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
- The Housing Debate Is Comparing Apples To WatermelonsPDF 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…
- Utah’s Housing Plan: Hope or Worry?PDF đź“„The State released a draft Housing Strategic Plan last week, asking cities to provide feedback before it’s finalized and presented to the Legislature. (Download the Plan) I’ll admit, I approached my review of the Plan with low expectations. In recent years, housing policy discussions at the state level have leaned toward mandates, one-size-fits-all rules…
- Red Mountain Resort: What’s Next For Ivins?PDF đź“„At last week’s City Council meeting, Black Desert Resort presented a proposed development agreement for the Red Mountain Resort property. The concept is to redevelop the existing resort on 56.5 acres with up to 500 “visitor lodging” units managed as part of a destination resort, plus an unspecified amount of related commercial space. About…
- Ongoing Blasting at Black Desert ResortPDF đź“„Black Desert Resort is currently conducting regular blasting to excavate lava rock for an underground parking structure. The blasting occurs at least a couple times a week and has been underway for several months, with at least a few more months to go. During this afternoon’s blast, I was a few hundred feet from…
- My Take on Growth, Roads, Water, & MorePDF đź“„Robert MacFarlane, an Ivins resident who pays a lot of attention to local issues and hosts the 435 Podcast sent a questionnaire to all city council candidates in the county. I wrote detailed responses to all seven questions, but they were too big and blew up his online survey form. So I redid those responses as…