All agenda items in this packet are preliminary, until approved by the Layton City Council.
ADJOURN: Notice is hereby given that: • A Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Meeting will be held at 5:30 PM. A Work Meeting will be held at 5:30 PM to discuss miscellaneous matters.
• This meeting will also be live streamed via laytoncitylive.com and facebook.com/Laytoncity • In the event of an absence of a full quorum, agenda items will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
• This meeting may involve the use of electronic communications for some of the members of this public body. Elected Officials at remote locations may be connected to the meeting electronically.
• By motion of the Layton City Council, pursuant to Title 52, Chapter 4 of the Utah Code, the City Council may vote to hold a closed meeting for any of the purposes identified in that chapter.
Kimberly S Read, City Recorder This public notice is posted on the Utah Public Notice website www.utah.gov/pmn/, the Layton City website www.laytoncity.org, and at the Layton City Center.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons in need of special accommodations or services to participate in this meeting shall notify the City at least 48 hours in advance at 801-336-3826 or 801-336-3820.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAYTON, UTAH PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Layton, Utah, will hold a public meeting in the Council Chambers of the City Center Building, 437 North Wasatch Drive, Layton, Utah, commencing at 7:00 PM on November 6, 2025 .
AGENDA ITEMS: 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE, OPENING CEREMONY, RECOGNITION, APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
the City Center Building, 437 North Wasatch Drive, Layton, Utah, commencing at 7:00 PM on November 6, 2025 .
AGENDA ITEMS: 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE, OPENING CEREMONY, RECOGNITION, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting - May 1, 2025 B. Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting - June 5, 2025 C. Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting - June 5, 2025 D. Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting - June 19, 2025 2. MUNICIPAL EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS: 3. VERBAL PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS: 5. CONSENT ITEMS: (These items are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by a single motion. If discussion is desired on any particular consent item, that item may be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.)
A. Amendment Number 1 of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Layton City and Davis County for Transportation Project Reimbursement – Resolution 25-50 – Approximately Main Street and 165 South Main Street B. Bid Award – Insituform Technologies, LLC DBA Twin D – Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 25-20 – Resolution 25-51 – Various Locations Throughout the City C. Amended Plat – Taggart Subdivision, First Amended – 1342 and 1346 East Rosewood Lane 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Proposal to Amend Layton City Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use Development, Chapter 18.01 General Provisions, Section 18.01.070 Designation of Land Use Authority, Chapter 18.04 Definitions, Section 18.04.010 Generally, Chapter 18.32 Lots, Section 18.32.080 Lot Line Adjustment, and Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.03 Land Use Application Requirements and Review Process, Section 19.03.005 Applicable Applications, Section 19.03.040 Review of Application and Layton City Development
and Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.03 Land Use Application Requirements and Review Process, Section 19.03.005 Applicable Applications, Section 19.03.040 Review of Application and Layton City Development Guidelines and Design Standards to Update Terminology and Procedures for Boundary Line Adjustments in Accordance with Utah State Code 10-9A-523, and Simplify the Process for Vacating or Amending a Plat for a Standard Subdivision – Ordinances 25-22 and 25-23 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Citizen Comment Guidelines For the benefit of all who participate in a PUBLIC HEARING or i n giving PUBLIC COMMENT during a City Council meeting, we respectfully request that the following proc edures be observed so that all concerned individuals may have an opportunity to speak.
Comments : Your comments are important. To give order to the meeting, please direct comments to and through the person conducting the meeting.
Time: If you are giving public input on any item on the agenda, please limit comments to three (3) minutes. If greater time is necessary to discuss the item, the matter may, upon request, be placed on a future City Council agenda for further discussion.
Courtesy : Please be cou rteous to those making comments by avoiding applaudi ng or verbal outbursts either in favor of o r against what is being said.
New Information : Please limit comments to new information only to avoid repeating the same information multiple times.
Spokesperson : Please, if you are part of a large gr oup, select a spokesperson for your group.
Handouts and Electro nic Information : An electronic or hard copy of any information presented to the City Council must be submitted to the City Recorder by the end of the meeting.
Thank you.
uts and Electro nic Information : An electronic or hard copy of any information presented to the City Council must be submitted to the City Recorder by the end of the meeting.
Thank you.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 MINUTES OF LAYTON CITY COUNCIL WORK MEETING MAY 1, 2025; 5:32 P.M.
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOY PETRO , ZACH BLOXHAM, CLINT MORRIS, TYSON ROBERTS, BETTINA SMITH EDMONDSON, AND DAVE THOMAS STAF F PRESENT: ALEX JENSEN , CLINT DRAKE , STEPHEN JACKSON , WESTON APPLONIE, TRACY PROBERT, DAVID PRICE , ED FRAZIER, AND KIM READ The meeting was held in the Council Conference Room of the Layton City Center.
Mayor Petro opened the meeting .
AGENDA: MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Petro shared an update from North Davis Sewer District (NDSD) and announced its $2.50 per month rate increase had been adopted by the Board . She mentioned it would be effective July 1, 2025.
She explained it would implement another $2.50 monthly increase beginning July 1, 2027.
She had no update from Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District sinc e a meeting hadn’t taken place and announc ed its next Board meeting was scheduled for next week.
She reported Open Doors had put an offer on a new location which could consolidate all services under one building. She mentioned if it was able to move forward on the purchase the building on Highwa y 193 would be sold. She indicated the food pantry would no longer be available by Open Doors and mentioned the Bountiful Food Pantry would possibly be providing that service by a mobile service; bringing the food closer to the geographical area in need.
COUNCIL MEMBER ’S REPORT S Councilmember Smith Edmondson mentioned the Layton Communities That Care (CTC) quarterly
vice by a mobile service; bringing the food closer to the geographical area in need.
COUNCIL MEMBER ’S REPORT S Councilmember Smith Edmondson mentioned the Layton Communities That Care (CTC) quarterly newsletter had been forwarded to the Council. The new prevention specialist, Tiffany Lanning , was now Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 2 in place and believed she was doing great work. She mentioned Megan Cra in, Prevention Coordinator, was still on board which would ensure continuity with programming. She announced an outreach event was scheduled for Monday, May 12 , 2025, intended to train coalition volunteers on how to talk about CTC to members within the community to encourage additional volunteer participation. She mentioned CTC would like to be more visible and present at some City events.
She mentioned the following items brought to her attention by City residents: Trev or Thomas and Innovative Dance Company regarding miscommunication with City Staff.
Kayscreek Estates financial assistance for sidewalk repair project Layton High School drumline concern Councilmember Roberts shared an update from the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting and mentioned the new wave machine for Surf ‘n Swim was intended to be installed in the fall of 2025. David Price, Parks and Recreation Director, mentioned a discussion regarding that project would take place later in the meeting . Councilmember Roberts mentioned he had attended a session regarding water planning during the ULCT (Utah League of Cities and Towns) Conference in St. George. He inquired if the City had appropriately planned for the amount of water needed at ‘buildout’. Stephen Jackson, Public Works Director, responded that was included in the City’s Water Master Plan.
e. He inquired if the City had appropriately planned for the amount of water needed at ‘buildout’. Stephen Jackson, Public Works Director, responded that was included in the City’s Water Master Plan.
Councilmember Bloxham reported the UTOPIA take-rate continued to increase with the most subscribers within the entire network were from Layton City. He mentioned it anticipated to continue with the paybacks and Layton City, one of the founding cities, would continue to receive the rebates.
DISCUSSION – GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/GEOSTRATA – HOBBS CREEK VILLAS PRUD Weston Applonie, Community and Economic Deve lopment Director, introduced Tim Thom pson and Scott Seal, Geostrata, the City’s third party consultant tasked with reviewing items with Geotechnical issues. He stated based on the discussion s from the City Council Meeting of Thursday, June 5, 2025, Staff had invited them to address the Council and he identified the various topics of concern the Council requested be clarified: clustering of buildings on the 30% slope potential drainage from storm runoff potential concern with adding storm water to the slope s location of the proposed trail Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 3 mitigation of geotechnical concerns.
Mr. Thompson explained its responsibility in review ing the project for compliance with the City’s Sensitive Land Use O rdinance. He stated they had reviewed reports related to the desi gn and was available to answer questions from the Council regarding the design of the proposed development .
Councilmember Roberts requested explanation be provided regarding the concern of addition al water runoff from the potential hardscape. Mr. Thompson explained Geostrata had reviewed the landslide
nt .
Councilmember Roberts requested explanation be provided regarding the concern of addition al water runoff from the potential hardscape. Mr. Thompson explained Geostrata had reviewed the landslide previously experienced within the City , directly north of the subject property, and explained there were various springs and intermittent perched ground water conditions along the slope. He explai ned how these water conditions, in addition to irrigation water , could impact development. Councilmember Roberts clarified Geostrata was confident the proposed development was appropriately taking place and would not negatively affect the slope. Mr. Thompson indicated, that based on Geostrata’s review and discussions with Staff, the proposed development would be required to collect all surface runoff to divert it to a known discharge location within the stormwater system via piping. He stated this was a positive solution to the hillside because the water was being discharged below the hillside in an appropriate drainage location.
Stephen Jackson, P ublic Works Director, explained how the proposed trail would provide City access to property needed to a ddress the current erosion issue to the reservoir by installing piping infrastructure. He referenced an illustration which identified where the stor m drain easements were located in association with the development. He continued to explain how the existing neighborhood to the south would benefit from the project.
Councilmember Roberts pointed out the locations for some of the proposed building lots near the 30% slope. Mr. Thompson spoke to the 30% slope and responded the structures were proposed to be constructed outside the area from the slope that he didn’t believe would be a problem. He referenced an
% slope. Mr. Thompson spoke to the 30% slope and responded the structures were proposed to be constructed outside the area from the slope that he didn’t believe would be a problem. He referenced an illustration and pointed out the homes were located upslope . He continued to speak to how topography variances could impact the illustration and expressed his opinion the slope line wasn’t completely accurate and continued to review and explain the illustration.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson inquired about the homes proposed to be located near the 30% slope and whether some could be moved to a different lo cation and requested clarification whether the construction of the homes could mitigate some of the stability issues. Mr. Thompson referenced a study completed years ago which indicated landslides generally happen on slopes higher than 30%. He Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 4 reviewed the process used to determine whether a parcel could accommodate structures and shared comparisons to other slide areas within the City. He addressed how the stability of the slope was determined and indicated the proposed new development was an improved desi gn from the original plan and based on an engineering standpoint would be sufficient.
Councilmember Bloxham requested clarification whether the plan presented to the Council was different from what had been reviewed by Geostrata and Mr. Thompson responde d in the affirmative. He continued to explain t he original plan was reviewed and expressed his opinion the improved design had also met safety standards. Councilmember Bloxham expressed concern Geostrata hadn’t seen and reviewed the final product presented to the City Council and questioned Staff whether this was a typical
d also met safety standards. Councilmember Bloxham expressed concern Geostrata hadn’t seen and reviewed the final product presented to the City Council and questioned Staff whether this was a typical process. Mr. Jackson responded a final plan had been submitted which could have moved forward to the City Council and the developer chose to revise that plan. He continued to explain the City’s process that if no substantial changes were identified by Staff, the resubmitted plan didn’t require additional review by Geostrata. He informed the Council, Staff had completed a substantive review process and indicated it considered all addendums to the original plan. Mr. Thompson also explained Geostrata’s role with assisting City Staff in the decision making process and stated this was a common practice. He clarified they completed a review of the stability of the slopes as opposed to the layout of the structures. He added Geostr ata didn’t draft a formal letter; however, representatives did meet with Staff to discuss the review and clarified the addendums weren’t substantial enough for them to complete a second review.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson requested clarification with t he identified fault line. Mr. Thompson explained what generally happened during an earthquake and spoke to the studies which take place associated with an identified fault scarp line . He also explained the philosophy used to determine the acceptable build zone for development and identified the fault setback area on the illustration .
Councilmember Smith Edmondson mentioned an earlier comment specific to the design for the development in that it wasn’t his favorite and requested he share his opinion for th e development. Mr.
tion .
Councilmember Smith Edmondson mentioned an earlier comment specific to the design for the development in that it wasn’t his favorite and requested he share his opinion for th e development. Mr.
Thompson responded he would have implemented something similar to what was now being proposed : relocating the homes to an area which didn’t require a significant large fill pad and continued to explain best practices followed by engineer s when constructing homes near a slope.
The Council expressed appreciation to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Seal for their attendance and Mayor Petro requested they be available for the City Council Meeting immediately following the Work Meeting.
ADOPT A TENTAT IVE BUDGET FOR LAYTON CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 5 JULY 1, 2025, AND ENDING JUNE 30 , 2026, AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING – RESOLUTION 25-28 Tracy Probert, Finance Director, indicated he would be sharing some slides during the regular City Council M eetin g. He mentioned the Surf ‘n Swim dome replacement project of $1.1 million reflected as a General Fund project in the Tentative Budget and the Andy Adams Park restroom project of $700,000 was reflected as a RAMP (Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks) project . He explained the Surf ‘n Swim project hadn’t requested RAMP funding because that funding source had already met the budget appropriation for this year. Additionally, there was a question as to whether the project would be considered ‘maintenance’ or ‘Cap ital Project’. As Staff further reviewed these two expenditures it was determined the Surf ‘n Swim dome project met the criteria for a Capital Project; therefore, he was
nsidered ‘maintenance’ or ‘Cap ital Project’. As Staff further reviewed these two expenditures it was determined the Surf ‘n Swim dome project met the criteria for a Capital Project; therefore, he was recommend ing the Council consider the use of RAMP funding for both of these projects . He reminded the Council the RAMP Tax would be voted on by registered voters in this upcoming General Election and shared scenarios of the RAMP Fund, including this expenditure, if it was approved by the voters and also if it wasn’t approved. He shared a RA MP f unding overview with the Council and explained how this expenditure would affect that fund balance and expressed his opinion it could accommodate the request and continue to fund grant project requests from outside entities. He pointed out this proposa l hadn’t been included in the Tentative Budget and Staff could make those adjustments to the Final Budget.
Mr. Probert continued to review the General Fund Balance without funding the Surf ‘n Swim project.
David Price , Parks and Recreation Director, adde d this would be the largest ask on behalf of the City, in addition to the restroom project . A discussion followed and Mr. Price pointed out the RAMP C ommittee hadn’t seen the Surf ‘n Swim request because one wasn’t submitted.
Mr. Probert explained the wa ve machine was also on the RAMP request list; however, he proposed a budget amendment to this year’s budget to allow Staff t he opportunity t o order the parts allowing its installation prior to the summer season. The discussion continued. The Council direct ed Mr. Probert to proceed with his recommendations .
ADOPTION OF THE 20 24 LAYTON CITY – MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER PLANNING PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT – RESOLUTION 25 -25
iscussion continued. The Council direct ed Mr. Probert to proceed with his recommendations .
ADOPTION OF THE 20 24 LAYTON CITY – MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER PLANNING PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT – RESOLUTION 25 -25 Stephen Jackson, Public Works Director, reminded the Council , the State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality, required the City to complete an annual report specific to the City’s w astewater system. He reviewed some highlights and assured the Council the City’s system Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 6 was in excellen t position. He shared specifics associated with the collection system.
APPROVE AN EASEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT – RESOLUTION 25 -29 – APPROXIMATELY 502 NORTH PEREGRINE DRIVE Clint Drake, City Attorney, reminded the Council of initial discussions associate d with the easement of property from the Peacefield Subdivision HOA (Homeowner’s Association) . He reminded the Council of the history associated with the acquisition of the parcel. He explain ed the property owner’s request and informed the Council an agree ment signed by the Homeowner’s Association would come before the Council during tonight’s regularly scheduled Council M eeting.
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER AND/OR COMPETENCY OF AN INDIVIDUAL(S), PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURCHASE, SALE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY, WATER RIGHTS OR SHARES, AND/OR DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS AS PERMITTED UNDER UTAH CODE §52 -4-205 This agenda item was not addressed by the Council during the Work Meeting. The C losed Meeting took place following the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson requested further discussion regarding resident concerns expressed at
Work Meeting. The C losed Meeting took place following the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson requested further discussion regarding resident concerns expressed at the beginning of the meeting and would prefer the Closed Meeting take pla ce after all other issues had been discussed.
The Council discussed the following items: Innovative Dance Company Mr. Applonie stated Innovative Dance applied for a Business License in August 2024 which was subsequently reviewed by Staff. A letter was s ent explaining why the establishment wasn’t compliant with City Code and requested further clarification on behalf of the business owner. He clarified emails from City Staff with links to the City’s portal had been sent and received and provided a brief hi story on behalf of the City Staff. He identified the reasons the property wasn’t compliant with the proposed use and informed the Council he had denied the Business License based on the non -compliance.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 7 He informed the Council , Staff was considering other options for the property use and subsequent Business License. He mentioned Staff had informed the applicant the City would hold off any legal enforcement during the interim and a discussion followed. Alex Jensen, City Manager, also pointed out improvement s to the building/property continued to take place after denial of the Business License.
Financial issues regarding the Kayscreek Estates sidewalk project Councilmember Smith Edmondson clarified some residents had already paid the City for their respect ive portion of the project. Councilmember Bloxham believed the project was due to exceptional
project Councilmember Smith Edmondson clarified some residents had already paid the City for their respect ive portion of the project. Councilmember Bloxham believed the project was due to exceptional circumstances and stated he would be in favor of the City providing the financial portion for the mandatory tree removal and sidewalk repair project. He didn’t be lieve this action would set a precedent for future projects. Councilmember Roberts expressed agreement he would be in favor of the City paying for removal of the mandatory trees only and a discussion followed .
Mr. Jensen informed the Council he had been approached by residents within the subdivision which had assumed responsibility for tree removal and sidewalk repairs prior to the C ity completing the project and inquired whether repayment for that needed to be built in with the project costs and the discussion continued . Mr. Jackson also pointed out there were residents who chose to remove mandatory trees on their own in order to sav e on those costs and the discussion continued. Councilmember Thomas wouldn’t be in favor of or comfortable with the City assuming all costs for this situation only and the discussion continued. The Council determined further discussion regarding this issue would be needed.
Mayor Petro requested Staff be prepared to present various scenarios and respective costs specific to the various scenarios in which reimbursement would be a consideration, including those residents who had completed the repair project on their own.
Mr. Drake read from the Kayscreek HOA (Homeowner’s Association) and CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) implemented with its establishment for the development many years ago
on their own.
Mr. Drake read from the Kayscreek HOA (Homeowner’s Association) and CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) implemented with its establishment for the development many years ago which directly addressed the residents’ responsibilit ies respective to possible removing and replacement of the existing trees. He explained that some residents had completed the repair project on their own over prior years.
Layton High School Drumline In the essence of time, Mayor Petro suggested this dis cussion would need to take place during a future meeting.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, May 1, 2025 8 The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Kimberly S Read , City Recorder Minut es of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 MINUTES OF LAYTON CITY COUNCIL WORK MEETING JUNE 5, 2025; 5:34 P.M.
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOY PETRO , ZACH BLOXHAM, CLINT MORRIS, TYSON ROBERTS, BETTINA SMITH EDMONDSON, AND DAVE THOMAS STAF F PRESENT: ALEX JENSEN , CLINT DRAKE , STEPHEN JACKSON , TRACY PROBERT, BRAD MCILRATH, DAVID PRICE , KIMBERLY ZYGMANT, ED FRAZIER, AND KIM READ The meeting was held in the Council Conference Room of the Layton City Center.
Mayor Petro opened the meeting .
AGENDA: MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Petro announced she had a ttended the retirement social for Nathan Rich, Executive Director , and Juli McIntosh, Clerk, for Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District .
She also announced North Davis Sewer District’s (N DSD ) Board meeting was scheduled for next week and informed the Council the Marriott property in northern Weber County currently accepting the bio solids,
o announced North Davis Sewer District’s (N DSD ) Board meeting was scheduled for next week and informed the Council the Marriott property in northern Weber County currently accepting the bio solids, had been ‘earmarked’ as part of the Inland Port . Due to that fact the District was in the process of acquiring property for this purpose.
COUNCIL MEMBER ’S REPORT S Councilmember Bloxham mentioned he would be attending a UTOPIA Board meeting on Monday, June 9, 2025.
Councilmember Roberts announced Parks and Recreation was busy with various summer activities including Liberty Days, the City’s Fourth of July celebration. He mentioned the Parks and Recreation Commission had some new members and were anxious to become inv olved. He announced the Voices of Liberty concert was scheduled for Sunday, June 29, 2025 , in the Kenley Amphitheater.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 2 Mayor Petro reminded the Council it would be involved with recognizing and honoring the selected Hometown Heroes on Monday, June 16, an d Tuesday, June 17 , 2025.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson informed the Council she would be attending the prevention conference in conjunction with t he Layton Communities That Care (CTC) next week in Bryce Canyon. She anticipated she would have an update to share after that. She also announced the Faces and Places Initiative highlighted by Utah League of Cities and Towns ( ULCT ) and suggested this would be a great opportunity to promote the City and connect with the legislative delegation.
Mayor Petro men tioned she , and Alex Jensen, City Manager, had attended Governor Cox’s event on housing and a discussion followed.
ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 -2026 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE
Mayor Petro men tioned she , and Alex Jensen, City Manager, had attended Governor Cox’s event on housing and a discussion followed.
ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 -2026 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE Tracy Probert, Finance Director, shared a visual presentation specific to the proposed budget and stated there would be two public hearings. He pointed out the Council wasn’t being asked to adopt the budget tonight, but accept comments during the public he aring, continue the public hearing until Thursday, June 19, 2025, and adopt the budget during that meeting. This process allowed the public to express concerns and allow time for the Council and/or Staff to address those and make any necessary adjustments.
He reviewed the following highlights of the proposed budget: No property tax increase was proposed; although the Certified Tax Rate wasn’t yet known. He stated that would be published prior to the meeting on June 19, 2025.
Sewer rate increase by North D avis Sewer District (NDSD) ($2.50) and the City ($2.64) for a total increase to residents of $5.14. The City would also be proposing an increase of approximately the same amount in next year’s budget and the following year the NDSD would propose another increase of $2.50.
He briefly reviewed changes to the Tentative Budget: General Fund wages increase in the Fire Department for overtime and promotions for Staff associated with the opening of Station 54.
Emergency M anagement funds moved out of Management Services to Fire Department Election cost increase due to new State Law Pool dome project from General Fund to the RAMP (Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks) Fund
d out of Management Services to Fire Department Election cost increase due to new State Law Pool dome project from General Fund to the RAMP (Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks) Fund Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 3 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) was more than originally anticipated Wave Machine mo ved from FY26 Budget to FY25 Budget to allow that to be ordered and installed before fall He explained the second public hearing associated with the budget was due to new l egislation which required a separate public hearing specific to Municipal Executive Compensation Increases and reviewed those positions. He pointed out the compensation for these employees were adjusted in the same manner as all other City employees; based on an annual market analysis, cost of living adjustment, and a merit adjustment. A discussion followed.
There were no additional questions from the Council .
SUPPORT FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF AN OPINION QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 2025, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT REGARDING A RECREATION, ARTS, MUSEUM, AND PARKS (RAMP) TAX TO LAYTON CITY RESIDENTS – RESOLUTION 25 -37 David Price , Parks and Recreation Director, and Kimberly Zygmant , Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, shared a visual presentation regarding the proposed resolution. Mr. Price explained Resolut ion 25-37 would allow the City to place the opinion question on the General Election ba llot in November. He directed the Council to the proposed ballot language included within the resolution and reviewed it with the Council. He indicated a public hearing would take place during a future meeting in September or October allowing the public to make comment on the proposed RAMP tax .
lution and reviewed it with the Council. He indicated a public hearing would take place during a future meeting in September or October allowing the public to make comment on the proposed RAMP tax .
Councilmember Morris inquired what would happen if Davis County chose to impose a RAMP Tax. Mr.
Price responded statute wouldn’ t allow Davis County and Layton City to both impose a RAMP Tax and explained Davis County had chosen to allow cities the opportunity to impose the RAMP Tax.
Kimberly Zygmant shared a visual presentation illustrating how RAMP had benefitted Layton City an d highlighted the number of grants, dollar amount of grants, and various pro jects funded by the RAMP Tax .
A discussion followed regarding the differences of the allocated amount to recipients from year to year.
REZONE REQUEST – REZONE FROM CP -1 (PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND R -S (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO A (AGRICULTURE) – ORDINANCE 25 -10 – Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 4 APPROXIMATELY 1313 NORTH 2625 EAST Brad McIlrath, City Planner, informed the Council the rezone was applicable to the Gordon Avenue/Highway 89 Town Center properties. He explained UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) had received directive to dispose of properties , the City had previously negotiated would n’t take place until the City had zoning designation already in place. The City was still in the process of establishing and designating what that zone would resemble. As a result of UDOT’s sudden interest to sell the parcels, the current zoning had been e valuated, as well as the significant work put forth in creating the Town Center Master Plan identified in the General Plan. Staff concluded the best route moving forward would be to
zoning had been e valuated, as well as the significant work put forth in creating the Town Center Master Plan identified in the General Plan. Staff concluded the best route moving forward would be to rezone the properties to that of the larger parcel, Agriculture, and revie wed what that could allow. He shared an illustration which identified the parcels proposed to be rezoned, highlighted in yellow.
He clarified the rezone should be considered an interim step until the properties were developed as a future Town Center and shared an overview which identified what the rezone would include: Layton Forward General Plan which designated the area for a Town Center Gordon Avenue and Highway 89 – Town Center Master Plan was adopted in March 2024 Rezoning of all UDOT properties to A griculture City Staff would be drafting a TC -1 (Neighborhood Town Center) Zone for future development of a Town Center.
He mentioned Staff had been in the process of drafting a Development Agreement with UDOT specific to the parcels prior to the City lear ning of UDOT’s decision to dispose of the parcels. He further explained as part of the auctioning of the parcels, UDOT requested a letter be provided by the City identifying its intentions for the development and expectations of the developer. He emphasize d the letter would address the timing of commercial and residential development to ensure the commercial component was initially developed and completed prior to the residential.
Councilmember Morris inquired about UDOT’s decision to no longer be willing to proceed with being a party in a development agreement as opposed to a letter stating the City’s intent . Mr. McIlrath responded
member Morris inquired about UDOT’s decision to no longer be willing to proceed with being a party in a development agreement as opposed to a letter stating the City’s intent . Mr. McIlrath responded attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office had indicated UDOT didn’t participate in land use decisions nor land development . A d iscussion regarding the sale of the parcels followed.
Clint Drake, City Attorney, suggested the zoning designation and letter of expectations was the closest thing to a development agreement which provided direction for the property to be uniformly developed. He pointed out the opportunity to the developer to be a participant with crafting the zoning designation.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 5 Councilmember Bloxham expressed concern the developer could potentially sell small parcels after acquiring the property and developing only a portion. Mr. Drake responded the developer would be required to enter into a development agreement in conjunction with the rezone for development which would address that scenario. The discussion continued.
REZONE REQUEST WITH CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOP MENT AGREEMENT – HOBBS CREEK VILLAS PRUD – REZONE FROM R -S (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO R -1-10 PRUD (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT) – RESOLUTION 25 -16 AND ORDINANCE 25 -08 – APPROXIMATELY 3265 NORTH HOBBS CREEK DRIVE Mr. McI lrath introduced the agenda item and informed the Council of the developer’s modifications to the proposed development since the last meeting of Thursday, May 15, 2025. He reported Staff had visited the site and shared an illustration which provided context for lot lines in comparison to the location of the
evelopment since the last meeting of Thursday, May 15, 2025. He reported Staff had visited the site and shared an illustration which provided context for lot lines in comparison to the location of the downslope from the corners of lots, which reflected the area was relatively flat land. He shared visual illustration s which identified the modifications for specific lots within the propos ed development and explained how homes would be constructed on the various lots. He also shared illustrations of foundation examples which provided additional clarification with how the home s could be safely constructed on the various lots. A discussion fo llowed.
Mr. Jensen pointed out removing the corners for the proposed constructed homes forced the homes to be further away from the slope, as the Council had requested. He concluded this small positive change wouldn’t compromise the quality or cohesivene ss for the proposed subdivision. The discussion continued.
Stephen Jackson, Public Works Director, explained the development had met all standard of care and factors of safety for slab on grade homes, and addition ally the homes with requested basement s, based upon engineering standards. Mr. Jensen believed the developer had been very responsive to the Council’s requests and the discussion continued.
Councilmember Smith Ed mondson requested Staff share the LiDAR image of the entire area proposed for const ruction of homes and the adjacent areas as a matter of comparison specific to the existing slopes. Mr.
McIlrath responded that illustration could be shared during the City Council Meeting scheduled to immediately follow the Work Meeting. Councilmember Smit h Edmondson believed it would be
g slopes. Mr.
McIlrath responded that illustration could be shared during the City Council Meeting scheduled to immediately follow the Work Meeting. Councilmember Smit h Edmondson believed it would be advantageous to compare the two different LiDAR illustrations , as well as the other visual representations of Staff during the site visit.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 5, 2025 6 CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER AND/OR COMPETENCY OF AN INDIVIDUAL(S), PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURCHASE, SALE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY, WATER RIGHTS OR SHARES, AND/OR DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS AS PERMITTED UNDER UTAH CODE 52 -4-205 CLOSED MEETING: MOTION: Council member Smith Edmondson moved to adjourn the meeting and convene in a closed meeting at 6: 46 p.m. to discuss the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real Property, Including Any Form of a Water Right or Water Shares. Councilmember Roberts seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Bloxham moved to open the meeting at 6: 54 p.m. Councilmember Smith Edmo ndson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
Kimberly S Read , City Recorder SWORN STATEMENT The undersigned hereby swears and affirms, pursuant to Section 52 -4-205(1) of the Utah Code Annotated, that the sole purpose for the closed meeting of the Layton City Council on the 5th day of June, 2025 , was to discuss the Purchase, Exchange, or Lease of Real Property, Including Any Form of a Water Right or Water Shares.
Dated this 6th day of November , 2025.
ATTEST: JOY PETRO, Mayo r KIMBERLY S READ, City Recorder
m of a Water Right or Water Shares.
Dated this 6th day of November , 2025.
ATTEST: JOY PETRO, Mayo r KIMBERLY S READ, City Recorder Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 MINUTES OF LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 5, 202 5; 7:00 P.M.
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOY PETRO, ZACH BLOXHAM , CLINT MORRIS, TYSON ROBERTS, BETTINA SMITH EDMONDSON, AND DAVE THOMAS STAFF PRESENT: ALEX JENSEN , CLINT DRAKE , BRAD MCILRATH, LON CROWELL, TRACY PROBERT, STEPHEN JACKSON, DAVID PRICE, KIMBERLY ZYGMANT, AND KIM READ The meeting was held in the Council Chambers of the Layton City Center.
Mayor Petro opened the meeting and welcomed the public . Karen Smith, resident, offered the invocation .
Councilmember Roberts led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES: MOTION: Councilmember Roberts moved and Councilmember Smith Edmondson seconded to approve the minutes of: Layton City Council Work Meeting – February 20 , 2025.
The vote was unanimous to approve the minutes as written.
MUNICIPAL EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilmember Roberts announced the many activities being planned for July. He specifically mentioned Fourth of July activities could be found on the City’s website under ‘Liberty Days ’. He also men tioned The ‘Voices of Liberty’ patriotic concert was scheduled for Sunday, June 29, 2025, at the Amphitheater. The Hometown Heroes would also be announced that evening . He announced the application period for parade floats had been extended and directed the public to the Parks and Recreation Department. The Layton City Rotary Club would also be serving breakfast for $7 the morning of the 4th in the Amphitheater Plaza. M ayor
n extended and directed the public to the Parks and Recreation Department. The Layton City Rotary Club would also be serving breakfast for $7 the morning of the 4th in the Amphitheater Plaza. M ayor Petro announced all proceeds from the breakfast went back into the community.
Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 2 Mayor Petro announced the Father’s Day Swim was scheduled for Saturday, June 14, 2025, at Surf’n Swim for a reduced rate.
Councilmember Bloxham announced the ‘ Filing for Candidacy ’ period was open until 5:00 PM tomorrow , Friday, June 6, 2025 for the 2025 Municipal Election.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson mentioned Davis Arts Council’s Free Friday Films had begun. All movies would begin at 7:00 pm in the Amphitheater. She added Layton F .E.S.T. (Farmer s, Entertain ment , Shopping, and Trucks) would begin Friday, July 11, in Constitution Circle.
Mayor Petro announced Davis Arts Council’s Summer Night s with the Stars concerts would begin next week with the first concert, K C and the Sunshine Band , Monday, June 9, 2025.
Councilmember Thomas also mentioned the Davis Arts Council’s Free Sunday Evening Co ncerts in the Amphitheater would begin on Sunday, June 8, 2025.
PRESENTATIONS: There were no presentations.
CITIZEN COM MENTS: Kelly Craythorne, resident, reminded the Council several residents had previously expressed concern regarding the blind corner along Gordon Avenue and 2125 East approximately two years ago and described issues associated with the intersection . He reported most residents had now chosen to no longer use that access in order to avoid the dangerous intersection and reminded the Council residents had pleaded for a roundabout at
e intersection . He reported most residents had now chosen to no longer use that access in order to avoid the dangerous intersection and reminded the Council residents had pleaded for a roundabout at this location . He described a personal experience of a near miss collis ion. He expressed his opinion the traffic light at Emerald was not needed and requested the City identify what it had considered to remedy the issues or concerns previously expressed by residents.
Paul H ubenthal, resident, announce d the ribbon cutting fo r the newly renovated Davis Shooti ng Range venue, located on the e ast bench in Kaysville City, would open on Saturday , June 28 , 2025, from 10:00 AM -2:00 PM.
He indicated this would be a free event and described the various activities which would be taking place.
CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 3 SUPPORT FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PLACEMENT OF AN OPINION QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 2025, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT REGARDING A RECREATION, ARTS, MUSEUM, AND PARKS (RAMP) TAX TO LAYTON CITY RESIDENTS – RESOL UTION 25 -37 David Price, Parks and Recreation Director, announced the agenda item and explained Resolution 25 -37 would authorize the placement of an opinion question on the November 4, 2025 General Election ballot, to authorize the continued imposition of a one te nth of one percent sales and use tax to fund the City’s Recreation, Arts, Museums, and Parks (RAMP) improvements, facilities, and organizations. He reminded the Council, Layton City voters approved the local sales and use tax to support the RAMP initiative in 2015 and reported the one penny for every $10 spent within Layton City had provided over $16 million in revenue specifically for RAMP
ed the local sales and use tax to support the RAMP initiative in 2015 and reported the one penny for every $10 spent within Layton City had provided over $16 million in revenue specifically for RAMP uses, benefitting Layton City residents. This 10 -year authorization was set to expire and in accordance with Utah Code, the City desired to submit an opinion question to voters to authorize the continuation of the local sales and use tax of one tenth of one percent. He emphasized the approval, or re -authorization, would not raise residents’ tax rates .
The Council ap proved Resolution 25 -09 on Thursday, March 6, 2015, providing notification to the Davis County Commission of its intent to submit an opinion question to Layton City residents regarding a RAMP tax. The Davis County Commission unanimously adopted its Resolut ion 2025 -371 declaring its intent to not impose a similar tax during its meeting on Thursday, March 27, 2025.
Layton City’s Mayor and Council support the placement of the opinion question on the ballot, giving an opportunity for both sides of the question to express their opinion. Staff recommended approval of Resolution 25-37, authorizing the placement of a RAMP tax opinion question on the November 2025 ballot.
Kimberly Zygmant, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, shared a visual presenta tion illustrating how the RAMP t ax had benefitted programs and facilities in Layton City. She shared an illustration whic h identified the amount of grant funding appropriated each year and the various areas which receiving funding allocations.
She shared a collage of photos illustrating just a few of the programming and facilities funded by the RAMP tax.
Councilmember Blox ham inquired about the proposed language on the ballot and suggested whether the term
ge of photos illustrating just a few of the programming and facilities funded by the RAMP tax.
Councilmember Blox ham inquired about the proposed language on the ballot and suggested whether the term ‘reauthorization’ would be beneficial. Mr. Price explained how the decision had been determined specific to the language. Councilmember Bloxham pointed out public comment regarding the proposed RAMP tax would Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 4 be scheduled during a future City Council meeting and requested the same presentation be shared during that meeting. M r. Price emphasized the public would also ha ve the opportunity to submit arguments for and against the opinion question.
Councilmember Morris requested clarification specific to promoting the RAMP tax. Mr. Price pointed out City Staff’s role would be to provide information and stated employees weren’t allowed to campaign for the RAMP tax. H e mentioned there was an organized and active RAMP PIC (Political Issues Committee) promoting the RAMP opinion question. He clarified Staff would provide requested information and elected officials could express their respective opinions, as they choose.
Councilmem ber Roberts shared his opinion RAMP contributed to fostering ‘community’ within the City , created spaces for entertainment , and recreation for families . He suggested one of its benefits might even deter various crimes. He expressed appreciation for Staff’s visual presentation.
Councilmember Smit h Edmondson also expressed appreciation for the presentation and stated the services and benefits fr om RAMP were beneficial to the c ommunity .
Mayor Petro emphasized the funding could only be appropriated for the four designated entities and mentioned
tation and stated the services and benefits fr om RAMP were beneficial to the c ommunity .
Mayor Petro emphasized the funding could only be appropriated for the four designated entities and mentioned the RAMP Commission determined the appropriated funding.
BID AWARD – ORMOND CONSTRUCTION, INC. – LAYTONA STORM DRAIN, PROJECT 22 -11 – RESOL UTION 25 -38 – VARIOUS LOCATIONS BETWEEN 1050 NORTH TO 1200 NORTH AND ANGEL S TREET TO 1640 WEST Stephen Jackson, P ublic Works Director, introduced the agenda item and explained Resolution 25-38 would award a bid and authorize an agreement with Ormond Construction for the Laytona Storm Drain project and identified the scope of the project. He announced three bids were received, with Ormond Construction submitting the lowest responsive, respo nsible bid in the amount of $1,598,817.27. The engineer’s estimate was $1,575,918.50.
He shared a visual illustration which identified the location of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the resolution and asked if there were any question s.
Councilmember Thomas inquired whether collection boxes were included in the project and Mr. Jackson responded in the affirmative.
Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 5 Councilmember Roberts clarified curb and gutter already existed in the area and Mr. Jackson responded in the affirmativ e.
APPROVE OF A LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BETWEEN LAYTON CITY AND AVOCET MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, BRETWOOD HOMES, LLC AND HALO MANAGEMENT, LLC, FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY – RESOLUTION 25 -39 – APPROXIMATELY 175 EAST 1800 NORTH Mr. Jackson introduced the agenda item and shared a visual illustration which identified the current public
HE PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY – RESOLUTION 25 -39 – APPROXIMATELY 175 EAST 1800 NORTH Mr. Jackson introduced the agenda item and shared a visual illustration which identified the current public works facility and the parcel proposed for purchase. He explained Staff had been negotiating with the current property owners of the parcel for approximately two years. The resolution would authorize the City to purchase the parcel for future expansion of the City’s public works facility. He identified the purchase price of $3,873, 360 for the property and recommended approval.
He asked if th ere were any questions and there were none.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION – LOVE’S VALLEY VIEW SUBDIVISION – RESOLUTION 25 -13 – APPROXIMATELY 940 NORTH EAST SIDE DRIVE Brad McIlrath, City Planner, shared a visual illustration which identified the location of the parcel proposed for annexation and surrounding zoning uses. He explained the purpose of the annexation would be to facilitate future residential development and indicated it was located with in the City’s Sensitive Land s Area Designation and also on a fault line. He emphasized t he request of the Council at this time would be to accept the annexation petition.
There were no questions from the council.
MOTION: Councilmember Bloxham move d to approve the Consent Agenda a s presented . Councilmember Morris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 -2026 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 6 Tracy Probert , Finance Director, reminded the Council it adopted the Tentative Budget during its meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2025, and set a public hearing for tonight’s meeting. He stated he wouldn’t be proposing
Finance Director, reminded the Council it adopted the Tentative Budget during its meeting on Thursday, May 1, 2025, and set a public hearing for tonight’s meeting. He stated he wouldn’t be proposing adoption of the budget at this time; rather, allow the pub lic the opportunity to express public comment and continue the public hearing until the next scheduled meeting for Thursday, June 19, 2025. He briefly reviewed highlights of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025 -2026 Budget: No property tax increase was proposed General fund budget was just over $48,9 79,815 Total City -Wide budget was just over $129,825,889 Market, cost of living, and merit adjustments for officers and employees $2,943,581 in Capital Equipment $23,629,902 in Capital Projects (utilities, streets, parks, dispatch, etc.)
Sewer rate increas e proposed by North Davis Sewer District ($2.50) and the City ($2.64) for a total of a $5.14 increase for sanitary sewer He reviewed the following major products included: Emergency communications dispatch center – intergovernmental funding Swimming pool dome Parks projects – RAMP funded Street maintenance Utility projects He stated he was obligated to review any changes since adoption of the Tentative Budget prior to the public hearing : General Fund Increase in General Fund wages for the Fire Department. A large group of fire fighters were hired approximately three years ago when Station 54 was opened , which were now up for promotion.
Emergency Management F unds moved out of Management Services to Fire Department Election cost increase due to new State Law Pool dome project from General Fund to the RAMP (Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks) fund Other Funds Increase in Sewer Fund revenue due to increased rates
tion cost increase due to new State Law Pool dome project from General Fund to the RAMP (Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks) fund Other Funds Increase in Sewer Fund revenue due to increased rates Increase in Sewer F und payments to North Davis Sewer District specific to its rate increase Emergency Medical Fund – increase in overtime and promotions regarding fire fighter personnel Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 7 associated with Station 54 CDBG grant funding Pool dome project Wave machine had been moved from 2026 budget to the current 2025 budget to allow it to be ordered and installed before fall He reviewed the City’s revenue sources and expenditures.
Councilmember Bloxham suggested overtime costs were one -time costs or expenditures where the promotions would be a continuing expenditure. Mr. Probert responded overtime c osts were approximately $90,000.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson commented about the appropriation for the pool dome and expressed appreciation on the foresight of moving that expenditure from the General Fund to the RAMP fund; allowing those funds to be a ppropriated elsewhere when needed.
Mayor Petro opened the public hearing at 7: 54 p.m.
Mayor Petro called for public comment.
There were no public comments.
Mr. Probert clarified the public hearing would remain open until the City Council Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 19, 2025, at which time the Council would need to approve the Budget.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE MUNCIPAL OFFICERS Mr. Probert explained new legislation required a separate public hearing take place specific to annual increases for executive compensation and provided an illustration which identified those positions. He pointed out the
new legislation required a separate public hearing take place specific to annual increases for executive compensation and provided an illustration which identified those positions. He pointed out the increases for these positions were determined and adjusted in the same manner as the increases for all City employees, based on an annual market analysis ; as well as consideration for cost of living and merit adjustments . He also pointed out the increases couldn’t exceed more than five percent.
Councilmember Morris clarified the presented figures were specific to Layton City and not mandated by the Legislature. Mr. Probert responded in the affirmative.
Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 8 Councilmember Smith Edmondson inquired whether the proposed 1.5% cost of living increase had been applicable to all City employees and Mr. Probert responded in the affir mative. She clarified the proposed increases reflected for Executive Compensation were also applicable to City Employees.
Mayor Petro o pened the public hearing at 7: 58 p.m.
Mayor Petro called for public comment.
Daniella Harding, resident, inquired a bout the process used to determine the merit increase for employees and who determined the amount of the merit increase.
Mr. Probert responded every employee proceed ed through an annual review process and explained each step of that process.
Councilmem ber Smith Edmondson inquired whether there would be an instance in which an employee might not receive a merit increase and Mr. Probert believed th e employee might be under some disciplinary action and continued to explain specifics associated with the review process.
Councilmember Bloxham requested clarification regarding the market survey used to determine appropriate
some disciplinary action and continued to explain specifics associated with the review process.
Councilmember Bloxham requested clarification regarding the market survey used to determine appropriate pay for employees. Mr. Probert explained the City compared itself to eight different cities of similar size respective to job descriptions for the market study.
MOTION: Councilmember Roberts moved to close the public hearing at 8:06 PM. Councilmember Bloxham seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
REZONE REQUEST – REZONE FROM CP -1 (PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND R -S (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO A (AGRICULTURE) – ORDINANCE 25 -10 – APPROXIMATELY 1313 NORTH 2625 EAST Brad McIlrath, City Planner, introduced the agenda item and shared a visual illustration which identified the location of the parcel and indicated it was known as the Gordon Avenue/Highway 89 Town Center area . He referenced an illustration and pointed out the larger parcel which was currently zoned Agriculture . The subject properties to the north, were currently zoned CP -1 (Planned Neighborhood Commercial) and R -S (Residential Suburban), and were proposed to be rezoned to Agriculture , to mirror zoning for the to wn center area .
Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 9 He reminded the Council how UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) had originally acquired the parcels and determined they were no longer needed. He emphasized this would be a preparatory step by the City to establish a zone for the tow n center area prior to UDOT disposing of the parcels. He shared an overview specific to the properties and reported the Layton Forward General Plan ha d identified this specific
h a zone for the tow n center area prior to UDOT disposing of the parcels. He shared an overview specific to the properties and reported the Layton Forward General Plan ha d identified this specific area/ property as a town center. In March 2024 the Council adopted the Town Cent er Master Plan for this particular town center, which included a robust public outreach process to identify a shared community vision for the town center. He emphasized the rezone request would be an interim step to ensure properties were developed togethe r in the future as a town center. He reported City Staff was in the process of drafting a TC -1 (Neighborhood Town Center) zone for the future development of a town center at this location. This would allow the City to draft the ordinance for the Town Cente r zoning.
Staff recommended approval and h e asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Bloxham requested M r. McIlrath identify how the funds associated with the sale of th e properties would be used. Mr. McIlrath explained UDOT’s processes associated with property acquisition and disposal and indicated it would re -appropriate the funds for future capital improvement road projects.
Councilm ember Smith Edmondson suggested the rezone to Agriculture would prevent the property from being developed under the current zoning classifications by any potential buyer and Mr. M cIlrath responded in the affirmative. He pointed out the small parcel owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints which was used as a parki ng lot for the adjacent meetinghouse would remain in the CP -1 zone.
Mayor Petro opened the public hearing at 8 :14 p.m.
Mayor Petro called for public comment.
Karen Smith, resident, expressed appreciation to Mr. McIlrath and Weston Applonie, Community and
P -1 zone.
Mayor Petro opened the public hearing at 8 :14 p.m.
Mayor Petro called for public comment.
Karen Smith, resident, expressed appreciation to Mr. McIlrath and Weston Applonie, Community and Economic Development Director, for willingness to provide information to concerned residents. Interested residents were concerned that the provided public input pertaining to development of the town center be considered when the property was purchased by a dev eloper . She emphasized that when the property was sold by UDOT to a developer, the TC -1 (Town Center) Master Plan zoning would be clearly presented to said developer and that it would be held to the identified standards.
Mr. McIlrath expressed a ppreciation to Ms. Smith for her participation throughout the process. He responded information had been provided to UDOT, that the City expected its intent for that property and area, as well as Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 10 the City’s General Plan and Town Center Master Plan would be provided to any potential buyer/developer.
The City wanted to ensure all those considering the property, or interested in purchasing the property would recognize the City’s intent. He mentioned City Staff had already had conversations with interested part ies which had already received the Plan from UDOT. He added UDOT had been a helpful partner with this endeavor.
Ms. Smith shared a personal experience from her time serving as a legislator and pointed out there were oftentimes ‘legislative intent languag e’ and unless something had been clearly written, the intent could be disregarded and inquired whether intent was binding. Mr. McIlrath responded the intent provided to UDOT by
islative intent languag e’ and unless something had been clearly written, the intent could be disregarded and inquired whether intent was binding. Mr. McIlrath responded the intent provided to UDOT by the City outlined everything the City desired within the town center and one of the requirements of the TC -1 zone would be for a development agreement between the future developer and the City. He added the mutual agreement would bind both parties for the development.
Michael Christensen, resident, stated he wasn’t opposed to the p roposed rezone and suggested the City consider garage d parking within the TC -1 zoning as opposed to surface parking to encourage walkability throughout the town center .
MOTION: Councilmember Smith Edmondson moved to close the public hearing at 8:19 PM and approve the rezone request from CP -1 (Planned Neighborhood Commercial) and R -S (Residential Suburban) to A (Agriculture) – Approximately 1313 North 2625 East, as presented, Ordinance 25-10. Councilmember Roberts seconded the motion . The motion passed w ith the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Thomas, Smith Edmondson, Morris, Bloxham, and Roberts . Voting NO – None.
REZONE REQUEST WITH CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – HOBBS CREEK VILLAS PRUD – REZONE FROM R -S (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO R-1-10 PRUD (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEVELOPMENT) – RESOLUTION 25 -16 AND ORDINANCE 25 -08 – APPROXIMATELY 3265 NORTH HOBBS CREEK DRIVE Mr. McIl rath reminded the Council this item was a continuation from previously held Council Meetings on Thursday, April 10, 2025, Thursday, May 1, 2025, and Thursday, May 15, 2025. He shared a visual illustration
reminded the Council this item was a continuation from previously held Council Meetings on Thursday, April 10, 2025, Thursday, May 1, 2025, and Thursday, May 15, 2025. He shared a visual illustration and oriented the Council to the location of the parcel. He explained the rezone request would rezone the subject property from R -S (Res idential Suburban) to R -1-10 PRUD ( Planned Residential Unit Development). He explained the request for the PRUD zone would allow for clustering of the homes in order to mitigate impacts with the sensitive lands in the area; otherwise the zoning would be th e same as the surrounding neighborhoods Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 11 and shared an illustration of the adjacent neighborhoods as well as other adjacent properties. He shared a visual illustration of the submitted concept plan which identified the proposed development , with the PRUD zo ning designation, pointing out the development proposed 27 individual lots. He spoke to the layout of the roadways and the connections, the open space, including Parcel B, which addressed the sensitive land issues specific to water on the site.
He shared some visual illustrations of Staff addressing concerns expressed by members of the Council regarding a few of the lots . He reminded the Council the applicant had requested the item be tabled to tonight’s meeting from the May 15, 2025 City Council Meeting for the purpose of addressing the expressed concerns.
He identified the locations of some designated lots and the illustration of the downslope which reflected no significant slope or grade for specific lots. He also referred to the building lots which the developer had made
tions of some designated lots and the illustration of the downslope which reflected no significant slope or grade for specific lots. He also referred to the building lots which the developer had made modifications to in order to address concerns of the public and City Council and identified the modifications .
He continued to share an example of a home footprint which illustrated how the custom homes could still be constructed on the modified building pad.
Mr. McIlrath shared a LiDAR Slope map illustration of the proposed development, prior to the developer’s modifications, which reflected the percentage of the slope . He pointed out the modifications to certain building pads ensured they were clearly outside of the 30% slope area. He spoke to the intentionality of the development and the purpose for clustering the single family homes , which the PRUD allowed, and indicated this was an appropriate development for the parcels. He pointe d out the property could be rezoned to R -1-10 and attempt to devel op the entire site; however, in an effort to construct homes compatible with the sensitive lands ordinance, the clustering and the PRUD overlay would be appropriate. He shared examples for foundation s which illustrated the distance from the slope which reflected it was within acceptable engineering ranges or levels of acceptance , even prior to the additional five foot separation. He then shared the same illustration of the foundation reflecti ng the five foot separation.
He continued to share illustrations provided by JoEllen Grandy, P arks Planner , which demonstrated the screening and a buffer that would be included with the proposed trail.
He asked if there were any questions.
share illustrations provided by JoEllen Grandy, P arks Planner , which demonstrated the screening and a buffer that would be included with the proposed trail.
He asked if there were any questions.
Councilmem ber Smith Edmondson expressed appreciation to Mr. McIlrath for the presentation and to the developer for taking into consideration the LiDAR in relation to the placement of the homes. She requested Mr. Mc Ilrath address the application to the existing subdi vision. Mr. McIlrath pointed out the City hadn’t adopted the sensitive lands ordinance when the neighboring Heritage Crest subdivision was developed and Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 12 spoke to concerns regarding some of those homes. He emphasized the subdivision had been approved by the best engineering standards at that time.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson expressed appreciation for the explanation and the visual illustration of the actual property proposed for development which provided clarification for her concern when she originally witnessed the LiDAR slope map. She also mentioned the developer’s modification s in conjunction with the foundation illustration was beneficial to her. Mr. McIlrath clarified the Geotechncial Report didn’t require the homes to have basements; rather, that was the developer’s choice, however, the homes would still be safe without being constructed with a basement.
Mayor Petr o opened the public heari ng at 8 :38 p.m.
Mayor Petro called for public comment.
John Hill, resident, suggested there were residents which had the perception there were issues associated with the proposed development that hadn’t been adequately addressed: connecting the trail s ystem in a particular
, suggested there were residents which had the perception there were issues associated with the proposed development that hadn’t been adequately addressed: connecting the trail s ystem in a particular way without regard to the impact, the developer’s profit was of greater importance than the financial considerations of existing and future residents, the impact of traffic specifically to the Andersons. He requested clarification reg arding the City’s intent to develop the trail according to the outlined plan and suggested that hadn’t been adequately addressed and expressed his opinion there was some coercion on the part of the City with the trail. He read statements from the Fifth Ame ndment of the Constitution and the State’s Property Right’s Ombudsman which suggested compensation shoul d be considered to the Anderson s. He shared his personal example regarding the development and construction of his home. He also suggested a third party complete a traffic study and believed more should be considered other than whether the property could support the development.
Justin Anderson, resident, suggested the proposed development would result with his home being similar as in the middle of a r oundabout. He believed the trail could and should be relocated to a better location and suggested the City had access to the vacant property proposed for construction of a parking lot to benefit trail users. He pointed out the current trail location would result in his home being surrounded by public access of one type or another.
Michael Christensen resident, requested the LiDAR Slope Map be displayed and believed the development was initial ly satisfactory but expressed concern at the precedent by reques ting the developer submit something
ensen resident, requested the LiDAR Slope Map be displayed and believed the development was initial ly satisfactory but expressed concern at the precedent by reques ting the developer submit something different when there was nothing wrong with the original concept plan . He spoke to ‘affordable housing ’ and Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 13 believed approving these large lots for homes wouldn’t accomplish that.
Elain e Smith, resident, pointed out the family selling the property had the right to sell their property to the developer.
Claudette M athey, speaking on behalf of the property seller, reported she had sat through three separate meetings and had listened to concerns expressed by neighboring residents and expressed her opinion the se individuals d idn’t want this property sold or develope d. She pointed out the Anderson s bought their home which was already surrounded by three roads. She spoke to the concern of traffic to Hobbs Creek from SR 193 and suggested as more people located to Utah additional traffic would result. She shared an example of another home constructed on a slope. She believed th e issue had become a political issue and suggested positive comments had fallen on deaf ears. She sta ted the property owners had the right to sell their property and the developer had the right to develop the property and believed City requirements had been met.
Daniella Harding, resident, commended the Council for its thoroughness in considering the de velopment and was personally aware of houses which had been compromised due to sliding land. She believed the Council and Staff had done its best to work with the developer for an agreeable conceptual plan. She requested
rsonally aware of houses which had been compromised due to sliding land. She believed the Council and Staff had done its best to work with the developer for an agreeable conceptual plan. She requested clarification whether the foliage i n the illustrations would remain to stabilize the slope and whether the developer had considered a ‘F rench drain’ to drain/ remove water from the properties. She suggested further conversation with the residents was needed regarding the placement of the tra il.
Keith Cisney , resident, expressed his opinion people couldn’t do whatever they wanted with their property; City ordinances dictated requirements. He shared some examples specific to water and development he was familiar with in other cities . He sugge sted the City consider ramifications of the proposed development.
John Wright, resident, stated his home was located on a corner lot and was in a si milar situation as the Anderson s would be. He continued to share his personal experience with trash and van dalism d ue to the adjacent Hobbs Creek Tr ail and suggested th e Anderson s might experience the same.
David Tensmeyer, resident, expressed appreciation to the Mayor and City Council for their patience regarding this issue. He reminded the Council of a comment expressed during a previous meeting by someone in the insurance business which indicated the propo sed homes would be uninsurable. He mentioned the Highway 89 trail underpass and suggested the dirt trail around Hobbs Pond would have less of an impact to several residents with the natural crossing of the Highway. He indicated his home had been constructe d on the edge of the slope, reflected on the LiDAR, and was aware of the risk of slippage. He understood at some time the property would
ighway. He indicated his home had been constructe d on the edge of the slope, reflected on the LiDAR, and was aware of the risk of slippage. He understood at some time the property would Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 14 be developed, but expressed concern at the amount of proposed homes for the development. He continued to express concer n for the Anderson s and future homebuyers in the proposed subdivision.
Timothy Rasmussen, resident, shared examples of individuals which did the ‘right thing’ and suggested the City do the next right thing. He spoke of his experience with developing subd ivisions and was familiar with the Council’s role associated with the approvals.
Brandon Smith, resident, believed the City would be making an exception for th is proposed subdivision , which he didn’t believe was compatible to the adjacent subdivision. He continued to express concern with potential sliding of homes in the future.
Derek Johnson, resident, expressed concern with the proposed density for the proposed development as well as the trail connection. He stated although his family enjoyed trails i n the area , he wouldn’t want the proposed trail to negatively impact his neighbors.
Michael Christensen, resident, commented on the number of comments specific to the density for the proposed subdivision and believed that reducing the density would destr oy affordability.
Cindy Rasmussen, expressed appreciation at the opportunity to address the Council and requested it listen to comments expressed by the existing residents. She reminded the Council of issues experienced by previous homeowners whose homes were compromised due to moving of the slopes. She also spoke to comments
omments expressed by the existing residents. She reminded the Council of issues experienced by previous homeowners whose homes were compromised due to moving of the slopes. She also spoke to comments expressed by residents regarding the insurability of the homes and the location of traffic access points. She suggested changing the zoning to accommodate the proposed homes could ne gatively impact property values to the existing home owner s. She expressed her opinion this wasn’t an appropriate development for this property and requested the Council make an unbiased decision.
Adam Anderson, Anderson Development, expressed appreciatio n to the Council for its due diligence regardin g the agenda item and believed the compromised decision to modify the plan had been beneficial to the development. He mentioned IGES , CMT, and Geostrata , all Geotechnical Engineering f irms, had addressed the stabilization of the hillside. He expressed a desire to respond to questions from the public comments: The existing natural vegetation would remain, as allowed by the City Fire Marshal’s Office, in an effort to preserve the slope.
French drains had been co nsidered and after further review it was determined natural discharge would equally be applied and surface water and infiltration had been the highest safety concern for the development. He emphasized the PRUD density would contribute to controlling the su rface water and Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 15 infiltration.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson referenced a point on the illustration and inquired if that would be additional parking for the development and Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative and identified the
uncilmember Smith Edmondson referenced a point on the illustration and inquired if that would be additional parking for the development and Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative and identified the designated off -street parking facilities for visitors and pointed out the amount of parking for the homes. He reported the proposed development exceed the required parking.
Councilmember Roberts clarified the public streets allowed parking on one side and Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative and identified additional parking for the homes in the cul -de-sacs.
Mayor Petro inquired whether there were additional questions for the developer and there were none. She requested Staff address questions and comments from the public.
Mr. McIlrath addressed the location of the trail and announced the City had considered alternative locations; however, the Kays Creek T rail was intended as a recreational trail located in an urban wildland interface . This created the need to have a wide trail to accommodate a brush truck if needed to fight a fire or to provide access for em ergency vehicle s. He believed the developer did a good job in addressing questions specific to the foliage and use of French drains.
Mr. McIlrath addressed concerns specific to the PRUD and its size. He stated the zoning was consistent with current zonin g in the area and clarified the PRUD was used to cluster the homes because of the sensitive lands designation. He believed the sensitiv e lands use ordinance addressed land movement with slopes .
Mayor Petro inquired whether consideration was given to the trail access being closer to the tunnel and Mr.
McIlrath believed it might have been too steep. Mr. Jackson respond ed Ms. Grandy had followed the T rail
quired whether consideration was given to the trail access being closer to the tunnel and Mr.
McIlrath believed it might have been too steep. Mr. Jackson respond ed Ms. Grandy had followed the T rail Master Plan and he expressed his opinion similar slope challenges would also be applicable to the trail and indicated various alignments had been reviewed over previous years to determine the best alignment.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson requested clarification from Clint Drake, City Attorney, regarding compensation for the Andersons since the property wou ld be surrounded by public accesses and their property rights included in the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Drake responded no ‘taking’ of property was associated with the proposed development.
Councilmember Roberts inquired about the maximum density for a propos ed development on p roperty zoned R-1-10 and Mr. McIlrath believed it would be approximately 3.5 units per acre. He added applying the PRUD Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 16 allowed 4.9 units per acre; however, the proposed subdivision was designed below the allowed R -1-10 zone, below the d ensity allowed by right. He stated these standards were applied equally throughout the City. He indicated the developer had attempted to develop the property under the existing R -1-10 zoning a nd it wasn’t viable due to the sensitive lands o rdinance. He con tinued to speak to the difference between the two zoning designations for development on the property.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson asked Mr. Anderson, developer, whether he would be prevented from moving forward if the location of the proposed trail ha dn’t been identified definitively. Mr. Anderson
Councilmember Smith Edmondson asked Mr. Anderson, developer, whether he would be prevented from moving forward if the location of the proposed trail ha dn’t been identified definitively. Mr. Anderson responded there were numerous steps associated with development of the parcel and didn’t believe it would delay his project and explained he would be obligated to provide access for infrastructure at the bott om of the hillside .
Councilmember Roberts requested further clarification about th e location of the trail and suggested the brush truck could access the trail from the stub road. Mr. McIlrath believed the reason for the connection at Hobbs Creek Drive was to provide a more direct connection to the tunnel, avoiding Heritage Crest subdivision or through this propose d subdivision. Mr. Jackson respond ed the trail would also provide a utility access for the sewer and storm drain associated with the Heritage Crest subdivision and access was needed for public works vehicles.
Mayor Pet ro requested Mr. Jackson address the public’s concern specific to the Anderson’s property and whether that was necessary when there was an existing public street to the west of their property. Mr. Jackson believed that had been considered and the reason for the proposed connection would be t o discourage trail access parking within the Heritage Crest or this neighborhood to avoid a nuisance within the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Roberts indicated this was the best explanation thus far regarding the trail location.
The discussion regarding t he trail and proposed parking lot continued. Alex Jensen, City Manager, shared a current issue regarding another trail parking lot location.
MOTION: Councilmember Roberts moved to close the public hearing at 10:00 PM and approve the rezone
ued. Alex Jensen, City Manager, shared a current issue regarding another trail parking lot location.
MOTION: Councilmember Roberts moved to close the public hearing at 10:00 PM and approve the rezone request with c oncept plan and development agreement – Hobbs Creek Villas PRUD – Rezone from R -S (Residential Suburban) to R -1-10 PRUD (Single Family Residential, Planned Residential Unit Development) –approximately 3265 North Hobbs Creek Drive, as presented, Resolution 25-16 and Ordinance 25 -08.
Councilmember Morris seconded the motion.
Mayor Petro called for a vote: Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 17 Councilmember Roberts explained his vote; he believed the sensitive lands ordinance allowed for development in these areas as opposed to prohibit it and s uggested the PRUD contributed to the integrity of the development.
He stated his concerns had been addressed.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson also explained her vote; she stated she had visited with residents , as well as Staff, to vet expressed concerns and issues. She expressed appreciation to the developer for addressing her concerns regarding distance to the slope and modifying the setbacks for some of the proposed homes. She still had concerns regarding th e trail location; however, that was the responsibility of the City as opposed to the developer. She believed the Council had completed its due diligence in applying the City’s ordinance. She added the density in this area wasn’t applicable to housing affor dability.
Councilmember Thomas appreciated the due diligence on behalf of the developer. He indicated he wasn’t pleased with the location of the trail; however, that alone shouldn’t hold up this development.
y.
Councilmember Thomas appreciated the due diligence on behalf of the developer. He indicated he wasn’t pleased with the location of the trail; however, that alone shouldn’t hold up this development.
Councilmember Morris spoke to the robust pro cess associated with the requests and spoke to the many expressed concerns during several meetings . He appreciated the geotechnical engineers/experts and Staff for providing explanations and the developer for being responsive to the Council’s request s for the development.
He believed applying the cu rrent sensitive lands ordinance with the development would appropriately mitigate issues.
Councilmember Bloxham expressed appreciation to the public for expressing concerns and comments . He was also appreciative of the information provided by Staff and experts . He believed reasonable people could disagree and indicated he wasn’t able to come to a positive conclusion. He emphasized he wasn’t opposed to the well -conceived plan submitted by the developer.
The motion passed with the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Roberts, Smith Edmondson, Thomas, and Morris . Voting NO – Bloxham .
Mayor Petro expressed appreciation to everyone associated with agenda item and issues and indicate d she was supportive of the Council and its decision.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: There was no unfinished business.
Minutes of Layton City Council Meeting June 5, 2025 18 The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Kimberly S Read , City Recorder Minutes of Layton City C ouncil Work Meeting, June 19, 2025 MINUTES OF LAYTON CITY COUNCIL WORK MEETING JUNE 19, 2025; 5:34 P.M.
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOY PETRO , ZACH BLOXHAM, CLINT MORRIS, BETTINA SMITH EDMONDSON, AND DAVE THOMAS
025 MINUTES OF LAYTON CITY COUNCIL WORK MEETING JUNE 19, 2025; 5:34 P.M.
MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: MAYOR JOY PETRO , ZACH BLOXHAM, CLINT MORRIS, BETTINA SMITH EDMONDSON, AND DAVE THOMAS EXCUSED: TYSON ROBERTS STAF F PRESENT: ALEX JENSEN , CLINT DRAKE , STEPHEN JACKSON , WESTON APPLONIE, TRACY PROBERT, DAVID PRICE , JOELLEN GRANDY, KEVIN WARD, SCOTT MAUGHAN, NATHAN NANCE, CYLE HALL, KRISLYN KENNARD, ED FRAZIER, AND KIM READ The meeting was held in the Council Conference Room of the Layton City Center.
Mayor Petro opened the meeting .
AGENDA: MAYOR’S REPORT Announced Preston Lee had been selected to fill th e Executive Director position at Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District .
COUNCIL MEMBER ’S REPORT S Councilmember Smith Edmondson announced she had attended the Utah Prevention S ummit and mentioned all coalitions within the State had met and shared some of the topics addressed during the conference. She mentioned the event experienced a great turnout and attendees had received some valuable information focused on the prevention of drug and alcohol use in youth, and also suicide prevention. She announced enough data had now been collected to identify the connection between substance addiction and suicide.
Mayor Petro inquired whether the topic of screen time had been addressed and Councilmember Smith Edmondson believed there was one piece to that and mentioned the coalition would be discussing what had been presented during its next meeting.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 19, 2025 2 Councilmember Bloxham reported the UIA (Utah Infrastructure Agency) Board approved a $14 million bond for the pur pose of funding Capital Projects moving forward. He mentioned historical statistics
Councilmember Bloxham reported the UIA (Utah Infrastructure Agency) Board approved a $14 million bond for the pur pose of funding Capital Projects moving forward. He mentioned historical statistics reflected the revenue outpac ed debt obligations. He announced d ividends to Layton C ity would be increased this coming year and mentioned as debt obligations continued to de crease , those dividends would continue to increase.
Alex Jensen , City Manager, clarified the bond would also fund fiber connections in addition to build ing infrastructure. He continued to explain how the dividend would be calculated.
AMEND THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 -2025 – ORDINANCE 25 -14 Tracy Probert, Finance Director, shared and reviewed proposed budget amendments with the Council and highlighted the following: Wildland f ire Police special services Fire Academy Unanticipated grant r evenue and small donations He asked if there were any questions. A discussion took place regarding excess revenue designated to the General Fund. Mr. Probert stated the budget amendment ordinance would come before the Council during the regular meeting fo r approval.
PRESENTATION – VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT (VOCA) Krislyn Kennard, Victim Services Coordinator, shared a visual illustration specific to the VOCA Grant and shared statistics specific to victim services and housing . She identified expenses allowed under the VOCA Grant as well as those expenses not covered. She shared an example of how VOCA assistance had benefitted a specific victim. She announced the VOCA Grant cycle 2025 -2027 had recognized a significant decrease of funding and explained how she intended to move forward with providing victim services . She expressed appreciation for t he support of the City Council.
-2027 had recognized a significant decrease of funding and explained how she intended to move forward with providing victim services . She expressed appreciation for t he support of the City Council.
Councilmember Smith Edmondson expressed interest in visiting with Ms. Kennard regarding various other service providers/organizations which mi ght be beneficial to the Victims Services Program. A discussion regarding specific various services and the process used to determine the benefit/funding for victims Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 19, 2025 3 followed.
DOGS IN PARK STUDY JoEllen Grandy, Parks Planner, shared a visual presentation regarding dogs in public parks. She reviewed both on-leash and off -leash options and mentioned the City’s current policy was similar to Farmington and Centerville Cities ’ policies. She informed the Council , the C ity had adopted an ordinance in 2016 allowing dogs on -leash in various City parks and facilities and shared a map which illustrated those various locations throughout the City and reviewed the various site features and maintenance tasks . A discussion took place regarding dog waste and David Price, Parks and Recreation Director, mentioned the City’s existing services for dogs in parks had been successful.
Ms. Grandy shared a presentation for off -leash dog park facilities/amenities from other entit ies. She stated this amenity would be a high Capital Improvement cost and reviewed the amenities associated with such a facility. S he also shared the operational (maintenance) costs and associated tasks with the Council. She shared a summary which identified benefi ts and challenges associated with an off -leash fenced area.
y. S he also shared the operational (maintenance) costs and associated tasks with the Council. She shared a summary which identified benefi ts and challenges associated with an off -leash fenced area.
Ms. Grandy shared a nother concept for an off -leash shared -use park area and explained how that could be implemented, reviewed the costs associated with this option, as well as benefits and chall enges. She also mentioned an off -leash open space trail corridor area option and shared an example, reviewed Capital Improvement and maintenance costs associated with this option.
Ms. Grandy shared an illustration of costs summaries associated with all d og facility options shared during the meeting. She also shared an illustration and map which identified neighboring dog park facilities. She reviewed the City’s current ordinance which permitted the use of most parks for on-leash dogs and stated Staff beli eved the City provided sufficient facilities for the majority of residents and a discussion followed.
Ms. Grandy continued to share the off -leash open space trail corridor option and identified the various trail corridor options which could be considered for this use. She continued to explain the need for an appropriate sized area designated for the dog pa rk based on the size of the City, which would be considerably larger than those of neighboring cities and suggested at least seven acres would be needed. She concluded the Bamberger Trail would be an appropriate size and was already fenced on both sides. S he mentioned the Eastridge Nature Park could also be considered and identified the features which made it compatible for this use; however, a portion of this area was still under construction. A discussion regarding other options and liability followed.
identified the features which made it compatible for this use; however, a portion of this area was still under construction. A discussion regarding other options and liability followed.
Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 19, 2025 4 KAYSCREEK ESTATES SIDEWALK, PROJECT 24 -55 – UPDATES Stephen Jackson, Public Works Director, provided an update to the Council regarding the Kayscreek Estates Sidewalk Repair project and announced it was substantially complete . He shared visual illustrati ons of before and after photos for specific areas reflecting the significant amount of tree roots which needed to be removed prior to installing new sidewalk. He shared the Project Report with the Council: 249 feet of curb and gutter were replaced 5,633 fe et of sidewalk were replaced 54 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) ramps installed 206 trees removed He reported 70% of property owners had been granted an extension or agreed to pay the 50% of the costs for the project while 30% had never initiated an y contact with t he City. He indicated the City hadn’t sent additional notices or initiated contact with property owners. He stated Staff was requesting direction from the Council on how to proceed.
Alex Jensen, City Manager, pointed out the importance of being consistent and informed the Council some of the property owners had paid their respective portion of the project. It was determined a discussion on this item would take place during a future meeting.
PRESENTATION – FIRE DEPARTMENT AMBULANCE RE -LICENSURE COST QUALITY AND ACCESS Kevin Ward, Fire Chief, shared a brief background regarding the re -licensing of the City’s ambulance licensing. He explained Senate Bill 215 changed the way licensing or re -licensing for Emergency Medical
Ward, Fire Chief, shared a brief background regarding the re -licensing of the City’s ambulance licensing. He explained Senate Bill 215 changed the way licensing or re -licensing for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) programs for municipalities or counties. The new legislation required entities to evaluate its EMS system every four years to make decisions regarding future service contracts based on demonstrated performance. T he presentation would provide the outcome of the review and was being provided as required by the new state law.
Scott Maughan, Ass istant Fire Chief, pointed out the governing body had the responsibility of determining the ambu lance provider for Layton C ity and stated the new legislation required the City to issue an RFP (Request for Proposal) for this service. The evaluation document was required to address the three pillars of the EMS Program: Minutes of Layton City Council Work Meeting, June 19, 2025 5 Cost Quality Accessibility He distributed the evaluation do cument and directed the Council to page 7 and reviewed th e financial sustainability and revenue billing structure. He pointed out the agency/department’s billing team had collected 96.1% of collectable revenue, which was considered a high amount among indu stry trends . He continued to review operational efficiency of the agency/d epartment. He directed the Coun cil to page 9 and spoke to the i nter-facility transports for the geographical area , which the agency/ department was required to provide. He emphasized the City transported victims/individuals regardless of the ability to pay. He addressed the quality specific to the 911/EMS services provided by the agency/d epartment.
uired to provide. He emphasized the City transported victims/individuals regardless of the ability to pay. He addressed the quality specific to the 911/EMS services provided by the agency/d epartment.
He announced the RFP would be availa ble beg inning tomorrow for 10 days at which time the Council would have the opportunity to select its provider.
The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Kimberly S Read , City Recorder LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item Number: 5.A.
Subject: Amendment Number 1 of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Layton City and Davis County for Transportation Project Reimbursement – Resolution 25-50 – Approximately Main Street and 165 South Main Street Background: Resolution 25-50 authorizes the execution of Amendment Number 1 to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Layton City (City) and Davis County (County) for Transportation Project Reimbursement.
The City and the County entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Transportation Project Reimbursement which was approved and adopted, on March 3, 2022 by Resolution 22-14. The project associated with this agreement, and subsequent amendment, is located at approximately Main Street and 165 South Main Street (Project).
The City experienced delays, to the estimated timeline of this Project, due to obstacles encountered during the development of the property. As a result of these delays, the City and the County agreed to amend the completion date of the Project, from the original estimated date of March 3, 2024, as outlined in the original agreement, to be June 30, 2026.
Alternatives: Alternatives are to: 1) Adopt Resolution 25-50 authorizing the execution of Amendment Number 1 to the
d date of March 3, 2024, as outlined in the original agreement, to be June 30, 2026.
Alternatives: Alternatives are to: 1) Adopt Resolution 25-50 authorizing the execution of Amendment Number 1 to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Layton City and Davis County for Transportation Project Reimbursement 2) Adopt Resolution 25-50 with any amendments the Council deems appropriate; or 3) Not Adopt Resolution 25-50 and remand to Staff with directions.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 25-50, authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment Number 1 to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Layton City and Davis County for Transportation Project Reimbursement.
LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item Number: 5.B.
Subject: Bid Award – Insituform Technologies, LLC DBA Twin D – Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 2520 – Resolution 25-51 – Various Locations Throughout the City Background: Resolution 25-51 authorizes the execution of an agreement between Layton City and Insituform Technologies, LLC DBA Twin D (Twin D) for the Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 25-20. The project includes the televising and cleaning of storm drain lines. The size of the lines will vary between 12-inch and 48-inch.
This contract shall be for the fiscal 2025-2026 year with two optional one-year extensions possible with mutual consent.
Three bids were received, with Twin D submitting the lowest responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $153,174.88. The engineer's estimate was $156,866.22.
Alternatives: Alternatives are to: 1) Adopt Resolution 25-51 awarding the bid to Twin D for the Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 25-20; 2) Adopt Resolution 25-51 with any amendments the Council deems appropriate; or
re to: 1) Adopt Resolution 25-51 awarding the bid to Twin D for the Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 25-20; 2) Adopt Resolution 25-51 with any amendments the Council deems appropriate; or 3) Not adopt Resolution 25-51 and remand to Staff with directions.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution 25-51 awarding the bid to Twin D and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement for the Storm Drain Cleaning and Television, Project 25-20.
LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item Number: 5.C.
Subject: Amended Plat – Taggart Subdivision, First Amended – 1342 and 1346 East Rosewood Lane Background: The applicant, Shane Taggart, is requesting approval to amend the Taggart Subdivision and Lot 1 of the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision. The subject properties are located in the R-1-8 (Single Family Residential) zone surrounded by the R-1-8 and R-M1 (Low/Medium Density Residential) zoning districts.
The purpose of this subdivision amendment is to realign the property boundary between the two subject properties. The subdivision amendment process is necessary, as the proposed change will alter the boundaries of the Taggart Subdivision and the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision.
Alternatives: Alternatives are to: 1) Approve the amended plat for the Taggart Subdivision, First Amended; or 2) Deny the amended plat for the Taggart Subdivision, First Amended, finding it is not compliant with the Layton City Municipal Code and Development Standards.
Recommendation: On October 14, 2025, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Taggart Subdivision, First Amended subject to meeting all City requirements as outlined in the Staff memorandums.
e Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Taggart Subdivision, First Amended subject to meeting all City requirements as outlined in the Staff memorandums.
Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
1 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE : November 6, 2025 RE: Amend ed Plat – Taggart Subdivision, First Amended –1342 and 1346 East Rosewood Lane LOCATION : 1342 and 1346 East Rosewood Lane CURRENT ZONING : R-1-8 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN: Neighborhood Residential (Residential Uses) DESCRIPTION The applicant , Shane Taggart , is requesting to amend the Taggar t Subdivision and Lot 1 of the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision. The subject properties are surrounded by R -1-8 and R -M1 (Low/Medium Density Residential) zoning districts.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this subdivision amendment is to realign the property boundary between the two subject properties . The subdivision amendment process is necessary, as the proposed change will alter the boundaries of the Taggart Subdivision and the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision. This amendment will result in L ot 3 (currently Lot 1 of the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision) gaining approximately 604 square feet from Lot 2 (currently Lot 1 of the Taggart Subdivision) , as the property line shifts to the east. Both properties have existing public utility and drainage easements along the front, rear, and sides. Lot 2 also has a 20' creek access easement in favor of Davis County Flood Control. All easements on both proper ties will remain as currently established and will not be affected by this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION S
a 20' creek access easement in favor of Davis County Flood Control. All easements on both proper ties will remain as currently established and will not be affected by this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION S On October 14, 2025, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Taggart Subdivision, First Amended subjec t to meeting all City requirements as outlined in the Staff memorandums.
Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Attention Engineers & Developers: Please do not re submit plans until you have received comments from Layton City Fire Department, Parks Department, Engineering Division and Planning Division. You may expect to receive comme nts within 15 business days of a submittal of a preliminary pl an and within 20 business days of a submitta l of a fina l plan . Thank you.
MEMORANDUM TO: Shane Taggart; [email protected] Trent Williams; [email protected] CC: CED Department; Fire Marshal; Legal Department FROM: Ryan Bankhead, Senior Staff Engineer DATE: September 12, 2025 SUBJECT: Taggart Subdivision Amendment – 2nd submittal 1346 E Rosewood Lane We have reviewed the Plat Amendment and title repor t submitted on September 2, 2025 for the Taggart Subdivision Amendment located at 1346 E Ros ewood Lane. The plans have been stamped “Approved as Corrected.” The following comments wi ll need to be addressed prior to the City Engineer signing the plat. Municipal Code (MC) and Developme nt Guidelines and Design Standards (DG) references provided in parenthesis. Items that hav e been addressed have strikethroughs and new comments based on changes to the drawing are in red .
1. The plat title will need to indicate that the amend ment amends Taggart Subdivision and Lot 1 of
e been addressed have strikethroughs and new comments based on changes to the drawing are in red .
1. The plat title will need to indicate that the amend ment amends Taggart Subdivision and Lot 1 of Indian Springs Creek Subdivision.
2. The subdivision name in the owner’s dedication (Tag gart Subdivision) will need to match the plat title.
3. The addresses of the lots will need to be added to the plat.
4. The boundary narrative will need to match the draft ed description. (DG 1.08.2) The provided written description appears to be the original boun dary description.
5. The area of the development will need to be updated . The current area is the area from the original plat.
6. City Council in the signature block will need to be replaced with Land Use Authority. A signature titles for the City Recorded and the City Mayor wil l need to be added to the Land Use Authority block.
7. The Davis County Flood Control signature block will need to be removed from the plat.
8. The side lot PU&DE on lot 2 will need to be labeled .
9. With the relocation of the existing side lot 10-foo t easement the following utility companies will need to be contacted at the email addresses provide d below and request a letter/email response stating that they will abandon their exist ing public utility and drainage easement (PU&DE) along the shared lot lines that are being m odified with the new plat. It is helpful to include the PDF file of the drawing in your request , to allow them to easily identify the property and the location of easement(s) to be vacated. Als o include the property address, subdivision Taggart Amended Plat, Received 9/2/2025 2 name, your contact info, and the reason for the req uest. You may forward their responses to
to be vacated. Als o include the property address, subdivision Taggart Amended Plat, Received 9/2/2025 2 name, your contact info, and the reason for the req uest. You may forward their responses to me, or ask them to include me on their response ema ils ([email protected]). If the existing 10-foot side lot easement is to remain as originally dedicated with the Indian Springs Creek Subdivision then the letters will not be requ ired.
a. Rocky Mountain Power – [email protected] b. Lumen/Century Link – [email protected] (includ e “Easement Release” in subject line of email) c. Enbridge/Dominion Energy/Questar Gas – [email protected] 10. The first bearing along the south line of Rosewood Lane at lot 2 (N46°00’18”E) does not match the bearing from the Indian Springs Creek Subdivisi on (N46°00’24”E).
11. The second bearing along the south line of Rosewood Lane at lot 2 (N43°17’51”E) does not 12. The dimension (16.58’) from the previous lot corner to the centerline of the creek access easement is no longer correct and will need to be r evised.
13. The 100-year flood plain limits identified on the I ndian Creek Springs plat will need to be added to the plat.
City Manager • Alex R. Jensen Telephone : (801) 336 -3940 Fd Fax: (801) 546 -0901 Dawn Fitzpatrick TO: Community Development FROM: Gavin Moffat, Deputy Fire Marshal RE: Taggart Subdivision Amendment @ 1346 E Rosewood Lane CC: 1) Engineering
01) 546 -0901 Dawn Fitzpatrick TO: Community Development FROM: Gavin Moffat, Deputy Fire Marshal RE: Taggart Subdivision Amendment @ 1346 E Rosewood Lane CC: 1) Engineering 2) Trent Williams, [email protected] 3) Shane Taggart, [email protected] DATE: October 1, 2025 I have reviewed th e plat submitted on September 2 , 2025 for the above referenced project.
The Fire Prevention Division of this department has no comments/concerns.
These plans have been reviewed for Fire Department requirements only. Other departments must rev iew these plans and will have their requirements. This review by the Fire Department must not be construed as final approval from Layton City.
GM\#1 subdivision site plan:sh Plan # S25-119 District # 33 Project Tracker #LAY 2506133462 Attention Engineers & Developers: Please do not resubmit plans until you have received comments from Layton City Fire Department, Parks Department, Engineering Division and Planning Division. You may expect to receive comments within 15 business days of a submittal of a preliminary plan and within 20 business days o f a submittal of a final plan. Thank you.
MEMORANDUM TO: Trent Williams Shane Taggart CC: CED Department/Fire Marshal /Engineering Department FROM: Jadyn Applonie , Assistant City Attorney DATE: September 30 , 2025 Subject: Taggart Subdivision Amendment 1346 E Rosewood Ln I have reviewed the m aterials transmitted to my department for the subdivision noted above . In addition to any other Layton City Department reviews, I have identified the following issues: 1. Each owner ’s signature will need to be notarized . Right now, there is only one individual acknowle dgment. If you need more space, you could include these on a second page, along
ollowing issues: 1. Each owner ’s signature will need to be notarized . Right now, there is only one individual acknowle dgment. If you need more space, you could include these on a second page, along with the trust acknowledgments .
2. Please also see the comment from the Engineering Mem orandum about signature blocks.
Attention Engineers & Developers: Please do not resubmit plans until you have received comments from Layton City Fire Department, Parks Department, Engineering Division and Planning Division. You may expect to receive comments within 7 -10 business days of a submittal and within 7 busine ss days of a resubmittal. Thank you.
To: Trent Williams, Shane Taggart CC: Community Development, Fire, & Engineering From: JoEllen Grandy, City Landscape Architect – Parks & Recreation Date: September 5, 2025 Re: Taggart Subdivision Amendment, Final Approval – 1346 E. Rosewood Ln.
Review : Review 2 The Taggart Subdivision located at 1346 East Rosewood Lane is within the existing neighborhood park service area of Chapel Park and future existing neighborhood park service area of Boynton Park .
The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the plans re-submitted on September 2nd and has no comment s or concerns regarding the Taggart Subdivision Amendment .
Attention Engineers & Developers: Please do not resubmit plans until you have received comments from Layton City Fire Department, Parks Department, Engineering Division and Planning Division. You may expect to receive comments within 15 business days of a preliminary submittal and withi n 20 business days of a final submittal. Thank you.
Parks & Recreation Department 465 N. Wasatch Dr. Layton, Utah 84041 (801) 336-3900 FAX: (801)336 -3909 Parks & Recreation Department
20 business days of a final submittal. Thank you.
Parks & Recreation Department 465 N. Wasatch Dr. Layton, Utah 84041 (801) 336-3900 FAX: (801)336 -3909 Parks & Recreation Department JoEllen Grandy City Landscape Architect Telephone: 801.336.3926 Email: [email protected] ROSEWOOD LANE CREEKSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION LOT 111-051-0001 RUSSELL GEORGE & DIANA RUTH LINDEMAN- TRUSTEES INDIAN SPRINGS CREEK SUBDIVISIONNORTH QUARTER CORNER SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST (FOUND) ELEV=4435.47 20.0' 20' CREEK ACCESS EASEMENT AREA LOT 2NORTH HOLMES CREEKLOT 17POINT OF BEGINNING 20.0'20' CREEK ACCESS EASEMENT AREA IN FAVOR OF DAVIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLCREEK CENTERLINE10.0' PU&DE (TYP) 10.0' PU&DE (TYP)10.0' PU&DE (TYP)CENTER OF SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE1 WEST (NOT FOUND) S 0°11'10" W 2636.12' RECORD (NAD83 S 00°34'08" W) S 66°01'43" W 11.46' (S 76°15'23" W) (34.72')(S 75°11'38" E) (8.09')(N 61°30'35" E) (7.11')(N 38°35'16" E) (31.79')(N 80°51'56" E) (21.83') (35.71') (N 75°11'38" W) (4.01')(S 45°06'12" E) (14.50')389.52' 30.0' 30.0'(115.43')(164.77') (75.80') 7.0' PU&DE (TYP) (PUBLIC STREET)(11.31')11-051-0084CAROL ELLISON & JOHN S MORGAN - TRUSTEES 99.59' 10.0' PU&DE5.0' PU&DE16.1' PU&DE (TYP) 1342 EAST1346 EAST LOT 3 9,956 sq.ft.
0.229 acresLOT 2 39,802 sq.ft.
0.914 acresS 66°01'43" W 100.00' D=5°25'58" R=110.59 L=10.49' CB=N 43°16'31" E C=10.48'N 27°28'45" W 1.03'D=39°24'01" R=180.00 L=123.78' CB=N 18°16'40" E C=121.36'N 1°23'18" W
92.97' D=5°25'58" R=110.59 L=10.49' CB=N 43°16'31" E C=10.48'N 27°28'45" W 1.03'D=39°24'01" R=180.00 L=123.78' CB=N 18°16'40" E C=121.36'N 1°23'18" W D=1°40'48" R=180.00 L=5.28' CB=N 37°08'16" E R=180.00 L=118.50' CB=N 17°26'16" E C=116.37'INTERSTATE 15 GENTILE STREETMAIN STREETFAIRFIELD ROAD ROSEWOOD LANEOAKHILLS DRIVEHIGHWAY 89 SITE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE S 89°55'20" W 16.76'RECORDN 0°11'20" E 2641.82' RECORDCENTER OF SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST (NOT FOUND) WITNESS CORNER TO CENTER SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST (FOUND)AMENDING LOT 1 TAGGART SUBDIVISION AND LOT 1 INDIAN SPRINGS SUBDIVISIONTAGGART SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH RANGE 1 WEST SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, UTAHTAGGART SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED 1. PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1-8.
A.FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25' B.REAR YARD SETBACK IS 25' C.SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 8' MINIMUM AND 16' TOTAL D.CORNER LOT SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 25' ARTERIAL STREET 2. ALL PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (PU&DE) ARE 7' ALONG FRONT, 10' ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINES, 5' ALONG INTERIOR BACK AND SIDE LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HEREON.
3. BEARING AND DISTANCE IN PARENTHESIS ARE EASEMENT INFORMATION.
4. UTILITIES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE THEIR EQUIPMENT ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND AND ALL OTHER RELATED FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAT MAP AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICES WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LOTS IDENTIFIED HEREIN,
L OTHER RELATED FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAT MAP AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICES WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LOTS IDENTIFIED HEREIN, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO SUCH FACILITIES AND THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES, TREES AND VEGETATION THAT MAY BE PLACED WITHIN THE PU&DE THE UTILITY MAY REQUIRE THE LOT OWNER TO REMOVE ALL STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PU&DE AT THE LOT OWNER'S EXPENSE, OR THE UTILITY MAY REMOVE SUCH STRUCTURES AT THE LOT OWNER'S EXPENSE. AT NO TIME MAY ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES BE PLACED WITHIN THE PU&DE OR ANY OTHER OBSTRUCTION WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE USE OF THE PU&DE WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE UTILITIES WITH FACILITIES IN THE PU&DE.
5. LOT 1 IS DESIGNATED AS RESTRICTED TO REQUIRE A DAVIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PERMIT. ANY BUILDING WILL NEED TO BE 1 FOOT ABOUT THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
6. PER FEMA FIRM MAP DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS 4418'.
7. A SUBSURFACE DRAIN SHALL BE REQUIRED AS INDICATED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMPLETED BY AGEC DATED AUGUST 31, 2022.
THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT THE LAYTON CITY OFFICES LOCATED AT 437 NORTH WASATCH DRIVE, LAYTON UTAH AS WELL AS THE AGEC OFFICES LOCATED AT 600 WEST SANDY PARKWAY, SANDY UTAH 84070 801-566-6399.GENERAL NOTES: PROJECT NUMBER : DRAWN BY : CHECKED BY :MANAGER : DATE :SHEET 116641 OF 1 T.WILLIAMS J.RINDLISBACHER T.WILLIAMS 8/26/25APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20 , BY THECITY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL LAYTON CITY ATTORNEY.
LAYTON CITY ATTORNEYAPPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20 , BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
TTORNEY'S APPROVAL LAYTON CITY ATTORNEY.
LAYTON CITY ATTORNEYAPPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20 , BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL CHAIRMAN, LAYTON CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20 , BY THECITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL LAYTON CITY ENGINEER LAYTON CITY ENGINEERAPPROVED THIS DAY OF , 20 , BY THELAND USE AUTHORITY LAYTON CITY LAND USE AUTHORITYSECTION CORNER EXISTING STREET MONUMENT PROPOSED STREET MONUMENT SET 5/8" REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP, OR NAIL STAMPED "ENSIGN ENG. & LAND SURV."
PU&DE= PUBLIC UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT SECTION LINE ADJACENT CENTERLINE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE EASEMENTS NORTH HOMES CREEK SETBACK LINE FLOOD PLAIN LINEPU&DELEGEND ENSIGN ENG.
LAND SURV.
DAVIS COUNTY RECORDER BY DEPUTY RECORDERENTRY NO. FEE PAID FILED FOR RECORD AND RECORDED THIS DAY OF , 20 , AT IN BOOK OF OFFICIAL RECORDS PAGE BYDAVIS COUNTY RECORDEROWNER'S DEDICATION Known all men by these presents that I / we, the under- signed owner ( s ) of the above described tract of land, having caused same to be subdivided, hereafter known as the and do hereby dedicate for the perpetual use of the public all public utility and drainage easements and other areas shown on this plat as intended for Public use.
e subdivided, hereafter known as the and do hereby dedicate for the perpetual use of the public all public utility and drainage easements and other areas shown on this plat as intended for Public use.
In witness whereof I / we have hereunto set our hand (s) this day of A.D., 20 .
. .
By: RICK T. BARLOW By: D. SHANE TAGGART . .
By: By: JANET TAGGART HICKMAN LAND TITLE COMPANY . .
By: PAUL M. HALLDAY JR. By: HALLIDAY & WATKINS P.C.SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, do hereby certify that I am a Licensed Land Professional Surveyor in the State of Utah, and that I hold certificate No. in accordance with Title 58, chapter 22, of the Professional Engineers and Land Surveyor's Act; with Section 17-23-17 and have verified all measurements; that the reference monuments shown on this plat are located and indicated and are sufficient to accurately established the lateral boundaries of the herein described tract of real property; and has been drawn correctly to the designated scale and is a true and correct representation of the herein described lands including in said subdivision, based upon data complied from records of Davis County Recorders Office. I further certify that all lots meet frontage width and area requirements of the applicable zone ordinances.
LAYTON 919 North 400 West Layton UT 84041 Phone: 801.547.1100
avis County Recorders Office. I further certify that all lots meet frontage width and area requirements of the applicable zone ordinances.
LAYTON 919 North 400 West Layton UT 84041 Phone: 801.547.1100 Fax: 801.593.6315 WWW.ENSIGNENG.COMSALT LAKE CITY Phone: 801.255.0529 TOOELE Phone: 435.843.3590 CEDAR CITY Phone: 435.865.1453 RICHFIELD Phone: 435.896.2983E N S I G NHORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE 0 ( IN FEET ) HORZ: 1 inch = ft. 3030 15 30 60A parcel of land, being all of Lot 1, Taggart Subdivision and all of Lot 1, Indian Springs Creek Subdivision, also being located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, also being located in Layton City, Davis County, Utah. Being more particularly describes as follows: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of Lot 1, Taggart Subdivision, said point being South 00°11'10" West 389.52 feet along the Section Line (NAD83 Bearing being South 00°34'08” West between the North Quarter Corner and the Center Quarter Corner of said Section 27 per the Davis County Township Reference Plat) and South 66°01'43" West 11.46 feet from the North Quarter Corner of said Section 27, and running thence: South 66°01'43" West 100.00 feet along the southerly line of said Lot 1, Taggart Subdivision, to a point on the easterly line of Lot 2, Indian Springs Creek Subdivision; thence North 26°49'08" West 89.73 feet along said easterly line to the southeasterly corner of Lot 1, Indian Springs Creek Subdivision; thence along the boundary of said Lot 1 the following four (4) courses and distances: 1)South 48°40'01" West 92.97 feet; 2)North 26°49'08" West 101.63 feet; 3)North 46°00'24" East 83.90 feet;
ivision; thence along the boundary of said Lot 1 the following four (4) courses and distances: 1)South 48°40'01" West 92.97 feet; 2)North 26°49'08" West 101.63 feet; 3)North 46°00'24" East 83.90 feet; 4)northeasterly 10.49 feet along the arc of a 110.59-foot radius non-tangent curve to the left (center bears North 44°00'30" West and the long chord bears North 43°16'31" East 10.48 feet with a central angle of 05°25'58"); thence North 27°28'45" West 1.03 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Rosewood Lane, also being the westerly corner of Lot 1, Taggart Subdivision; thence along the boundary of said Lot 1 the following four (4) courses and distances: 1)northerly 123.78 feet along the arc of a 180.00-foot radius non-tangent curve to the left (center bears North 52°01'20" West and the long chord bears North 18°16'40" East 121.36 feet with a central angle of 39°24'01"); 2)North 01°23'18" West 5.19 feet; 3)North 79°26'54" East 130.14 feet; 4)South 02°58'59" East 280.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains: 49,758 square feet or 1.142 acres.
Trent R. Williams Date License No. 8034679 NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST (NOT FOUND)}S.S.INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF UTAH County of On the day of A.D., 20 , , personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary public, in and for said County of in said State of Utah, who after being duly sworn, acknowledged to me that He/She/They signed the Owner's Dedication, in number, freely and
in said State of Utah, who after being duly sworn, acknowledged to me that He/She/They signed the Owner's Dedication, in number, freely and voluntarily for the purposes therein mentioned.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: , RESIDING IN COUNTY.
NOTARY PUBLICDavisTRENT R. WILLIAMS 8034679 BASIS OF BEARING N 0°10'29" W 2641.80' RECORD 2641.93' MEASUREDLOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH RANGE 1 WEST SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN LAYTON CITY, DAVIS COUNTY, UTAH JULY 2025 STATE OF UTAH County of On the day of A.D., 20 , , personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for said County of in the State of Utah, who after being duly sworn, acknowledged to me that He/She is the , of and that He/She signed the Owner's Dedication freely and voluntarily for and in behalf of said Trust for the purposes therein mentioned and acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ,
he purposes therein mentioned and acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: , RESIDING IN COUNTY.
NOTARY PUBLICTRUST ACKNOWLEDGMENT }S.S.DavisSTATE OF UTAH County of On the day of A.D., 20 , , personally appeared before me, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for said County of in the State of Utah, who after being duly sworn, acknowledged to me that He/She is the , of and that He/She signed the Owner's Dedication freely and voluntarily for and in behalf of said Trust for the purposes therein mentioned and acknowledged to me that said Corporation executed the same.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: , RESIDING IN COUNTY.
NOTARY PUBLICTRUST ACKNOWLEDGMENT }S.S.DavisTAGGART SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item Number: 6.A.
Subject: Proposal to Amend Layton City Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use Development, Chapter 18.01 General
DIVISION, FIRST AMENDED LAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Item Number: 6.A.
Subject: Proposal to Amend Layton City Municipal Code Title 18 Land Use Development, Chapter 18.01 General Provisions, Section 18.01.070 Designation of Land Use Authority, Chapter 18.04 Definitions, Section 18.04.010 Generally, Chapter 18.32 Lots, Section 18.32.080 Lot Line Adjustment, and Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.03 Land Use Application Requirements and Review Process, Section 19.03.005 Applicable Applications, Section 19.03.040 Review of Application and Layton City Development Guidelines and Design Standards to Update Terminology and Procedures for Boundary Line Adjustments in Accordance with Utah State Code 10-9A-523, and Simplify the Process for Vacating or Amending a Plat for a Standard Subdivision – Ordinances 25-22 and 25-23 Background: During the 2025 Utah Legislative Session, Senate Bill 104 was passed, which amended the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (LUDMA) to revise the terminology and procedures for modifying property boundaries. The previous process – commonly known as a lot line adjustment – has been updated and divided into three distinct sub-processes: boundary establishments, simple boundary adjustments, and full boundary adjustments.
Boundary Establishments: This process is used when a boundary line between adjoining properties is ambiguous, uncertain, or disputed. It is intended to clarify the location of an existing common boundary, not to shift any property lines. The adjoining property owners must agree on the location of the boundary and then record a boundary establishment document with the County Recorder. This process is not subject to municipal land use authority review. Boundary
ners must agree on the location of the boundary and then record a boundary establishment document with the County Recorder. This process is not subject to municipal land use authority review. Boundary establishments apply to metes and bounds parcels, where older legal descriptions or missing information can lead to uncertainty.
Simple Boundary Adjustments: This process will be used to relocate a property line between two adjoining properties when the change is minimal. To qualify as a simple adjustment, the proposed change must not affect any public utility easements, public property, lot restrictions, subdivision boundaries, or create a new lot. Development Staff will continue to review these applications administratively. This process does not require review or approval by the Planning Commission or City Council and is compliant with how the City has been handling lot line adjustments that are not affected by a public right-of-way.
Full Boundary Adjustments: This process applies in situations where the adjustment affects public utility easements, rights-of-way, or subdivision boundaries. In each of these scenarios, the City requires the applicant to complete the plat amendment process. In this scenario, the boundary adjustment is reviewed internally and then brought before the Council for the approval to vacate the Public Utility and Drainage Easement (PU&DE), prior to the new lot line(s) and a PU&DE being recorded at the County.
The draft amendment further streamlines the approval process for a standard subdivision plat amendment by removing the requirement that the City Council approve the vacation of a PU&DE. A PU&DE and lot boundaries are established during the preliminary plat process, which is approved by the Planning Commission.
ing the requirement that the City Council approve the vacation of a PU&DE. A PU&DE and lot boundaries are established during the preliminary plat process, which is approved by the Planning Commission.
Because a plat amendment modifies a previously approved lot boundary and PU&DE, it functions as a similar process. For consistency and efficiency, the proposed text amendment changes the review process of a plat amendment to follow the same process as a preliminary plat. This change would make it so the Council would no longer need to review plat amendments as well as help streamline the application process.
The proposed amendment will also require revisions to the adopted Development Guidelines and Design Standards maintained by the Engineering Division. Specifically, Chapter 9 Dedication Plan and Lot Line Adjustment, Section 9.04 Lot Line Adjustment, this section is no longer relevant and can be repealed.
Alternatives: Alternatives to the First Motion are: 1) Adopt Ordinance 25-22 amending Title 18 Land Use Development, Chapter 18.01 General Provisions, Section 18.01.070 Designation of Land Use Authority, Chapter 18.04 Definitions, Section 18.04.010 Generally, Chapter 18.32 Lots, Section 18.32.080 Lot Line Adjustment, and Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.03 Land Use Application Requirements and Review Process, Section 19.03.005 Applicable Applications, and Section 19.03.040 Review of Application as presented; 2) Adopt Ordinance 2522 with modifications; or 3) Not adopt Ordinance 25-22 and deny the proposed amendments.
Alternatives to the Second Motion are: 1) Adopt Ordinance 25-23 amending the Development Guidelines and Design Standards; 2) Adopt Ordinance 25-23 with any additional amendments the Council deems appropriate;
ves to the Second Motion are: 1) Adopt Ordinance 25-23 amending the Development Guidelines and Design Standards; 2) Adopt Ordinance 25-23 with any additional amendments the Council deems appropriate; or 3) Not adopt Ordinance 25-23 and remand to Staff with directions.
Recommendation: Recommendation for the First Motion: On October 14, 2025, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt the proposed amendments to Title 18 Land Use Development, Chapter 18.01 General Provisions, Section 18.01.070 Designation of Land Use Authority, Chapter 18.04 Definitions, Section 18.04.010 Generally, Chapter 18.32 Lots, Section 18.32.080 Lot Line Adjustment, and Title 19 Zoning, Chapter 19.03 Land Use Application Requirements and Review Process, Section 19.03.005 Applicable Applications, and Section 19.03.040 Review of Application as presented.
Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Recommendation for the Second Motion: Staff recommends the Council adopt Ordinance 25-23 amending the Development Guidelines and Design Standards.
Layton City ORDINANCE 25-22 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TERMINOLOGY AND PROCEDURES FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTAH STATE CODE 10-9A-523 AND 10-9A-524, AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS FOR VACATING OR AMENDING A PLAT FOR A STANDARD SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the City proposes to update the terminology and procedures for processing boundary line adjustment requests to comply with Utah State Code 10-9a-523 and 10-9a-524; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to replace outdated terminology, including the term "lot line
dures for processing boundary line adjustment requests to comply with Utah State Code 10-9a-523 and 10-9a-524; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to replace outdated terminology, including the term "lot line adjustment", with "boundary adjustment" to ensure consistency with Utah State Code and to avoid confusion in future applications and reviews; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to update the land use authority for plat vacations and amendments for Standard Subdivisions to promote greater consistency with the City's other Standard Subdivision review procedures and improve administrative efficiency; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and has received pertinent information in the public hearing regarding the proposal; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and upon making the necessary reviews the Council has determined that this amendment is rationally based, reasonable, and consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan, which is in furtherance of the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Layton City, UT as follows: SECTION 1: Repealer. If any provisions of the municipal code previously adopted are inconsistent herewith they are hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: Amendment. Section "18.01.070 " is hereby amended as follows.
...
DRAFT Page 2, Ordinance 25-22 HISTORY Ord. No. 17-13, Amended, 6/15/2017 ...
SECTION 3: Amendment. Section "18.04.010 " is hereby amended as follows.
...
"Alley" means a minor ... abutting on a street.
"Arterial street" means a ... or other equivalent street.
"Boundary adjustment, full" means an agreement between adjoining property owners to relocate a
"Alley" means a minor ... abutting on a street.
"Arterial street" means a ... or other equivalent street.
"Boundary adjustment, full" means an agreement between adjoining property owners to relocate a common boundary that results in a conveyance of property between the adjoining lots, adjoining parcels, or adjoining lots and parcels. This is any type of boundary adjustment that is not a simple boundary adjustment. It does not mean a modification of a lot or parcel boundary that creates an additional lot or parcel; or is made by the Department of Transportation.
"Boundary adjustment, simple" means an agreement between adjoining property owners to relocate a common boundary that results in a conveyance of property between the adjoining lots, adjoining parcels, or adjoining lots and parcels. This type of boundary adjustment does not affect the public right-of-way, municipal utility easement, or other public property; affect an existing easement, onsite wastewater system, or an internal lot restriction; or result in a lot or parcel out of conformity with land use regulations. It does not mean a modification of a lot or parcel boundary that creates an additional lot or parcel; or is made by the Department of Transportation.
Final Plat Development StaffDevelopment StaffCommunity and Economic Development DirectorHearing Officer Condominium PlatDevelopment StaffDevelopment StaffPlanning CommissionHearing Officer Vacating or Amending a PlatDevelopment StaffPlanningDevelo pment CommissionSt affCityPlanning CouncilCommi ssionDistrictHearing CourtOfficer Full Boundary AdjustmentDevelopment StaffDevelopment StaffPlanning CommissionHearing Officer Simple Boundary AdjustmentDevelopment StaffDevelopment StaffCommunity and Economic Development DirectorHearing OfficerRow Row Row Row Row
pment StaffDevelopment StaffPlanning CommissionHearing Officer Simple Boundary AdjustmentDevelopment StaffDevelopment StaffCommunity and Economic Development DirectorHearing OfficerRow Row Row Row Row DRAFT Page 3, Ordinance 25-22 "Boundary establishment" means any agreement between adjoining property owners to clarify the location of an ambiguous, uncertain, or disputed common boundary. It does not mean a modification of a lot or parcel boundary that creates an additional lot or parcel; or is made by the Department of Transportation.
"Building Official" means the ... designee or their designee.
"City" means City of Layton.
...
"Land Use Applicant": a property ... the property owner's land.
"Land Use Application": an application ... a land use regulation.
"Lot line adjustment" in a subdivision means the relocation of the property boundary line between two adjoining lots with the consent of the owners of record.
"General plan" means a ... and any amendment thereto.
"Master Transportation Plan" means ... estimated project costs, etc.
...
SECTION 4: Amendment. Section "18.32.080 Boundary Adjustments and Establishments" is hereby amended as follows.
18.32.080 Lot Line Adjustment18.32.080 Boundary Adjustments and Establishments 1. The Community and Economic Development Director, as designated by the City Council, shall have the administrative Authority to approve lot line adjustments within a subdivision. This approval is based on a recorded agreement between owners of adjoining properties adjusting their mutual boundary and no new lot is created andresult in a violation of the applicable zoning ordinance. If none exist, new PU&DEs may be established along the adjusted lot lines and street
usting their mutual boundary and no new lot is created andresult in a violation of the applicable zoning ordinance. If none exist, new PU&DEs may be established along the adjusted lot lines and street frontage. The Development Staff review for a lot line adjustment shall comply with the process and criteria outlined in 19.03Code 1. Land Use Authority. The land use authority shall be set forth as defined in Section 18.01.070.
2. Simple Boundary Adjustments a. A person may propose a simple boundary adjustment to the City. A proposal for a simple boundary adjustment shall: i. include a conveyance document in conformity with state law; and ii. describe all lots or parcels affected by the proposed boundary adjustment.
b. The land use authority shall consent to the proposed simple boundary adjustment if the land use authority verifies that that proposed simple boundary adjustment; i. meets the requirements of subsection (a); and ii. does not: 1. affect a public right-of-way, municipal utility easement, or other public property; 2. affect an existing easement, onsite wastewater system, or an internal lot restriction; or DRAFT Page 4, Ordinance 25-22 3. result in a lot or parcel out of conformity with land use regulations.
c. If the land use authority determines that the proposed simple boundary adjustment does not meet the requirements of subsection (b), a full boundary adjustment is required.
3. Full Boundary Adjustments a. A full boundary adjustment shall be processed in accordance with the procedures and requirements applicable to a plat amendment and state code.
4. Conveyance Document a. A conveyance document shall be submitted with each boundary adjustment application.
A complete list of all required documentation for a boundary adjustment shall be included with the
yance Document a. A conveyance document shall be submitted with each boundary adjustment application.
A complete list of all required documentation for a boundary adjustment shall be included with the application, located on the City's website, and at the Community and Economic Development Department.
5. Boundary Establishments a. The owners of adjoining property may initiate a boundary establishment to: i. resolve an ambiguous, uncertain, or disputed boundary between the adjoining properties; and ii. agree upon the location of an existing common boundary between the adjoining properties.
b. Adjoining property owners executing a boundary establishment shall: i. Prepare an establishment document that complies with Utah State Code; and ii. record the boundary establishment with the Davis County Recorder, in accordance with applicable state law.
c. A boundary establishment is not subject to review of a land use authority and does not require consent or approval from a land use authority before it may be recorded. Layton City may enforce municipal ordinances against property with a boundary establishment that violates a land use regulation.
HISTORY ...
SECTION 5: Amendment. Section "19.03.005 " is hereby amended as follows.
All land use applications including but not limited to annexation, rezone, preliminary plat, final plat, conditional use, site plan, lot line boundary adjustment, conceptual plans, preliminary plan, final plan, general plan amendment, zoning map amendment, and ordinance amendment; shall follow the requirements and review process outlined herein.
HISTORY: ...
SECTION 6: Amendment. Section "19.03.040 " is hereby amended as follows.
1. No later than 15 business days for a preliminary plat application, 14 days for a lot line
cess outlined herein.
HISTORY: ...
SECTION 6: Amendment. Section "19.03.040 " is hereby amended as follows.
1. No later than 15 business days for a preliminary plat application, 14 days for a lot line boundary adjustment, and 20 business days for final plats and all other land use applications, DRAFT Page 5, Ordinance 25-22 (excluding City observed holidays), the Development Staff shall complete a review of the application.
Review timeframes shall comply with the following criteria: a. Review timeframes shall ... application is deemed complete.
b. Review timeframes shall ... a general plan amendment.
...
SECTION 7: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this amendment is declared invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, said portion shall be severed and such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this amendment.
SECTION 8: Effective Date. This ordinance being necessary for the peace, health, and safety of Layton City, shall go into effect at the expiration of the 20th day after publication or posting or the 30th day after final passage as noted below or whichever of said days is the more remote from the date of passage thereof.
DRAFT Page 6, Ordinance 25-22 City Council Vote as Recorded:AYENAYABSTAINABSENT Zach Bloxham Clint Morris Tyson Roberts Bettina Smith Edmondson Dave Thomas CERTIFICATE OF PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION OR POSTING In accordance with Utah Code Annotated §10-3-713, 1953 as amended, I, the City Recorder of Layton City, hereby certifies that the foregoing Amendment was duly passed and published or posted at:
OSTING In accordance with Utah Code Annotated §10-3-713, 1953 as amended, I, the City Recorder of Layton City, hereby certifies that the foregoing Amendment was duly passed and published or posted at: 1. Layton City Center 2. Surf 'n Swim Bulletin Board 3. Davis County Library - Layton Branch on the above referenced dates.
JOY PETRO, Mayor Layton City Attest: KIMBERLY S READ, City Recorder Layton City CLINTON R. DRAKE, City Attorney Layton CityWESTON APPLONIE, Community Development Director Layton City KIMBERLY S READ, City Recorder Layton CityDRAFT 11/6/2025 Attachment – Summary of 2025 November Revisions Revisions to Development Guidelines and Design Standards and Standard Plans for Public Facilities Construction: Development Guidelines and Design Standards: Section 9 – 9.04 – Repealed section to comply with State Code §10-9A-523 and §10 -9a-524 1 2025 November Revisions to the Development Guidelines and Design Standards and Standard Plans for Public Facilities Construction: 9 DEDICATION PLAT PLAN AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 9.04 Lot Line Adjustment Repealed A. To adjust a lot line between two private properties, legal descriptions of the existing lots and the new lots must be submitted for review and approval.
1. The legal descriptions for the lots may include the establishment of new public utility and drainage easements (PU&DEs) (dedication to the City) adjacent to the new lot lines (typically 5 feet each side of the new lot line) and along any public street frontage (typically 7 feet) if one does not exist. PU&DEs may be dedicated to the City with a form provided by the City.
2. The legal descriptions shall include the total area of the new lots.
3. The legal descriptions will need to be submitted on a deed form with proper signatures. In the
h a form provided by the City.
2. The legal descriptions shall include the total area of the new lots.
3. The legal descriptions will need to be submitted on a deed form with proper signatures. In the even that new PU&DEs are established, the Mayor will sign the documents as acceptance of the new PU&DE for the City. Once the document is approved, the deeds, along with the engineering staff report, will be filed with the County, which includes the exchange of title, an acknowledgement by each party, and the old and n ew descriptions. A copy of the recorded document will need to be submitted to the City for our records. Recorded copies of the documents will need to be received prior to any development affecting the lot line adjustment.
B. If the lot line adjustment is in a subdivision with existing PU&DEs, the existing PU&DEs will need to be abandoned by submitting letters from the power, gas, phone, and any other applicable utility companies acknowledging they have no utility infrastructure in the existing easement and no interest in maintaining the easement. The City will abandon the existing PU&DEs by ordinance at a City Council Meeting. If the lot line is moved a minimal distance, the PU&DEs may not have to be abandoned and re -established.