The Kaysville City Council on Oct. 16 denied a proposal to rezone 80 East Center Street from A‑1 (light agricultural) to CC (Central Commercial) with a mixed‑use overlay, a plan that would have preserved the site’s historic Presbyterian church and added townhomes with ground‑floor commercial space.

The applicant, Jake Williams, told the council his primary goal was to save the historic church on the parcel and to introduce housing he said would help revitalize downtown. Williams described the plan as a compromise reached after planning commission review: the applicant reduced the project from 27 to 24 dwellings (including conversion of the church to a single‑family residence) and lowered storefront ceiling heights and added open space after neighborhood feedback. “Our driving force for this project initially was figure out a way to save the church,” Williams told the council, and he said the design sought to use existing trees to buffer adjacent homes.

The planning staff presentation noted the project had gone twice to the planning commission; staff reported 16 public commenters at the planning hearing and 15 written comments in the file. Planning staff summarized the project’s technical changes and said the planning commission voted 4‑0 on Sept. 11 to recommend approval.

Public commenters at the council meeting — neighbors and longtime residents who live within one or two blocks of the site — objected primarily to scale, density, parking and traffic safety. Speakers told the council the parcel is surrounded by predominantly single‑family homes and that 23 townhomes on the lot (the applicant cited a density of about 15 units per acre) would be out of character, lead to daytime and overnight parking pressure on neighborhood streets, stress pickup and drop‑off at nearby Kaysville Elementary and create potential emergency‑access and safety problems. Tucker Hunsaker, who lives across the street, asked whether the church’s preservation was guaranteed and whether a newly developed project would increase traffic through quieter residential streets.

Other speakers raised technical and programmatic concerns: one asked whether the traffic study appropriately included school‑year traffic (several speakers said the study covered a summer period), another urged that commercial square footage be viable for real retailers rather than small “work‑space” offices, and others said that adding mixed commercial usage without enforceable hours, sanitation or business restrictions could create unintended consequences. Bob Dunford, a resident who said his family has deep ties to the Harvey family that long owned the parcel, said the project “came as a shock” for neighbors used to a very low density on adjacent blocks.

Council deliberations focused on balancing the council’s downtown revitalization objectives with neighborhood transition and public‑safety concerns. Several council members said they supported the plaza‑style look and the preservation of the church but judged the proposed density too high and the commercial component insufficient to deliver the downtown retail value the mixed‑use overlay intended. Council members and staff discussed the possibility of a road connection through the adjacent Zions Bank parcel to relieve traffic, but that option depends on third‑party property access and was not guaranteed.

Action: a council motion to deny the rezoning passed after debate. (The council also discussed options for sending the project back to planning for substantial revision or for the applicant to withdraw and rework the proposal.) Council members who spoke said they would prefer a reworked submittal with fewer units, clearer on‑site parking and either strengthened commercial storefronts fronting Center Street or a smaller‑scale residential transition that better matches existing neighborhood density. The applicant said he would discuss next steps with the property owner and the community.

Ending: The council’s denial leaves the parcel zoned A‑1; the applicant may revise and resubmit a substantially different plan or withdraw and reapply. Council members asked staff and the developer to consider fewer units, clearer commercial frontage and stronger guarantees for church preservation if the proposal returns.