Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council as RDO proposal is revised and tabled for more work
Summary
After hours of debate and lengthy public comment, Cedar City Council tabled action on a residential-development-overlay (RDO) proposal for land near Cody Drive and Cross Hollow pending clearer phase, drainage and amenity language; residents urged preserving single-family character and raised traffic and flood concerns.
The Cedar City Council on Monday paused consideration of a proposed Residential Development Overlay (RDO) covering land near Cody Drive and Cross Hollow after months of public input and a packed public-comment period.
Developer representatives led by Dallas Buckner presented revised exhibits that reduced the overall potential unit cap from 400 to 350, described pod-by-pod changes (including a reduction in Pod 2 from 50 to 20 units), and proposed a mix of single-family buffer lots and higher-density R3 housing deeper in the site. Buckner told the council the revisions were intended as an effort to “meet in the middle” with the neighborhood and staff.
Council members pressed for clearer, enforceable language in the development agreement. They asked the developer and staff to specify: exact pod-level unit caps (to prevent shifting units between pods), the location and timing of required stormwater and detention improvements, how and when the proposed open-space fire-mitigation work would be completed and maintained, and whether listed amenities would be private PUD amenities or dedicated public improvements.
Residents who live in the adjacent Sunset Canyon neighborhood turned out in force. Katie Barry said the neighborhood’s petition—she said it included 255 signatures—asked council to keep the site R1 or R2.1 and stressed that neighbors welcomed “thoughtful” development but not increased traffic, flood risk or what she described as higher-density projects that change neighborhood character. Resident Mary Watkins cited recent nearby foundation and sediment issues and urged careful handling of drainage and grading.
On public-safety concerns, the developer agreed to an initial fire-mitigation treatment of the open space if the city accepts the dedication and noted that long-term maintenance would likely fall to the municipality. An arborist’s preliminary estimate cited in the presentation put one possible cost in the range of roughly $50,000–$70,000 for the initial treatment depending on access and methods.
After extended council and staff exchanges about cul-de-sac and road spacing requirements, private versus public amenity commitments in a PUD, parking and setback details, and how to make phased infrastructure triggers enforceable, a council member moved to table the RDO. The motion to table—to give staff and the developer time to tighten the agreement language and produce a refined work plan—carried. Council members instructed staff to return with more precise, pod-specific limits, clearer phasing and binding triggers tying drainage and detention improvements to development phases.
The council set a near-term schedule to resume the matter and asked that staff provide a redline version of the development agreement showing the proposed clarifications before any vote. The tabling does not change the zoning of the parcels; it pauses action so the agreement can be tightened and the public given a further opportunity to comment.
