Cedar City planning commission tables Levitt zone-assignment and development-agreement items after heated public hearing over density, water and roads

Cedar City — The Cedar City Planning Commission on a packed evening heard from dozens of residents before tabling several items tied to a proposed zone assignment and development agreement for a 160-acre parcel that was originally part of the 2,034-acre Cordero master-planned development. Applicant Caleb Levitt told the commission his proposal would reassign obsolete MPD zoning to conventional residential zones and include "a development agreement to limit this property, the entire property, to 880 units," which he described as roughly 70 units fewer than prior Cordero allocations for that parcel.

Why it matters: Neighbors pressed the commission for firm guarantees about water, road widening, and the retention of parks and a golf course that were in the original Cordero plan. Many speakers said the public felt the original master-plan amenities would be lost if individual parcels are withdrawn from the older agreement. The commission cannot remove a parcel from the original Cordero development agreement without city-council approval and full notice to all parties to the contract, staff said.

What the applicant proposed and staff explained: Levitt said his parcel is about 160 acres and that his calculations show the original agreement would allow roughly 936–946 units on that acreage; he proposed new zone assignments (including some R-2.2 and R-3M) and a development agreement capping the parcel at 880 units. Staff clarified that the Cordero development agreement is a binding contract that "runs with the land" and that, unless the agreement is amended or abandoned by all parties (including the city), successor owners could pursue development rights provided under the original agreement. Staff also advised that sewer connections, lift stations and some road segments remain design issues that the applicant must address in later engineering phases; the developer is typically responsible for adjacent road widening, and impact fees contribute to broader infrastructure work.

Residents' concerns: Public comment focused on a few recurring points: (1) water supply and drought risk; (2) traffic and when Westview Drive and other arterials will be widened and who will pay; (3) loss of the Cordero agreement's promised amenities (golf course, parks and trails); and (4) worry that allowing one parcel to withdraw sets a precedent for piecemeal erosion of the master plan. Amber Womack told the commission a petition of nearly 980 Cedar City residents opposes the proposed changes. Harold Pease and others repeatedly raised water availability as a central constraint.

Responses and options raised at the meeting: Commissioners and staff said a development agreement can legally bind the owner to neighborhood protections — for example, guaranteeing single-family homes along the northern edge to protect adjacent low-density properties — but that drafting and approving a development agreement involves engineering review, legal review and public notice and therefore takes time. Levitt told the commission he would be willing to add a commitment to build single-family homes along the north border into a development agreement.

Commission action: The commission acknowledged that item 3 (the proposed amendment to the Cordero agreement) had not been properly noticed to all affected owners and therefore could not be decided. After discussion and an initially proposed negative recommendation that was withdrawn, the commission voted to table the Cordero amendment and the related items and set the matter for the next meeting (the 18th) so staff can reissue notices and the applicant can submit a revised development agreement. The chair closed the public hearing following the vote.

What happens next: Staff said corrected notice will be sent and the applicant may return with a revised development agreement; the city council would be required to approve any amendment that extracts land from the Cordero agreement. Staff also noted a separate city staff item on the agenda — a road-dedication plat along Westview Drive to permit utilities relocation — was informational and will be processed administratively.

Representative quotes

Caleb Levitt, applicant: "This is our proposal ... a development agreement to limit this property, the entire property, to 880 units."

Amber Womack, Westview resident: "There's over 980 signatures on a petition of Cedar City residents that don't want this plan."

Staff (regarding the Cordero agreement): "That agreement goes with the land ... that's why the item on the agenda that wasn't noticed correctly needed to include the entire Cordero agreement area."

The commission closed the public hearing and tabled the items to allow corrected noticing and additional work on a binding development agreement; further hearings and staff reviews are expected when the applicant returns.