Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement Jet topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission gives negative recommendation on development agreement for 478 E. 325 S. after neighbor concerns
Summary
The planning commission voted a negative recommendation on a development agreement for a proposed home at 478 East 325 South after debate over whether to require full curb, gutter and pavement or allow a deferral limited to the applicant’s frontage.
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement Jet topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cedar City Planning Commission voted to give a negative recommendation on a development agreement for property at 478 East 325 South after commissioners publicly questioned a proposal to defer curb, gutter and full pavement requirements for the applicant’s frontage.
Applicant Tom Jett asked that the city waive standard curb-and-gutter, sidewalk and full asphalt requirements for the short dirt road serving his lot and allow a chip-seal or partial improvement only in front of his property unless the neighbor to the east develops. Jett said the road has been a dirt lane for decades and that he would install curb and gutter if the adjoining property later develops. City engineering and planning staff and several commissioners raised enforcement and precedent concerns, saying deferral agreements are difficult to enforce and could leave the city with an asymmetrical curb-and-gutter condition and exposed liabilities.
Multiple commissioners said a partial pavement/curb solution that leaves existing curb and sidewalk segments but not a continuous, city-maintained street would create maintenance and liability problems. One commissioner said the city’s strongest enforcement tool is withholding permits; staff added that vacating or transferring partially improved rights-of-way could leave incomplete curbs and sidewalks under private ownership. The applicant proposed chip-sealing the half-street in front of his lot; staff and commissioners noted that a typical requirement is 12 feet past centerline to allow two-way flow.
A commission motion to recommend approval based on the applicant’s requested terms failed for lack of a second. Later the applicant indicated he would accept a negative recommendation to move the matter to the City Council, and commissioners approved the negative recommendation by voice vote. The recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council for final consideration.

