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 let’s 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 don’t think the Council’s decision went far enough to protect the Haven. But it is important to note that it was a better decision than we often get. That’s because the Council provided some protection for the Haven by requiring a “buffer” 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 don’t think it was enough of a buffer. I cited a couple of real-life examples to show my opinion of where “small” buffers are okay and where “larger” buffers are more appropriate. But it is subjective and a bit philosophical. So, I’ll 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 didn’t do as much as I wanted, the City Council was sensitive to the adjoining properties, so don’t 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 “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…