Next week the City Council will review a recommendation from the Planning Commission to change the City’s requirements for building colors. Last year the State Legislature said that cities could no longer control building colors for single-family homes and two-family homes.
But cities still have authority to regulate colors for multifamily and commercial properties as well as single-family and two-family homes in a new development using development agreements or new construction that is given some other benefit not included in their zone.
Nine Months …
The Planning Commission spent 9 months discussing exterior building colors and held 2 public hearings. During that time:
- Public comments showed frustration about the subjectivity of the current requirements.
- Mike Haycock, head of the City’s Building department, asked for more objective criteria.
- Others wanted Ivins to get out of the color regulation business completely.
The end result: The Planning Commission recommended loosening building color requirements by removing Light Reflective Value (LRV) as a criterion. But they left in the other three requirements: (1) earth tones, (2) muted colors and, (3) very weak to medium weak chroma. LRV was the only concrete, objective measurement. Everything else is subjective.
Two Unanswered Questions
For a while, some members of the Planning Commission appeared to be in favor of eliminating building color regulations completely. Some seemed to be in favor of significantly broadening the range of colors that would be acceptable.
So, we still need to deal with two unanswered questions:
- Should we regulate building color at all, and
- Can a regulation be objective and free from misinterpretation?
“Should we” revolves around property rights. Property rights are rights in a tangible thing, your real estate, so some people say the City has no right to interfere with their personal stuff. I get it, especially since I just finished filing our tax returns. I’m “up to here” with anything “government” right now. Like Ronald Reagan said: “The most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
But property rights are also rights in relation to other people. So, how should Ivins balance its duty to individuals with its duty to neighbors and to the community?
I would like to hear from you. Please tell me your answers to these two questions.
Please share your comments on this topic and tell me about other Ivins issues I have not addressed in recent posts. Email me at Mike@MikeScott4Ivins.com.
Recent “Development” posts
- Time For A Short-Term Rental Tune Up?PDF 📄The State Legislature gave cities a little more enforcement power this year through House Bill 256, which outlines clear steps cities can take when short-term rentals (STRs) operate in zones where they aren’t allowed. This includes issuing warnings, requesting that online listings be removed, and imposing fines if violations aren’t corrected. The Legislature didn’t…
- Home Businesses: Draw Some Lines?PDF 📄It’s interesting how, even after more than three years on city council, I stumble on things that just don’t make sense. Back in 2017, the Utah Legislature passed a law limiting cities from charging license fees for home-based businesses. So, Ivins had to change its city code regarding these fees. But our City Council…
- How To Think About Rezone ProposalsPDF 📄A proposed zone change is on the City Council’s agenda for the March 6th meeting and there will be a public hearing on this issue (City Hall, 85 N Main Street, meeting starts at 5:30pm). The requested change complies with the Land Use Map. However, the request is for the highest density allowed in…
- Affordable Housing Off Hwy 91?PDF 📄The Utah Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is looking for development proposals that “offer solutions to solve the housing crisis” on a 40-acre parcel of land in Ivins just off Hwy 91. Proposals must contain a plan to help provide affordable housing with an emphasis on the Governor’s goal of providing single detached homes in…
- Balancing Benefits for Residents & DevelopersPDF 📄When the Hidden Spring RV Resort on Hwy 91 (between Main Street and 200 W) was first proposed years ago, the Planning Commission and City Council crafted thoughtful code requirements to ensure it would truly be a “resort,” not just another RV park. These included landscaping to screen the resort from the road, concrete…