Planning Commission meeting but less formal than a court proceeding, and applicants do not always retain legal counsel. Mr. Sommerkorn also explained why he supported moving variance decisions away from the Planning Commission. He noted that commissioners may know applicants personally, which could consciously or unconsciously influence a decision. An independent hearing officer could provide greater consistency and help ensure that similar applications are evaluated under the same legal standards regardless of the applicant. Commissioner Toller acknowledged that commissioners without legal training could make decisions that are more susceptible to challenge. However, he reiterated his concern that residents appearing before an Administrative Law Judge may feel compelled to retain counsel, research case law, and prepare a more formal legal argument. He stated that while the proposed process could result in more legally consistent decisions and reduce risk to the City, it could also affect residents' comfort and accessibility when seeking a variance. Ms. Ellis asked whether Commissioner Toller would be more comfortable with a hearing officer rather than an Administrative Law Judge. Commissioner Toller stated that if the City chose to transfer these decisions away from the Planning Commission, he preferred that the City establish a process that produced legally sound and well-supported decisions, while still recognizing his concern regarding the effect on residents. Chair Young summarized Commissioner Toller's concern as being that an Administrative Law Judge could appear more intimidating or imposing to residents than presenting a request before members of their community serving on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Toller agreed. Commissioner Money asked whether the Administrative Law Judge process would be faster than consideration by the Planning Commission. Ms. Ellis explained that the ordinance establishes a timeframe within which the matter must be heard and that the timing would likely be comparable. She also noted that variance decisions are quasi-judicial matters requiring an unbiased decision-maker and that transferring those decisions to an Administrative Law Judge would remove that responsibility from the Planning Commission. Mr. Sommerkorn moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed ordinance amendment regarding variance requests. Commissioner Packer seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (5-0). 5- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Toller moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Money seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (5-0). Commissioner Young: Yay Commissioner Money: Yay Commissioner Sommerkorn: Yay Commission Toller: Yay Commissioner Packer: Yay 6- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. McIlrath introduced Tyson Stoddard as the City's new Senior Planner. Mr. McIlrath then reviewed items anticipated for upcoming Planning Commission agendas. He reported that an application had been submitted for a General Commercial rezone with a Mixed Use Overlay for the Victorian-style residence located at Main Street and Creekside Way. The property owners propose to operate an insurance office on a portion of the ground floor while continuing to use the property as their residence. The upper floor would remain residential, and a portion of the ground floor would continue to serve the residential use. He explained that the proposal would include additional parking while generally maintaining the existing appearance and character of the residence. Staff was also preparing the required development agreement. Mr. McIlrath noted that the applicants were working to obtain approval from property owners who share the private drive located east of the property. Chair Young commented that the proposal was an example of vertical mixed use, which is uncommon in the City. Mr. McIlrath also advised the Commission that staff planned to hold a work discussion regarding landscape buffering requirements for commercial properties adjacent to residential uses. He explained that staff would present examples and potential ordinance language for Commission feedback. The discussion would be a work item only, with no formal action anticipated. Staff intended to use the Commission's input to develop standards appropriate for Kaysville. Mr. McIlrath reported that another rezone application had recently been submitted for property near 550 East in the Ice Pond Road area. The property is currently zoned R-1-8, and the applicant is requesting a Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD) Overlay to allow a private street serving four lots. Because the PRUD is a zoning overlay, the request would require a rezone from R-1-8 to R-1-8 PRUD. The application was anticipated to come before the Planning Commission at the first meeting in November. Mr. Sommerkorn informed the Commission of the upcoming Utah Land Use Institute Fall Conference in Sandy on October 22 and 23. He noted that conference topics would include the entitlement process, development agreements, bonding, data centers, small lots, annexations, and other land use matters. 7- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Packer motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 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 E. 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

October 19, 2026 04:42 PM

Notice Last Edited On

October 19, 2026 04:42 PM

Deadline Date

October 8, 2026 07:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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