The Planning Commission started to discuss changing requirements for exterior building colors at its June 15th meeting. Currently, Ivins requires building exterior colors to be muted, earth tones. It appeared that members of the Planning Commission, except for Lance Anderson, were in favor of loosening color requirements to allow for much lighter colors.
At their last meeting, Commissioner Anderson thought that people looking to use much lighter colors are focused on their own investment, not the investment their neighbors have made which could be negatively impacted. He noted that is the reason ordinances exist, to protect both investments. He suggested that at least the homes around the perimeter of a new subdivision use colors that are compatible with surrounding homes. He also felt that relaxing the color requirements was a step in the wrong direction.
In a way, the discussion is mute for a lot of single-family development. The State has now eliminated the ability for cities to regulate many building design elements, including building color, for one- and two-family homes. Ivins can still regulate design elements for townhomes, multifamily and commercial development. And HOAs can regulate design elements, including building color, in their CC&Rs.
However, if a developer of a subdivision enters into a development agreement with the City, that agreement can include design element requirements. Development agreements typically come into play when developers look for density bonuses. So, if a subdivision developer isn’t looking for anything extra, like density, the developer will not have to meet the City’s design requirements.
But City Manager Dale Coulam suggested a possible solution. He said the City could change the subdivision ordinance to require development agreements for all new subdivisions. That way the City could still control design requirements.
Lance said he lived in Ivins when there were no rules. Over the past twenty years we created rules for building design and colors, creating value for property owners and changing the way the city is looked at for the better. Now the State Legislature, controlled by developers who don’t care about our values and just come in and build and leave, doesn’t care what our values are or what we have tried to accomplish. So, we have to take a stand.
Commissioners will continue this discussion at their next meeting and there will ultimately be a public hearing before they make any recommendation to the City Council.
Please share your comments and tell me about other Ivins issues I have not addressed in recent posts. CONTACT ME
Recent “Development” posts
- SITLA Affordable Housing Proposal — Great Goal, Challenging LocationPDF đź“„As noted in previous articles, the Utah Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is moving forward with a proposal to build 254 small, attainable single-family homes on its 40-acre parcel just off Hwy 91 next to Indigo Trails. The land is in unincorporated Washington County and within “Area 2” of the Ivins Annexation Policy Plan. The…
- Making Land Use Changes Work for the CommunityPDF đź“„Cities across Utah are feeling pressure from the State Legislature to help provide more affordable housing options. At the same time, communities like Ivins are trying to maintain neighborhood character, protect infrastructure capacity, and preserve our quality of life. Those goals aren’t incompatible, but they require thoughtful decision-making. When development proposals come forward, they…
- Red Mountain Resort Development: Update 2PDF đź“„Update – 10/17/25: The City Council last night approved a revised development agreement for Red Mountain Resort. The plan now allows 450 units instead of 500 and, more importantly, adds 16 conditions designed to reduce construction impacts, protect views, address traffic, ensure night-sky-friendly lighting, and more conditions to make the finished project fit more…
- Closer to Affordable Housing Off Hwy 91PDF đź“„The Trust Lands Administration (commonly known as SITLA) has selected a developer for its parcel of land just off Hwy 91 next to the Indigo Trails community. The land is in unincorporated Washington County in “Area 2” of the Ivins Annexation Policy Plan. The developer plans to build about 250 small detached single-family homes on 3,000…
- Is The Housing Debate Comparing Apples To Watermelons?PDF đź“„The Legislature’s focus on housing affordability is understandable. Home prices have far outpaced incomes across Utah, and that’s a real challenge for families. But in trying to solve that one problem, lawmakers are putting on blinders to everything else that good planning protects. Housing isn’t built in a vacuum. When the Legislature’s only lens…