All present included Mayor Kevin Smith,
Council Member Mike Scott,
Council Member Sharon Gillespie,
Council Member Sharon Barton,
Council Member Dillon Hurt,
Council Member Wayne Pennington,
Chairperson Perry Brown,
Commission Member Pam Gardiol,
and
Commission Member Dave Robinson.
STAFF:
City Manager Chuck Gillette,
City Attorney Bryan Pack,
Director of Finance Cade Visser,
and
City Recorder Kari D. Jimenez.
EXCUSED:
Commission Member Doug Clifford,
Commission Member Brandon Weight
Audience: Sandra Roberts, Karen & Richard L., David Anderson, Jim M., Christina Derop, Barb Lewis, Matt Marten, Jerry Nostadt, Leianne & Scott Buie, Dori Pack, RT Marten, Suzanne T. Bolar, Al Turnbridge, Fred Birnbaum, Chris Haddad, Lydia Bigner, Richard Bryant and others who did not sign in.
Mayor Kevin Smith acknowledged that a quorum of both the City Council and Planning Commission was present. Council Member Dillon Hurt was in attendance via the Zoom application.
There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with items on this meeting's agenda.
BACKGROUND and RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a work session regarding the proposed Anasazi Commons Annexation located along Old Highway 91 and the discussion items on the agenda were intended to provide policy direction to the City. The Mayor, City Council and members of the audience in attendance, left the City Council Chambers shortly after the meeting was called to order, to conduct an on-site visit of the proposed annexation property located along Old Highway 91.
The Mayor, City Council and audience in attendance left the City Council Chambers shortly after the meeting was called to order, to conduct an on-site visit of the proposed annexation property located along Old Highway 91. At the project site, the City Manager oriented those in attendance to the property boundaries, existing topography, and surrounding development, including the location of the proposed annexation in relation to the Indigo Trails subdivision, Old Highway 91, Anasazi Valley Road, and adjacent public lands. Staff identified the approximate location where hillside slopes begin to exceed eight percent, which generally marks the area where the City's Sensitive Lands Ordinance becomes applicable. Staff emphasized that the exact location of Sensitive Lands would ultimately be determined through the City's formal Sensitive Lands review process. The City's hillside regulations are intended to protect the public viewshed while still allowing development in appropriate locations. It was observed that the existing development pattern within Indigo Trails generally remained below the steeper hillside areas. For the proposed development, interior ridgelines were identified that may warrant protection under the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Discussion included how future development could be designed to preserve those features while accommodating residential development and maintaining compatibility between the proposed development and the existing Indigo Trails neighborhood, as well as the potential for lower-density residential development to provide an appropriate transition between existing homes and future development. The existing drainage gully and its status under the City's Sensitive Lands Ordinance were also discussed. It was explained that if the gully were modified or filled, adequate drainage facilities would need to be engineered to accommodate stormwater runoff. The Mayor concluded the field discussion and reconvened the meeting in the City Council Chambers to continue the work meeting at 3:36 p.m.
Anasazi Commons Petition for Annexation May 2026 - redacted
Anasazi Commons, Ivins - Concept Plan
Anasazi Commons Annexation Plat 5.27.26 Accurate & recordable
Annexation Policy Plan 2025 Adopted April 2025 Ordinance-No-2025-09
Presentation slides from Ivins City
Presentation slides from developers
| A. |
Site Visit - meet on trail on north side of project along Old Highway 91 |
| a. |
Discuss visualization needs for any proposed development |
| b. |
Discuss Sensitive Lands Requirements for Slopes |
| c. |
Discuss Potential for Buffering |
BACKGROUND and RECOMMENDATION: City staff reviewed preliminary planning recommendations for the proposed annexation, provided an overview of the City's Sensitive Lands Ordinance and explained how the ordinance is intended to preserve significant natural features while allowing reasonable development. Discussion focused on hillside protection, ridgeline preservation, geological hazards, habitat considerations, grading limitations, and methods of minimizing visual impacts through building placement, vegetation, and architectural design. The ordinance encourages development that follows the natural terrain by limiting excessive grading and retaining walls while requiring structures to be integrated into the hillside rather than elevated above it. Ivins City Manager presented photographs illustrating examples of hillside development that successfully blend into the landscape as well as examples where excessive grading, large retaining walls, and highly visible building colors have created negative visual impacts. The importance of preserving the City's viewsheds and maintaining the community's scenic character was discussed throughout the presentation. The importance of using earth-tone building colors and maintaining substantial landscaping to reduce the visual prominence of future homes was noted. Staff outlined a preliminary recommendation for transitioning land uses across the project. The recommendation included lower-density residential development adjacent to Indigo Trails to provide compatibility with the existing neighborhood, Sensitive Lands protection on the steeper hillside areas, and opportunities for medium-density residential development on flatter portions of the site where appropriate. Staff also identified potential roadway connections, possible park locations, and opportunities to create a connected street network while minimizing impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. Discussion included the importance of preserving neighborhood character while allowing future residential growth. Staff explained that the conceptual recommendations were intended to initiate discussion and provide guidance to the applicant as the annexation proposal evolves. The discussion may be accessed at time stamp 00:36:28.
| a. |
Review site plan recommendations by staff |
| i. |
Sensitive Lands Protection |
| e. |
Discuss viability, quantity, types, and features of affordable housing on the project |
| i. |
High Density Single Family, Two Family or Multi Family |
| iii. |
Binding affordability and occupancy requirements |
| g. |
Discuss need for public park facility |
| h. |
Financial Considerations |
| i. |
Identify other overarching vision & goals of Council/Commission for this project |
| j. |
Identify process moving forward |
| i. |
Ivins Annexation Policy Plan Requirements |
| ii. |
Sensitive Lands Requirements ? should we settle on a plan first or identify sensitive lands first? |
| iii. |
Visualization Requirements (finalize discussion started on site) |
| vi. |
Land Use Mapping, and Zoning |
| vii. |
Future Meetings and Public Hearings |