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).
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. (see previous article, Anasazi Commons Annexation: Resident Concerns)
Here are the concerns residents have expressed so far, organized into 10 major issues/themes, along with answers from Greg McArthur at SITLA. Please let me know (email) if you think these answers are sufficient or do they raise additional issues or concerns.
Site Suitability and Construction Challenges
Question: Many residents questioned whether the steep slopes, soil conditions, grading requirements, and excavation costs make this a practical location for attainable housing.
Answer: Most easy to develop locations have already been developed. Consequently, many undeveloped locations face challenges, including this parcel. The excavation company (Royal T Enterprises) has completed multiple projects of similar scope in Washington County, including projects in the Ivins area. The development team has conducted significant initial testing on the SITLA parcel. I believe they are well versed on the soils and topographical issues. They are confident that the projected costs are reasonable and will allow them to deliver homes for around $400k.
Long-Term Affordability
Question: 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.
Answer: The builder (Wall2Wall Construction) and excavation company (Royal T Enterprises) currently have multiple affordable housing projects in Washington County and have up-to-date pricing on the work to be completed. We believe they are well versed on the challenges with the property and also well versed in building desirable affordable homes. To address the long-term affordability question: Just as every other home in the marketplace has increased in value over time, we anticipate these homes will too. That being said, based on City comments and recommendations, we are very open to restricting the homes. These restrictions might include a cap on the resale of the home, such as preventing it from selling for more than 75% of the median home price. Another option would be to prevent it from selling for more than its original percentage below the median. For example, if the median home price is $500K and this home orignally sells for $350K, that is 70% of median. So if the median home price increases from $500K to $600K at the time of resale, there could be a cap at $420K (70% of $600K). We don’t anticipate placing these types of restrictions unless the City requests it.
Traffic and Transportation
Question: Concerns were raised about additional traffic on Highway 91, roadway capacity, secondary access, emergency access, parking, and overall transportation impacts.
Answer: Yes, traffic on Highway 91 will increase. Incrementally, every new house impacts traffic. This proposed development will not cause a “tipping point” requiring new roads and infrastructure. It will have the same incremental impact as every current resident’s home in Ivins. Does Ivins City Public Works have studies showing that the proposed project will require new roads or additional lanes on Highway 91?
Infrastructure and Public Services
Question: Residents questioned the cost of extending infrastructure, long-term maintenance obligations, and impacts on police, fire, EMS, utilities, and other city services.
Answer: Existing residents will not pay anything to extend the infrastructure. This is all paid for through impact fees, which new residents cover.
Water and Drainage
Question: Several comments focused on water demand, stormwater management, drainage, and the long-term sustainability of additional growth.
Answer: All hook up fees and new infrastructure costs are paid entirely by those coming in through impact fees. No City in the County has been forced to stop approving new developments because of water scarcity. If that day comes, Washington County will have problems far deeper than the inability to provide affordable housing. Communities that stop growing start receding. Receding communities eventually die.
Parks, Open Space, and Family Amenities
Question: Many residents expressed concern that the proposal currently provides limited parks, open space, and recreational opportunities for future residents, particularly families with children.
Answer: The market shows that many people prefer owning a house with limited OS or amenities over renting a property with better amenities. Home ownership dramatically increases the opportunity for our citizens and neighbors to build wealth. Giving more people the opportunity to become substantially wealthier through homeownership far outweighs any fear of lacking amenities. The development group has set aside space for a community park in their updated plan. The parcel is surrounded by open space to the west and north with existing trails.
Location Relative to Schools, Shopping, and Services
Question: A common theme was whether this location is too isolated from schools, shopping, parks, and other community services compared to alternative locations.
Answer: The new development will be just over ½ a mile from the Ivins Unity Park and 1.12 miles from City Hall. It’s also important to note that the subject project is not in an isolated location. We are adjacent to a single-family community which has been developed with presumably no challenges regarding schools, shopping, parks, and other community services. Is this concern shared for residents who live further away, such as in Kayenta? The School District pays for bus services for Washington County school children. I would apply the same response from question 6 to question 7.
Cultural and Historic Resource Protection
Question: Many comments focused on the proximity of the development to petroglyphs, archaeological resources, and culturally significant sites.
Answer: Private lands are not held to the same standards as State lands. Wherein the subject lands are State lands, they must fully comply with all State and Federal regulations requiring cultural and historic sites.
Community Character and Quality of Life
Question: Residents expressed concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, density, scenic views, dark skies, noise, dust, and overall community character.
Answer: True, just as every person who has moved into the community has impacted its character and quality of life, this community will have its proportionate share of impact. We suspect it will actually improve the character and quality of life because more of our children, grandchildren, and service providers will have an opportunity to live in the community – an opportunity they wouldn’t have if the only option is to purchase a home at or above the median home price.
Alternative Approaches
Question: 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.
Answer: The subject land is the subject land. That is the parcel that the State owns. The Trust has been asked whether it would exchange this parcel for another, assuming the other would provide the same single family density. That answer has always been yes – so long as the owner of the other parcel is willing to exchange. To date, no land owner has requested a land swap that would provide a similar number of single family residential homes. It is unlikely to think that given more time, a landowner with a considerably better parcel (proper zoning, proper location, easier to develop, etc) would ever exchange with the Trust. This parcel has been open to affordable housing for nearly a year and to date, not a single land exchange option has been presented, let alone a viable one.
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…