Letter from Paul Belnap: 

Mayor Tran,

Kaysville City Council March 18, 2026

Re: Symphony Development/Horizon Re-zone Request

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you a summary of some of my feelings as a citizen regarding the re-zone request of Symphony Development/Horizon. 

Summary of Opposition

1. Symphony has chosen to approach the re-zone request piece meal without delineating what would be requested on the remaining 38 acres of property that were originally part of the whole presented to the planning commission. This does not give the City Council the opportunity to make an informed decision since this development and adjoining undeveloped properties will substantially impact the future of this neighborhood and community in the area.

2. Symphony’s re-zone request puts the “cart before the horse” and a road connection from its proposed development to the Angel Street extension should occur and be in place for development before considering the re-zone request. Without that road, the impact to the connection onto Sunset Drive results in substantial increased traffic and related issues.

3. The re-zone request is contrary to established planning in Kaysville City and is contrary to Kaysville’s code pertaining to land use and zoning in chapter 17-12-1 that provides that residential districts in an R-1 zone, such as the area in question, are to “provide for areas in appropriate locations where quiet, low-density residential neighborhoods may be established, maintained, and protected”. (Emphasis added). This is also recognized in Kaysville City’s general plans 2005, 2008, 2014 and 2019.

Explanation of Opposition Set Forth Above in Paragraphs 1-3.

The most recent Kaysville City General Plan (August 18, 2022) indicates in part that: “… a general plan is a guide for making decisions on land use regulation and development, …”.

The city has further described a general plan as: “… the general plan provides meaningful guidance for a period of 5-10 years, although it establishes a future vision for the next 20-30 years or more.”.

The general plans for the years 2005, 2008, 2014 all addressed density and land use planning that “West of I-15, 0-2 units per acre with some higher density along major streets”.

The 2019 general plan under a section entitled “Goals and Policies” – Housing that: 

“West of I-15 allow for similar housing densities in existing neighborhoods while considering medium density housing along major streets and higher density housing near transit stops and arterial streets (200 North, Interstate 15, and West Davis Corridor). …housing development should have a minimum of through vehicular traffic and a maximum of open space. Housing developments should essentially pay for themselves”

I wrote a letter to the mayor dated December 1, 2025. In that letter, I explained (from my personal involvement in the process) the history of the annexation of West Kaysville to the city and zoning decisions established based on Kaysville City requested collaboration from citizen committees and groups, resulting in the zoning density that currently exists on the subject parcels and that is consistent with the General Plans of 2005, 2008, 2014 and 2019 as state above. Considering those General Plans, they form the basis of zoning for this established community that is now in place and surrounds the parcels to which Symphony requests a zoning change. The requested zoning change does not comport with the future vision that existed at the time the community was developed and the policies pertaining to the same. Further, Kaysville city code reinforces this position. In 2024, the city reviewed an updated Chapter 17 of the Kaysville city code regarding land use and zoning. The updated version of Chapter 17-12-1 specifically provides that residential districts in this type of zone (R-1) are to “ provide for areas in appropriate locations where quiet, low density residential neighborhoods may be established maintained and protected”. 

The zone requested by Symphony does not comport with the plans for these established neighborhoods and community and does not provide and protect a quiet, low-density neighborhood that has already been established and must be maintained and protected as part of Kaysville’s code and planning.

In preparing the Kaysville General Plan of 2022 a key factor included citizen input with residents of Kaysville city to determine the most important future objectives for the city. One of those objectives was “maintaining small town feel” and following tabulation of the data it is indicated in the plan that “the most important future objectives are ones that maintain Kaysville small-town atmosphere, with over half of residents wanting preserved single-family neighborhoods and open space, limited traffic and maintaining Kaysville small-town identity.” Symphony’s zoning request does not accomplish that and does not protect the neighborhoods that are in place and surround this area.

The density requested by Symphony not only does not comport with planning and code and the wishes of Kaysville residents enumerated in the General Plan, but also will have an ongoing dramatic change in the nature of this neighborhood and community when other large parcel of property in the area are developed.

Requested Changes/Deletions From the Development Agreement

In the Development Agreement drafted by Symphony, Paragraph “2” is titled Development Standards and Regulations. 

Under Paragraph 2 are a number of subparagraphs that include subparagraphs E. That subparagraph is entitled “Findings and Compatibility”.

It provides that:

“In adopting this agreement the city hereby expressly finds that the development of the community in conformance with this agreement, promotes the creation of a desirable residential community in an appropriate location. The city further finds that the development of the community, in conformance with this agreement, will not violate the general purpose, goals and objectives of the city ordinances and any plans adopted by the planning commission and city council.”

This provision should be deleted from the development agreement. It appears to be an effort to “bootstrap” findings that would then be urged and attempted to be enforced in subsequent re-zone applications for the remainder of these parcels and adjoining undeveloped land. Given the fact that Symphony has chosen to peace meal this re-zone request dealing with only part of the parcels raises significant concern with that paragraph.

Connection From 550 West to Angel Street Extension

Without requiring Symphony to have approved plans for and the ability to construct the connection from 550 West to the Angel Street Extension is putting the cart before the horse in regard to this zoning request. The ability to complete the Angel Street Connection must be looked at as a whole in considering the impact of traffic on the neighborhoods, on Sunset Drive, and ways to mitigate that. The Angel Street Extension is a critical component of that, which must be resolved and in place to proceed before a fair consideration of this zoning request be made.

Some of the points made in this letter were also covered in my letter of December 1, 2025 and my letter of February 24, 2026.

Conclusion

Thank you for allowing me to express my views and for your consideration of the same. As currently comprised, the Symphony request is not a reasonable and appropriate approach. Therefore, I respectfully ask the City Council to either table the request of Symphony, requiring additional information and modification or decline the request which would have Symphony come forward with alternative requests as they deem appropriate.

Very truly yours,

Paul M. Belnap