Last Thursday the City Council voted to change the land use on this parcel from low density to high density and change the zoning to townhomes with one buffer row of single-family homes on 5,000 sq.ft. lots along the north side of the property next to the Haven development.
Going from low to high density sounds like a huge leap. But letās put it in perspective. The Haven development directly north is medium density. It sits on land that was originally low density. Red Mountain Vista Townhomes next door is high density, but that land was originally low density. So, all the fiddling with changes to the land use plan over many years has made low density impractical for this site.
I did not vote for this change. I recommended no change until the City revises our Land Use Plan for the entire city and before getting a lot of public input. But I would have supported a change to medium density, like the Haven.
I donāt think the Councilās decision went far enough to protect the Haven. But it is important to note that it was a better decision than we often get. Thatās because the Council provided some protection for the Haven by requiring a ābufferā of single-family homes next to it.
By comparison, when Red Mountain Vista Townhomes was approved by the Council, all the adjoining land uses were either low or medium density. But high-density townhomes were approved for the entire site without any buffer of single-family to protect the adjoining properties.
I believe it is important to create a buffer whenever higher density is approved next to lower density. The City Council did that. I just donāt think it was enough of a buffer. I cited a couple of real-life examples to show my opinion of where āsmallā buffers are okay and where ālargerā buffers are more appropriate. But it is subjective and a bit philosophical. So, Iāll work on my presentation skills to hopefully do a better job in the future.
I would appreciate positive suggestions and examples of good solutions to problems like this. Although they didnāt do as much as I wanted, the City Council was sensitive to the adjoining properties, so donāt beat them up. Just help me with more information about how to explain my ideas better.
Please share your comments and tell me about other Ivins issues I have not addressed in recent posts. CONTACT ME
Recent āDevelopmentā posts
- Shivwits/Black Desert DevelopmentPDF šUpdate: 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 šOne 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 ConcernsPDF šI 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 VotePDF šAt 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. Thatās why I have consistently voted…
- SITLA Affordable Housing Proposal ā Great Goal, Challenging LocationPDF šAs 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 āArea 2ā of the Ivins Annexation Policy Plan. The…