I have received a number of emails from residents opposed to the annexation of the SITLA land just off Hwy 91 next to the Indigo Trails neighborhood and the proposed “Anasazi Commons” attainable housing development (previously called Anasazi Ridge).
There will be a City Council Work Meeting at City Hall (85 N Main Street) on June 18 beginning at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the proposal. It is not a public hearing, but I encourage anyone interested to attend and listen to the discussion. SITLA and the development team will be there to discuss their proposal. (Download their presentation from last fall – not – there have been changes we will learn about on June 18th.)
I too have concerns about the proposal. Last November I wrote an article titled “SITLA Affordable Housing Proposal – Great Goal, Challenging Location,” which outlines many of my concerns. The proposal has evolved since then, so some issues may have been addressed, but many questions remain.
After reviewing all of the emails I’ve received so far, I found 37 different concerns and 15 recommendations. Many of the concerns raised are legitimate issues that deserve careful consideration. Others involve matters that may ultimately be the responsibility of the developer, SITLA, state agencies, or future homebuyers rather than the City itself.
My task as a Council Member is to determine which concerns fall within the City’s authority and which should influence an annexation decision. I’d like to hear from you if you have concerns, suggestions, or are just interested in keeping informed on this issue. Please email me at Mike@MikeScott4Ivins.com.
Here are the concerns residents have expressed so far, organized into 10 major issues/themes:
1. Site Suitability and Construction Challenges
Many residents questioned whether the steep slopes, soil conditions, grading requirements, and excavation costs make this a practical location for attainable housing.
2. Long-Term Affordability
Several residents questioned whether homes can remain truly attainable if development costs are significantly higher than anticipated and whether any long-term affordability protections will be included.
3. Traffic and Transportation
Concerns were raised about additional traffic on Highway 91, roadway capacity, secondary access, emergency access, parking, and overall transportation impacts.
4. Infrastructure and Public Services
Residents questioned the cost of extending infrastructure, long-term maintenance obligations, and impacts on police, fire, EMS, utilities, and other city services.
5. Water and Drainage
Several comments focused on water demand, stormwater management, drainage, and the long-term sustainability of additional growth.
6. Parks, Open Space, and Family Amenities
Many residents expressed concern that the proposal currently provides limited parks, open space, and recreational opportunities for future residents, particularly families with children.
7. Location Relative to Schools, Shopping, and Services
A common theme was whether this location is too isolated from schools, shopping, parks, and other community services compared to alternative locations.
8. Cultural and Historic Resource Protection
Many comments focused on the proximity of the development to petroglyphs, archaeological resources, and culturally significant sites.
9. Community Character and Quality of Life
Residents expressed concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, density, scenic views, dark skies, noise, dust, and overall community character.
10. Alternative Approaches
Many residents suggested exploring alternative locations, reducing the number of units, integrating attainable housing throughout the community, or evaluating other ways to meet housing goals.
Some issues, such as traffic, access, parking, open space, long-term affordability, buffering, infrastructure capacity, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, are areas where I believe the City has an important role to play. Other concerns require additional technical information before meaningful conclusions can be reached.
I appreciate everyone who took the time to write. Thoughtful input helps me better understand both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, and your comments will be part of my evaluation as this process moves forward, most immediately at the June 18th meeting.
Sign up for monthly email updates (click here)
Never more than 12 emails a year and you can unsubscribe any time
Let me know about Ivins issues that are important to you.
Please email me with your concerns, ideas, suggestions, and recommendations.
Recent “Development” Articles
- Shivwits/Black Desert Development
PDF 📄Update: June 9, 2026: City Council member Wayne Pennington provided a more recent plan (download) than was proposed in the presentation from last year that I initially posted. At our City Council meeting last Thursday, we agreed to place a discussion item on the June 18 Council agenda regarding the proposed development being planned… - What Should Go Where?
PDF 📄One of the most important discussions affecting Ivins over the next several decades is about to begin. On July 28 at 3:00 p.m., the City Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint work meeting at City Hall to discuss how we should update Ivins’ Land Use Map. This is just the first step… - Anasazi Commons Annexation: Resident Concerns
PDF 📄I have received a number of emails from residents opposed to the annexation of the SITLA land just off Hwy 91 next to the Indigo Trails neighborhood and the proposed “Anasazi Commons” attainable housing development (previously called Anasazi Ridge). There will be a City Council Work Meeting at City Hall (85 N Main Street)… - Short-Term Rentals: A Difficult Vote
PDF 📄At our December 18th meeting, I voted to approve a 160-unit short-term rental development called Mojave Village just off Hwy 91. I do not believe short-term rentals are good for Ivins. In addition to practical challenges they create, they undermine the sense of community that defines this city. That’s why I have consistently voted… - SITLA Affordable Housing Proposal — Great Goal, Challenging Location
PDF 📄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…