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 Tags

Public Meetings

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

April 24, 2025 07:00 PM

Event End Date & Time

April 24, 2025 07:10 PM

Event Deadline Date & Time

04/24/25 09:00 PM

Description/Agenda

rezone, and any required changes could be incorporated into the Development Agreement at that stage. Chair Packer then added that most of his questions had been addressed throughout the discussion. He acknowledged that many public comments expressed concern over the industrial zoning designation. While he appreciated Mr. Holland's explanation that the Light Industrial zone would be used for modern, flexible commercial purposes rather than heavy manufacturing, he still had some reservations. Nonetheless, Packer noted that traffic impacts-while real-are inevitable regardless of what is developed on the site, and he did not see them as a deciding factor for the rezone recommendation itself. Commissioner Allred offered a different perspective on parking and road safety in response to public concerns about congestion and insufficient parking. Drawing on his professional experience and past work in city planning, he explained that wider, straighter roads encourage faster driving and are often more dangerous. He shared an example from a former colleague-a well-known traffic engineer-who demonstrated that cars naturally slow down when roads are narrower or when cars are parked along the street. Commissioner Allred argued that on-street parking can serve as a traffic-calming tool, helping to reduce speeding and improve safety for pedestrians. He emphasized that the public owns city streets, and encouraging residents to use street parking-rather than discouraging it-can help create safer, slower-moving neighborhoods. Commissioner Allred also challenged the idea that developments need to include large amounts of off-street parking. In his view, residents adjust their behavior to available parking over time, and oversupplying stalls leads to underused, costly, and environmentally harmful parking lots. He concluded by urging the Commission to think differently about parking: fewer stalls can mean safer streets, and modern planning should balance environmental impact, cost, and behavioral adaptation rather than defaulting to excessive parking standards. Commissioner Allred made a motion to continue the rezone item at the next available Planning Commission meeting. He explained that he was uncomfortable moving forward without more Planning Commissioners present and wanted to hear their perspectives. He also noted the value of the public input received during the meeting and suggested that the developer return with a conceptual sketch of the proposed layout to help inform further discussion. Commissioner Allred expressed interest in allowing both the Commission and residents more time to consider possible limitations on uses within the proposed Light Industrial zone. He emphasized the need for a clearer picture of what could be developed on the site and encouraged more community dialogue to build consensus. His motion called for the item to be brought back for additional review and discussion, rather than a final recommendation at this time. Chair Packer asked for a second and the motion failed. Commissioner Toller responded to Commissioner Allred's failed motion to continue the item by offering a summary of the discussion for the benefit of the public, emphasizing that their comments had been heard and considered. He acknowledged community concerns about parking, traffic, and pedestrian safety, particularly around the crossing near the park and the growing impact of the Shepherd Lane interchange-noting that these issues largely fall under Farmington City's jurisdiction, not Kaysville's. Regarding the Light Industrial zoning, Commissioner Toller noted the uncertainty expressed by the applicant about future users of the site, such as whether it might become a gas station or a flex commercial space. He observed that the developer seeks entitlements now, with the flexibility to finalize buyers and uses later. However, he pointed out the lack of a site layout or visual plan for the commercial portion as a key issue for the Commission-especially when compared to the residential section, which had clear documentation and design details. Commissioner Toller also reiterated the importance of public safety, especially for pedestrians, and acknowledged that although the final traffic study review is not yet complete, staff have already conducted substantial analysis. He suggested that if the developer were able to secure a specific commercial user, it might allow for a clearer site plan and help address many of the current uncertainties. Commissioner Toller concluded by stating that although he seconded the motion to continue, he was also open to moving forward with the rezone if proper controls and conditions were placed on what could be developed within the LI or GC zone-particularly on the portion of the site that borders 950 North. Commissioner Allred, following his earlier motion to continue the item, clarified that his intent was not to delay unnecessarily but to ensure certain key issues were addressed before the Planning Commission made a recommendation. He suggested the continuation be used to gather more information, and outlined a list of specific follow-up items he hoped staff could return with at the next meeting: 1. Clarification on Development Agreement tools - Specifically, what types of uses could be restricted or negotiated through a Development Agreement, especially for the Light Industrial (LI) portion of the site. 2. Clearer staff recommendation - He asked for staff to give a more definitive opinion regarding the compatibility of the Light Industrial zoning with the General Plan and Future Land Use Map, and whether they have any reservations based on community feedback or zoning intent. 3. Jurisdictional clarification - He requested detailed information on who controls the key sections of 950 North, particularly near Devi Drive and at pedestrian crossings, to better understand who is responsible for implementing potential safety improvements. 4. Status update from Hales Engineering - He asked that Hales complete their review of the traffic study and provide any final recommendations or concerns, particularly related to turning movements, ingress/egress, and traffic flow. 5. Clarification on secondary access - He wanted confirmation of whether a second ingress/egress is planned for the residential area, noting that while cities typically try to limit access points, a second connection here might improve safety and circulation. 6. Conceptual site layout - He encouraged the applicant to return with a basic visual sketch or bubble diagram showing proposed land use divisions, access points, and relationships between the residential and commercial areas to help the Commission and public better understand the proposal. Commissioner Allred also asked whether the public hearing could be reopened at a future meeting to allow additional comments, but staff confirmed that because the hearing had already been closed, further public input would need to come in the form of written comments submitted ahead of the next meeting. Chair Packer acknowledged Commissioner Allred's points and indicated he was somewhat undecided-open to continuing the item for further review but also comfortable moving forward, recognizing that the Commission's decision would ultimately be a recommendation to the City Council rather than final approval. Commissioner Shepard expressed initial hesitation about allowing Light Industrial zoning at the proposed location but said she understood Mr. Holland's position that flexibility is important due to the uncertainty of future tenants. However, she also raised a critical point: once the land is rezoned, if it's sold, the new owner could pursue any allowed Light Industrial use unless a Development Agreement is in place to restrict it. For that reason, she supported gathering additional information before making a final recommendation and even suggested considering a different zoning designation if necessary. Following this discussion, Chair Packer confirmed that there was an active motion to continue the item to a future meeting and called for a vote. Commissioner Allred's motion was amended to state that the item would be continued to the next appropriately available meeting, which could be as early as May 8, depending on scheduling between the applicant and staff and Commissioner Toller seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously approved in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay Commissioner Shepard: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay 5- PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONE FOR 16 EAST 950 NORTH (PARCEL #08-065-0080) FROM R-A- TO R-M WITH A PRUD ZONE OVERLAY Melinda Greenwood presented a request to rezone 3.77 acres of property located at 16 East 950 North from Residential Agricultural to Multiple Family Residential with a PRUD (Planned Residential Unit Development) overlay. The property, which shares the same ownership as the adjacent parcel discussed in the previous agenda item, is situated on the south side of 950 North just east of the West Davis Corridor interchange. While the city's Future Land Use Map designates the area for General Commercial use, Ms. Greenwood explained that the proposal aligns with Kaysville's 2022 General Plan objectives to provide more diverse and affordable housing options, particularly moderate-income housing. She noted that the city is required to report annually to the state on its compliance with moderate-income housing goals, and failure to do so could risk loss of state funding. Ms. Greenwood emphasized that although a Development Agreement is not required at the rezone stage, the applicant voluntarily provided a site plan and agreed to a Development Agreement to give clarity and structure to the proposed townhome project. The plan includes 56 townhome units, each with a two-car garage and additional driveway parking, along with 12 guest stalls, bringing the total parking count to 236 stalls-well above the city's requirement of 96. The layout includes private internal roads, which necessitate the PRUD overlay, and a public road accessing the development from 950 North. The site features generous open space, exceeding the required 32,000 square feet with a proposed total of 42,000 square feet. Planned amenities include a playground, pergola with seating, grilling and fire pit areas, a dog run, asphalt walking trail, cornhole and bocce ball areas, a chalk wall, and a hammock area. The applicant is requesting a slight increase in building height from the standard 30 feet to 33 feet to accommodate three-story townhomes. Ms. Greenwood clarified that under the city's zoning code, height is measured from the average grade to the midpoint of the roof peak, and the requested height remains reasonable within that standard. Visual renderings of the building exteriors and common areas were shared with the Commission. Ms. Greenwood concluded by recommending approval of the rezone request, noting that while the proposal does not match the Future Land Use Map, it is consistent with the city's Moderate Income Housing Plan and broader goals to provide a range of housing types and price points. Phil Holland, the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to offer additional context and support for his request to rezone 3.77 acres on 950 North to Multiple Family Residential with a PRUD overlay. Mr. Holland began by reflecting on his 25 years of experience developing in both Kaysville and Farmington, stating that he has been directly involved in multiple projects throughout the area. He emphasized the rapid growth Davis County is experiencing-particularly north of Bountiful-and the increasing difficulty residents face in finding affordable housing. He noted that Utah leads the nation in average household size, and demand for housing continues to climb while land availability shrinks. Mr. Holland explained that while the RM zoning would allow up to 16 units per acre, this project proposes only 14 units per acre, demonstrating his intent not to overbuild the site. He highlighted that the development offers 20% more open space than the city requires and includes a rich amenity package-featuring a playground, cornhole and bocce ball courts, walking trails, a dog run, hammock zone, and gathering areas with pergolas and fire pits. He stated he's unaware of another local townhome development in Kaysville or Farmington offering this level of community amenities. In terms of parking, Mr. Holland pointed out that each of the 56 townhomes would include a two-car garage with room for two additional vehicles in the driveway-totaling four stalls per unit. He compared this to Farmington's requirement of only 1.82 stalls per unit, asserting that his proposal exceeds expectations and anticipates resident needs. He stressed that the project is not high density and is designed to be well-maintained, with a homeowner's association managing all common areas and amenities. Mr. Holland also discussed the importance of providing housing options for younger families and noted that developments like this typically generate fewer school-age children than single-family homes. He cited data indicating a 25% drop in enrollment at nearby Endeavor Elementary, a trend he attributed to a lack of diverse and affordable housing options in the area. He concluded by praising Kaysville's updated 2022 General Plan, calling it a major step forward in thoughtful city planning. He emphasized that this site is ideally located for higher-density housing, as it sits directly on an arterial road, reducing the need for future residents to drive through existing neighborhoods. Mr. Holland stated this location meets both city planning goals and practical transportation needs. He closed by reaffirming his long-term commitment to the area and his desire to develop something the city can be proud of for decades to come. Commissioner Shepard asked the applicant whether storm drainage had been considered in the planning process. She acknowledged that this might still be an early-stage consideration but noted that while the project includes excellent open space, there was no visible indication of where stormwater would be managed. She inquired if Mr. Holland had any thoughts or plans on how storm drainage would be addressed within the development. In response to Commissioner Shepard's question about storm drainage, Mr. Holland confirmed that preliminary engineering has been conducted and identified the lowest point of the site-located near the area bordering the proposed commercial parcel. He explained that much of the stormwater will likely be handled through underground detention systems, rather than traditional above-ground basins commonly placed within the community. Holland stated that two large outfalls from Farmington City run beneath the area, and any runoff would be managed in compliance with environmental regulations, including the installation of an orifice plate to control discharge rates. Mr. Holland emphasized that care was taken to tuck the stormwater system into a less visible corner of the property to maintain the overall aesthetic and functionality of the community. Commissioner Shepard responded that this information was helpful and reiterated the need for a larger conceptual site plan, even in a simplified format like a bubble diagram, to better understand how elements like storm drainage and internal traffic circulation will integrate into the overall design. Mr. Holland agreed, adding that for the commercial portion-although not yet fully planned-he could return with diagrams showing possible layout options, acknowledging that different configurations might be required depending on future commercial tenants. Commissioner Toller asked Mr. Holland whether the slight extension of 'Road A' on the site plan was designed to align with Devi Drive. Mr. Holland confirmed that it was. He explained that the main access road will be a dedicated city street and is intentionally planned to line up directly with Devi Drive on the opposite side of 950 North. This alignment is meant to support safe and efficient traffic flow by preventing offset intersections. Chair Packer announced the start of the public hearing portion for the agenda item concerning the rezone request at 16 East 950 North. He invited members of the public to come forward to share any comments, questions, or concerns, following the same format as the previous hearing. Spencer Brown spoke in favor of the rezone request. He stated that he appreciated the density, layout, and ample parking provided in the proposed development. Referring to his property on the map, he noted its proximity to the site and joked about inviting others over to use his pool. Mr. Brown expressed support for the project, saying it was a great use of the space and that realistically, any future development in the area would need to combine residential and commercial elements. While he acknowledged traffic is a concern, he emphasized that 950 North will be busy regardless of what is built and that this project won't significantly change that. He concluded by complimenting the developer for thoughtfully including driveways with the townhomes and for presenting a well-planned proposal. David Stringfellow, a Farmington resident, offered feedback on the proposed rezone. While expressing general appreciation for the plan, unit count, and the overall presentation, he acknowledged the broader development context of the area, noting that approximately 4,000 housing units are being contemplated nearby along the DNRG Trail and Burke Lane corridor. He explained that in working with Farmington City on previous projects, one key strategy used to address neighborhood concerns was to ease transitions in housing density and building height, particularly near existing single-family homes. Mr. Stringfellow suggested that the Planning Commission and developer consider a similar approach in this project lowering building heights near the northeastern corner of the site, where townhomes would be adjacent to existing residential properties. He recommended possibly segmenting or tiering the development to reduce visual impact on neighbors, as had been done in Farmington by limiting building height near trails and then allowing increased height further away from sensitive edges. Mr. Stringfellow expressed support for the idea of townhomes as starter homes for young adults, noting that his own daughter, a junior studying engineering, could be an ideal resident. However, he cautioned that the scale and design of the townhomes as proposed might feel out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He also questioned why the site had been strictly divided into residential and industrial zones, rather than pursuing a true mixed-use approach, such as integrating storefronts around the edges with housing inside a pattern commonly found in European developments. He concluded by encouraging the Commission to think creatively and contextually about how the site could better blend with its surroundings. Bart Peterson voiced strong opposition to the proposed townhome development. He expressed concern that the 33-foot-tall buildings would have a direct and negative impact on his privacy and property value, stating that such height would allow neighbors to look directly into his backyard. He emphasized that when he purchased his home, he reviewed the zoning and land use plans and saw no indication that such a high-density project was expected in the area. He criticized what he described as a 'cherry-picking' approach to planning selectively applying city policies to justify development in areas not originally intended for it. He also challenged the idea that this development qualifies as affordable housing, noting that similar townhomes in the area are selling for $600,000 to $700,000, making them inaccessible to young adults or college students, contrary to the developer's suggestion. Mr. Peterson urged the Planning Commission to consider the surrounding neighborhood's character and explore alternatives such as single-family homes, which he believes could still be built at that price point by the right developer. He concluded by asking the Commission to seriously consider the voices of residents, both those speaking in person and those who submitted comments online, and to empathize with the position of nearby homeowners who would be directly impacted. Michael Baker spoke in opposition to the proposed rezone and townhome development. He acknowledged the developer's stated connection to the community but pointed out that the project is not being built near the developer's own neighborhood, and therefore the impacts such as loss of peace, privacy, and neighborhood character would not be felt by him personally. Mr. Baker emphasized that the scale and nature of the project does not fit with the existing single-family residential homes in the immediate area, calling it aesthetic and functional mismatch. He noted that when he and his neighbors chose to build in the area, they were fully aware of the nearby West Davis Corridor and accepted the associated traffic. However, he and others did not anticipate that three-story townhomes would be introduced next to their quiet residential streets. Mr. Baker challenged the claim that the townhomes would meet affordable housing goals, questioning whether this location is truly the only viable site for such zoning within Kaysville. Mr. Baker also noted that the proposed rezone appears to be carved out in a way that feels inconsistent with the surrounding area, further highlighting its disconnection from the broader neighborhood context. Mr. Baker urged the Planning Commission to consider single-family homes as an alternative that could still support the city's goals-such as tax revenue or state compliance-without imposing the high density and vertical scale proposed. He asked the city not to follow the same high-density path as Farmington and to protect the established character of the area. Marvin Hill, a nearby resident who lives directly across the street from the proposed development, expressed concerns about the impact of the townhome project on the existing neighborhood. He stated that the height and density of the planned three-story buildings would detract from the character of the surrounding area and create visual and spatial disruption. While acknowledging the developer's efforts to include extra parking and driveways, Hill voiced skepticism about claims that on-street parking would help calm traffic. Instead, he worried about logistical challenges, particularly snow removal and safe access to the adjacent bike and pedestrian trail, which he already finds difficult to use due to the lack of traffic controls. Mr. Hill emphasized that without a traffic light or other control measures, adding 56 new homes would significantly increase the congestion and danger along the roadway, particularly given the rising volume of traffic coming from Farmington's ongoing developments uphill. He argued that the area is already experiencing congestion and that adding a high-density, vertical housing project would exacerbate an already unsafe traffic environment. Mr. Hill concluded by stating his belief that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the land and would negatively impact the neighborhood's safety and livability. David Jensen, a Farmington resident living near David Stringfellow, shared his perspective during the public hearing and echoed the concerns previously expressed by others regarding the proposed townhome development. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider whether the placement of a 56-unit, 33-foot-tall residential project in a corner surrounded by single-family homes would genuinely appear to be the result of thoughtful and intentional planning. Mr. Jensen posed a rhetorical question to the Commission: When this development is completed, and people drive past it, will it look like it was part of a well-integrated city plan or simply the result of a developer acting on a profit-driven opportunity without regard to neighborhood fit? He questioned whether such a project would align with the broader goals of Kaysville's moderate-income housing strategy or whether it would appear out of place-an isolated high-density project in a predominantly low-density area. Mr. Jensen also suggested that there may be other areas in the city better suited to absorb higher-density housing and still meet state housing requirements, rather than placing such a development at a gateway location near the freeway and within immediate view of long-standing residential neighborhoods. Jensen closed by urging the Commission to consider how this decision would be viewed decades from now, cautioning against making a move that might not reflect sound urban planning or the community's best long-term interests. Kim Anderson voiced her opposition to the proposed townhome development, stating that it does not reflect the character or 'vibe' of the neighborhood she chose to live in. While she acknowledged that she did not have new arguments to add, she wanted her stance officially noted for the record. Ms. Anderson expressed a preference for single-family homes, saying that extending the existing pattern of development would better preserve property values and the community's established character. Although she recognized the state's affordable housing mandates, she shared skepticism that the proposed townhomes would fulfill that goal, especially if they are built to the high standards shown in the applicant's presentation. In her view, the pricing of such units would likely place them out of reach for many, and therefore not meet the intended purpose of moderate-income housing. She concluded by reaffirming her hope that single-family housing could be pursued instead. Brady Birt expressed opposition to the proposed townhome development. He said while he would love to live in Malibu or Hawaii, he lives where it is affordable and consistent with his values, and he believes that the proposed development does not reflect the character or vision of the existing neighborhood. He noted that the project would border his neighborhood and its HOA-managed properties, and he views the proposed townhomes as a deterrent to the surrounding area. Mr. Birt emphasized that the current zoning-which allows for limited residential growth while protecting agricultural land-has helped maintain the community's integrity and open space. He pointed to Farmington's efforts to preserve open areas, including within his neighborhood, where parks and natural buffers were integrated into the layout. In his view, the proposed development would erode those efforts, placing something incompatible into a setting that has been deliberately designed to maintain a certain standard and appearance. Mr. Birt urged the Planning Commission to consider whether the proposal truly matches or mirrors the existing environment, and to place greater weight on the perspectives and safety concerns of the residents living nearby, particularly children who use the area frequently. Mr. Birt concluded by asking that the city focus on creating a positive, harmonious impact on the neighborhood, rather than focusing solely on the proposed parcel in isolation. Amy Birt voiced her opposition to the proposed townhome development, specifically taking issue with the 33-foot building height, which she described as excessive for the area. While she clarified that she is not against development or growth, she emphasized the need for it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Birt suggested that two-story townhomes or, preferably, single-family homes would be a much better fit for the character of the area. She concluded by encouraging the developer to rethink the design to ensure that it better aligns with the existing residential environment and community expectations. Chair Packer formally closed the public hearing portion of the meeting after seeing no additional comments from attendees. He then invited members of the Planning Commission to begin their discussion and deliberation on the proposed rezone request for the property at 16 East 950 North. Planning Commissioner Allred offered a response supporting the rezone request for the proposed 56-unit, 33-foot-tall townhome development at 16 East 950 North. Commissioner Allred shared personal experiences of watching Kaysville evolve, noting that although he had initially opposed development impacts-such as the West Davis Corridor-his concerns often did not materialize. In his professional view, he stated that anticipated negative outcomes like overcrowded schools, traffic hazards, and falling property values rarely occur at the scale people fear. He argued that residential development typically generates fewer traffic impacts than adjacent commercial uses and that similar housing projects elsewhere had not produced the harmful effects often expected. He strongly emphasized the statewide housing crisis, referencing his work on a Governor's Housing Committee and explaining that Utah's housing affordability challenges are severe, with many residents priced out of the market. He stated that the proposed townhome development would not only help meet state mandates for moderate-income housing but was also appropriately located near a freeway and arterial road, aligning with the city's General Plan and long-range planning goals. While Commissioner Allred acknowledged that the units may not be deeply affordable, he said they would still offer more accessible options than the surrounding single-family homes. He further defended the proposed building height, pointing out that single-family homes in the same area are allowed to be just as tall, and that a three-story structure is both practical and economically necessary to achieve needed density and unit quality. Commissioner Allred concluded by reiterating that while the concerns of nearby residents are valid, city planning must prioritize long-term, regional needs, including housing supply and affordability. He announced his intent to recommend approval of the rezone based on its compliance with the General Plan, its thoughtful design, and the broader responsibility the city holds in addressing housing challenges. Chair Packer shared his reflections on the proposed rezone and townhome development, emphasizing that, as a long-time Kaysville resident and active community member, he frequently considers how various properties throughout the city might be used or developed. While the project in question does not directly affect his own property, he acknowledged that the same kinds of concerns-about density, compatibility, and height-cross his mind with each development proposal, especially those close to residential neighborhoods. Chair Packer addressed the concerns about building height, noting that the proposed 33-foot townhomes are consistent with what's already allowed in most residential zones in Kaysville. He observed that most two-story homes reach similar heights, much of which is due to steep rooflines. He also pointed out that three-story townhomes already exist in at least 14 locations throughout the city, and they generally do not stand out as jarring when placed near single-family homes. Based on his observations, these kinds of developments tend to blend in more than anticipated. Initially, Packer expressed some hesitation about losing commercial space, given Kaysville's limited supply. However, after reviewing the proposal and considering the project's proximity to two freeway interchanges and its placement along an arterial road, he acknowledged that this location makes sense for a medium-density residential development. He emphasized that 950 North is a short, direct connector between major transportation routes and would minimize the impact on existing residential neighborhoods, since traffic would not be routed through smaller local streets. Ultimately, Chair Packer expressed support for the proposal, stating that while no development site is ever a 'perfect fit,' this one checks many important planning boxes. He said his position aligns closely with that of Commissioner Allred and that he was inclined to recommend approval based on the project's compatibility with planning principles, transportation infrastructure, and citywide housing needs. Commissioner Shepard began by confirming with Ms. Greenwood that Kaysville's current height limit for residential buildings is 30 feet, while Commercial Zones allow up to 35 feet. Commissioner Shepard noted that even within the city's standard zoning, two-story homes often approach or reach the 30-foot height limit, especially when built with basements that elevate the first story several feet above ground. She referenced her own experience living in an older part of Kaysville where a flag lot home was built behind her, resulting in a two-story structure overlooking her backyard, something allowable under current code. Commissioner Shepard explained that the proposed 33-foot townhomes in the Residential Multi Family development wouldn't necessarily appear taller than many modern single-family homes and could have reached similar heights even without the height exception-particularly if built with flat rather than pitched roofs. Commissioner Shepard pointed out that setbacks for this project were comparable to those allowed in traditional residential zones, meaning the spatial relationship to neighboring homes wouldn't differ drastically even if the development were single-family homes on smaller lots. Commissioner Shepard acknowledged the public concern over height and density but said she didn't see the height as out of character, given city standards. She also emphasized that the location along the West Davis Corridor makes this parcel particularly suited for commercial or mixed-use development, and while the General Plan had designated it as commercial, the proposed townhome project still makes planning sense in the context of future growth and land use patterns. Commissioner Shepard concluded by leaning in favor of the rezone, adding that traffic from the corridor will inevitably bring more development interest, and residential use may be a better fit than intense commercial. Chair Mike Packer followed Commissioner Shepard's comments by reminding everyone that the Planning Commission only makes recommendations, and the final decision lies with the City Council, which takes a careful and thoughtful approach to all development proposals. Commissioner Toller motioned to recommend approval of the rezone application for the property located at 16 east 950 North from Residential Agricultural to R-M Multiple Family Residential with a Planned Residential Unit Development overlay. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion (4-0). Commissioner Packer: Yay Commissioner Toller: Yay Commissioner Shepard: Yay Commissioner Allred: Yay The Planning Commission will revisit the LI (light industrial) zone request at their May 8, 2025 meeting, and if recommended for approval, both items will be scheduled for City Council consideration on June 5 to streamline the process and minimize repeat appearances for the applicant, Mr. Holland. 6- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 13, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Allred made a motion to move the minutes to the May 8, 2025 agenda. 7- APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 27, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commissioner Allred made a motion to move the minutes to the May 8, 2025 agenda. 8- OTHER MATTERS THAT PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Greenwood provided an update on the Small Area Plan Open House held earlier in the week. She estimated that 50-60 people attended and noted the presence of a few younger families, which was encouraging. At the time of the report, 124 survey responses had been submitted online, which she described as excellent. Ms. Greenwood mentioned that the survey will remain open through mid-May, and outreach will continue through the city newsletter and internal staff channels to encourage more feedback. She also described the interactive project website, which allows users to leave comments and digital 'sticky notes' directly on a map. 9- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Allred motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 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

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

23 East Center Street
Kaysville, UT 84037
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Contact Name

Anne McNamara

Contact Email

amcnamara@kaysville.gov

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

May 08, 2025 12:56 PM

Notice Last Edited On

May 08, 2025 12:56 PM

Deadline Date

April 24, 2025 09:00 PM

Subscribe by Email

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