Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission endorses 4B Ranch fee-in-lieu plan and recommends Cedar 106 with added connectivity language
Summary
The commission recommended a development agreement for 4B Ranch Phase 5 (fee-in-lieu for Westview frontage improvements estimated at $204,882.32) and separately recommended the Cedar 106 amended development agreement after securing stronger language about internal and external street interconnectivity.
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cedar City Planning Commission recommended approval of two development agreements at its meeting: a fee-in-lieu arrangement for 4B Ranch Phase 5 and an amended development agreement for Cedar 106 with clarified street-connectivity language.
For 4B Ranch Phase 5, Dallas Buckner of Go Civil told commissioners that a frontage improvement obligation along Westview was quantified in an engineer’s estimate at $204,882.32; the developer also committed to construct a southbound deceleration lane at its own cost. Staff described the approach as a reasonable way to meet the developer’s obligations while giving the city funds to complete improvements when appropriate. After a brief public hearing with no speakers, the commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council.
On Cedar 106, the applicant proposed vacating a portion of a previously dedicated but unimproved master-plan road and relying on 800 North for primary access. City staff and commissioners pressed for stronger assurances that future development would include internal interconnectivity and connections to adjoining properties; Kent (city engineer) and staff suggested adding explicit language requiring connectivity to adjoining properties and a specific access alignment at 3700 West. Commissioners accepted staff’s clarifying language. The commission voted to recommend the amended agreement with the connectivity wording in place.
Both recommendations are advisory; final approval for each development agreement rests with the City Council and subsequent permitting steps.

