Last night the Planning Commission recommended to approve a special height exception for the resort. Next, it goes to the City Council for their consideration.
However, instead of a request to permit one or more buildings to be as high as 70-feet as originally requested, the developer asked for a maximum height of 54 feet. Some buildings will be taller than the 35-foot limit for commercial buildings, with the tallest at 54 feet. But most buildings will be 35 feet or less.
It appears the buildings the developer plans to be higher than the 35-foot maximum allowed normally are at a lower elevation than Snow Canyon Parkway and are set back about 1,000 feet. They do appear to be set back significantly, but we did not see a cross section topographical drawing showing the elevations compared to the Parkway so it is difficult determine if the taller buildings will have a visual impact. Lance Anderson asked the developer how much lower the buildings are than the Parkway and was told they were 13 feet lower. Later in the discussion Lance stated his vote to recommend approval is based on that lower elevation.
The developer showed an autoCAD video representation of the view of the resort from Snow Canyon Parkway for people driving on the Parkway. It showed that the taller buildings were not visible because (1) the one-story buildings fronting the Parkway block a lot of the structures behind them, (2) the taller buildings are set back significantly from the Parkway, and (3) the taller buildings are apparently built at a lower grade.
City Manager Dale Coulam told the Planning Commission that “special exceptions” for taller buildings are permitted, but only if they meet certain requirements as detailed in Chapter 28 of the Zoning Regulations. After discussing those requirements, it appeared most commissioners were satisfied that the resort met the requirements.
However, even though there appears to be no impact based on the street level video, I think most of the properties to the north of the resort are at higher elevations than street level and they may still be impacted. The Planning Commission’s recommendation still has to be considered by the City Council, probably on August 19th.
In making a final decision, it would be helpful to see a detailed cross section topographical map with all the building elevations clearly depicted. And it would be good to analyze any impacts for the neighboring properties, especially those to the north.
Finally, even if the impact is minimal and even if this request meets the requirements of Chapter 28, one question remains: Why do it? Ivins has rules for development and the resort developers had the opportunity to know what those rules are because it’s public information.
Commissioner Bob Morris voted against recommending taller buildings because (I’m paraphrasing) he felt the developer has not made enough of an effort to minimize building height. He also said he is frustrated because he has sat through meetings where developers ask for one exception after another. I agree completely. We do have basic height rules and other developers work within them.
One of Bob’s concerns was that the developer was saying the 54-foot height exception is needed because the elevator enclosure extends above the top floor. Bob asked why the developer didn’t use a hydraulic elevator, which would eliminate the need for an elevator penthouse – the top of the elevator assembly would be no higher than the roofline. The developer said the elevator is designed to give access to the roof.
Towards the end of the discussion the developer talked about putting flower boxes on the roof. That makes me think that the reason the developer really wants the elevator to not only service the floors below but also the roof is that the roof might be used as a rooftop entertainment area. Lance Anderson also expressed a concern about this. That’s worth clarifying, because having rooftop entertainment on top of the building may bring in additional structures (shade covers, etc.). And with it being taller than the surrounding buildings, noise will carry.
Maybe I’m wrong and this will be just a normal boring roof. Hopefully the developer will clarify this for the City Council because I think noise from a rooftop entertainment area could create a nuisance for neighboring properties since the building will be taller than surrounding buildings. I believe it would help the City Council if you shared your thoughts, concerns, and ideas based on first listening to the audio posted on the City’s website of that portion of the meeting. Maybe I got something wrong or missed something. And it would be useful to look at the requirements for permitting special height exceptions in Title 16 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 28. Click on Ivins City Code from this page. It is important to be certain that the request does meet the special exception requirements.
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…