The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 17th to discuss changing requirements for exterior building colors. Currently, Ivins requires building exterior colors to be muted, earth tones. When they discussed this at their June 15th meeting 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. However, they have not reached a final decision, so this is our opportunity to help them with useful suggestions.
The building color requirements Ivins has had for a number of years have helped Ivins develop its own unique character. I believe that character, and the building colors that help shape it, are appreciated by most residents. Our General Plan speaks to this, stating “Encourage architecture, lighting, landscaping and the use of colors that blend with the natural surroundings, and Encourage residential design that complements the natural beauty and character of the area.”
Building color is an important visual language that everyone understands; a sensory perception that affects our emotions in many ways. Light, unmuted colors don’t blend with our natural surroundings. Our color requirements have worked well in Ivins for years and helped to create a unique and cohesive character for our city.
However, the written requirements could stand modification. Here is a suggestion for the meeting, and suggestions for changes to the 3 requirements:
Meeting suggestion: Have a color wheel(s) or chart(s) or color chips available in the Planning Commission meeting. That way everyone will have real, concrete examples to look at rather than trying to imagine the colors or look at them on phones or computers which won’t render the colors as accurately and are difficult to share with others in the meeting.
- Requirement 1 – Minimize Impact: “All building materials and colors shall minimize the impact of buildings on the natural setting. All building colors shall be earth tones and muted colors that blend and do not contrast with natural desert colors. Wall extensions from buildings, and all walls and fences, shall be the same or similar color and materials as the main building.”
- Suggestion: The City could have on hand a color wheel/chart that shows the options acceptable to the City. Then everyone can SEE what is acceptable.
- Requirement 2 – Light Reflective Value (LRV): “The LRV of materials used on all exterior walls shall be between seven (7) (darkest value of shaded vegetation) and thirty eight (38) (approximate value of red sandstone and soil in the city). Generally, the more visible the structure, the lower its LRV should be.”
- Suggestion: LRV is a technical term, but it is extremely useful. Paint companies provide the LRV for their colors, making it easy to meet the rules by finding out the LRV for a selected color. Determine if the current LRV range is appropriate by selecting colors from actual color wheels, charts, chips that meet the other two requirements and the General Plan’s goals and use the range of those selected colors.
- Requirement 3 – Color Intensity And Brightness: “The strength, intensity, and brightness of the color selected (chroma) shall be in the range from very weak (grayish) to medium weak (neutral or earth tone). Strong chroma colors should be avoided. Stains and flat paints are encouraged.”
- Suggestion: “Very weak and medium weak” are not measurable criteria. Instead, state that all colors must be muted. Color wheels, charts, and/or chips are the easiest way for everyone to understand what is acceptable.
If the Planning Commission decides to recommend lighter colors or colors that fall outside of these three requirements, then I believe that should require changes to the General Plan. And I believe the General Plan should only be changed after a significant amount of public input over an extended period, to ensure the opportunity for most residents to weigh in on any new vision for our community.
I believe it would help the Planning Commission if you shared your thoughts, concerns, and ideas in an email to them before Tuesday’s meeting (jloris@ivins.com, bpack@ivins.com, landerson@ivins.com, dclifford@ivins.com, bmorris@ivins.com). Even better, attend the meeting on Tuesday and give your input during the public hearing. The meeting starts at 5:30pm and this issue is the first thing on the agenda.
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…