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
- Having a Voice in the Future of IvinsPDF 📄I was going to call this article “What Mojave Village Can Teach Us About Working Together to Protect Our Community,” but that’s a bit much for a title! In my September “Monthly Ivins Update” email to residents, I asked residents to email me with their thoughts about Mojave Village. More than 200 took the…
- Mojave Village: A Big Proposal Moving QuicklyPDF 📄Ivins is considering a significant new development called Mojave Village, approximately 64 acres near Guy Lane and Fitness Way. The proposal includes 369 units: 160 Resort Commercial townhomes that could be used as short-term rentals, nearly 200 smaller-lot single-family homes, and estate lots of an acre or more. That’s a lot to consider. At…
- Mojave Village: Your Questions, Concerns & My ResponsesPDF 📄Since I posted information about the proposed Mojave Village development, I’ve received more than 100 emails and a lot of social media comments. Some are strongly opposed. Some ask good questions. Some raise concerns I share. Some reflect understandable misunderstandings about what is actually being proposed, which is one reason I think providing more…
- A New Plan for 64 Acres in Ivins: Mojave VillagePDF 📄There are two important public hearings this week regarding Mojave Village, a proposed development of approximately 64 acres near Guy Lane and Fitness Way. The proposal would change the Land Use and Zoning Maps to allow a mix of housing types and Resort Commercial development. The proposed plan includes: 160 Resort Commercial townhomes that…
- SITLA Responses to Resident ConcernsPDF 📄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…