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
- 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…