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
- Is This The Right Vision?Does the City’s vision for Ivins’ future match yours? The City Council has been working on an update to our General Plan since February. The General Plan is the City’s primary guiding document, outlining Ivins’ past, present, and future. It is meant to reflect our collective vision, values, and goals. It’s crucial to get this…
- How To Beat The Incomprehensible Web of BureaucracySometimes people get upset on social media about the wrong things. Yes, believe it or not, that’s true. Like when the City approves a “preliminary plan” or a “final plat” for a development. Comments boil down to something like this, “Why would those idiots approve this when we are already overwhelmed with growth, traffic, water…
- Bigfoot And Affordable HousingBoth are elusive creatures that everyone talks about, but few, if any, have seen. Even so, the State Legislature is putting more pressure on cities to find housing affordability solutions. On top of that, the Governor is calling on cities to create 35,000 “starter” homes for first-time home buyers. In response, Mayor Hart created an…
- Developers With Seeger SyndromeDevelopers in Ivins have the Seeger Syndrome. For Pete’s sake, they’re hammering in the morning! They’re hammering in the evening! They’re hammering all over this city! Ivins issued 100 to 150 residential permits a year between 2015 and 2018. Permit activity almost doubled after 2018, peaking in late 2021 at close to 300 permits for…
- We Should Be Seen… But Not Heard!The expression “children should be seen and not heard” is an old English proverb. It wasn’t just a saying. They meant it. Children could be present but should not speak, particularly when they are around adults because children are naive and ignorant of adult matters. My, how times haven’t changed. It sounds like Governor Cox…