Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer’s request to narrow 400 E/325 S right-of-way prompts debate over improvements and tiny-home plan
Summary
Tom Jett asked the council to vacate part of the 66-foot right-of-way at 400 E / 325 S and reduce it to a 45-foot standard, proposing tiny homes and a development agreement to defer curb-and-gutter improvements; staff warned of stormwater and long-term maintenance issues and council agreed to take the ordinance to action after further review.
A public hearing and lengthy council discussion on a proposed partial vacation of the right-of-way at approximately 400 East and 325 South centered on a request by property owner Tom Jett to reduce the dedicated width from 66 feet to a typical 45-foot residential street and to allow alternative improvement standards tied to a development agreement.
Tom Jett opened the hearing by denying online rumors and saying, "There's no trailer park. There's no storage units," and described plans to build his own home and to allow rental tiny homes intended for disadvantaged or mentally ill residents as a targeted housing option. He asked the council to permit rolling curb or chip-seal in lieu of full curb-and-gutter and to phase improvements so he would chip-seal the half of the road adjacent to his property when the neighboring lots are developed.
Planning staff explained state statute typically requires equitable distribution of vacated right-of-way and that if the city approves a partial vacation public improvements on remaining lots could be required when owners pull permits. Staff warned that “the major stormwater conveyance system that Cedar City employs ... is the asphalt between the curb and the gutter,” and that waiving curb/gutter could change how stormwater is handled and shift maintenance liabilities to the city unless carefully addressed in a development agreement.
Council members questioned how sidewalks and curb would be handled for north-side property owners who already have mismatched curb/gutter, and whether the city should require improvements now or wait until other owners petition or develop. The council discussed alternatives such as a roll curb, phased chip-seal work, and limiting access to 325 so traffic would be routed to 400 East. Several councilors urged that any development agreement include explicit grading and drainage language to keep stormwater on site.
Tom Jett also said his proposed tiny homes would be limited to one bedroom and include two off-street parking stalls and guest parking; staff noted the city’s hard-surface parking requirements still apply and that any deviations should be spelled out in the agreement.
Public comment included questions about parking, pedestrian safety, and prior notice to adjacent property owners; the applicant and staff confirmed certified notices were mailed. The council moved items 3 and 4 (the ordinance and related development agreement) to the action agenda for formal consideration next week, asking staff to draft clear development-agreement language about drainage, required improvements, and sequencing before a vote.
If approved, the ordinance change would still be subject to final engineering review and potential conditions to protect public drainage and to ensure contiguous, consistent improvements when adjacent properties develop.
