[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6681437,"mediaKeyId","2336611-cd5b0da72157a3a9a5b75353450c9be0","parentId",2336611,"title","Ivins planners begin work to remove secondary irrigation requirement from subdivision rules","audioSeconds",687,"startMs",1985000,"endMs",2672000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336611-cd5b0da72157a3a9a5b75353450c9be0&start=1985&end=2672","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336611-cd5b0da72157a3a9a5b75353450c9be0/thumbnail_1985000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6681437/Ivins/Washington-County/Utah/Ivins-planners-begin-work-to-remove-secondary-irrigation-requirement-from-subdivision-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681437-465ca73378574308c3fe55c32b6b45d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775368595&Signature=QxgF~otoD2ynPIwNxFiyTfZr-pr05LKyp9TbX3AL26jVqttn7p8wyA9q5HaEcEVddw4rqAg-V9n1Se2Ba2k0BtENxOm5RKX-a33FxARMD~XW47QtAcpiPHT9sg5mGu8EM3QvHxUrmNyY2pUbSadOkFD3y2EuK-DV~3NHr8LP8l53e8JDwpeh4ab9V8UFJ~WRaCxXViOKnIVN9zNS8uu4fzlvYBFaEg7G153vzhz3d9V0R4FQgvD54ROnq1rKPSAVsob8~eIdAi68MhSBUtFMuGKtueLV1BnYjRBF3QcklizLNVEHuLgZew9m4r7C6XlXbCM9PmClzxcYh7H1u38lkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ivins","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Ivins Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments to the city’s subdivision ordinance on Feb. 28 that would eliminate the requirement that new subdivisions provide a separate secondary (irrigation) water system.

Planning staff said the change is driven by updates to the local conservancy district’s master plan, which no longer requires secondary water systems for new developments. The commission held a discussion and heard comments about water reuse, infrastructure costs and conservation but did not take a final vote; staff indicated the ordinance will be revised (removing references to secondary water) and return for public hearing and formal action.

Planning staff explained that the current code requires two water systems — one culinary and one for irrigation — and that counsel prepared redline edits to delete the secondary‑water requirement. Staff advised commissioners that, rather than retaining a cross‑out statement, the final draft will likely remove the secondary‑water references and renumber the ordinance for clarity when it returns.

Commissioners and others discussed broader water topics during the item. Commissioner Waite referenced the conservancy district’s master plan as the impetus for the change. A person identified as Chuck (who assembled the ordinance language) and an audience member named Mike Scott were cited as participants or observers. One commissioner noted that removing the secondary‑water requirement would not prohibit communities or developers from installing a secondary irrigation system where it remains available; the change would only eliminate the requirement for new subdivisions going forward.

Commissioners and staff discussed cost implications. A planner in the discussion estimated that the developer cost of installing a secondary system is “probably a couple percent” of development cost; another speaker noted that extending existing secondary mains in built areas could be more expensive because of needed street work. Commissioners also raised the possibility of recycled (purple pipe) water use and broader conservation trends; one commissioner said many communities across the West now reuse a large share of treated water for nonpotable uses.

Staff advised that the ordinance amendment must return for a formal public hearing and that a cleaner redrafted version will be presented. No final action was taken at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ivins - Planning Commission - Feb 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners discussed edits to the city subdivision ordinance to remove the requirement that new subdivisions install a separate secondary (irrigation) water system, but took no final vote; staff said the ordinance will return after a public hearing and cleanup edits.","taxTitle","Ivins, Washington County, Utah","taxId",6018,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6681440,"Ivins planning commission recommends rezoning of 9.21-acre farm parcel at 400 S. and 400 E.",1560,381000,1941000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336611-cd5b0da72157a3a9a5b75353450c9be0&start=381&end=1941","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336611-cd5b0da72157a3a9a5b75353450c9be0/thumbnail_381000.jpg","/articles/6681440/Ivins/Washington-County/Utah/Ivins-planning-commission-recommends-rezoning-of-921-acre-farm-parcel-at-400-S-and-400-E","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681440-fc7b01d3d4172fe201d7a4063889cf57/orig.mp4?Expires=1775368595&Signature=NgK7vFIut5BibRiAyXUC4Rd34G4ND6FIaAnrR6~miQQToQIwUnh0MtRoFDXXjTwXmPRYLLgVE9HUYjVpK7zztET86s2hUPWWen8p-DFLNxSp8f9pDBF0h-Sir056gD1YEGOoGkNTXvphDgeqeaX3j~7tKXXQTDXX2tms5pROyn34k-tQUjKVA15WtmifdPfRa8rhIj1Yg8xVAUh-d-XVg-R9EnVpOPBRPVTvSAF87gJ1N-dnZ0Q3NvmrN7eeCSFJqQ8iWzA4BR-eDAZ5am89Te7Pm4OWQU4EbkpT2k64ahp4-MTz5f9f-gyy~6E3H1TBhpeWblnK7iHgHQMB8q8M7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ivins Planning Commission on Feb. 28 recommended changing zoning for about 9.21 acres at approximately 400 South and 400 East from residential agricultural RA‑1 to R‑1‑7.5, a single‑family residential zone with 7,500‑square‑foot lot sizes.

The commission’s recommendation followed a public hearing in which nearby residents urged the commission to preserve views and limit the height of any future homes. Commissioners discussed traffic, school safety and the city’s land‑use plan before voting in favor of the rezoning recommendation.

The application is for a zone amendment on a parcel described in the agenda as owned by Haven Farms LLC with Clark College listed as the applicant; Brandy Walker of Civil Science represented the applicant at the hearing. Walker said the site is currently a portion of an active farm field and described the surrounding zoning mix, saying the requested R‑1‑7.5 zoning “is harmonious with everything around us, if not on the larger side of the lot.”

Several residents who live near the parcel urged the commission either to deny the rezoning or to attach limits on future development. Joan Townsend, of 274 South Xavier Circle, said she and other neighbors bought homes for the view and ‘‘please stipulate in writing that the buildings be limited to a 1 story above ground.’’ Peggy Middleton, who lives across 400 South, cited traffic and concern about water. Elaine Costanzo asked whether adjacent parcels also would be rezoned and suggested lower density or larger homes consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Peter Underland raised safety concerns for students who walk on local sidewalks to nearby schools.

Planning staff noted the proposal is within the city’s land‑use map options for medium‑density residential and that the city’s transportation master plan classifies 400 South as a major collector, a designation that carries specific right‑of‑way and improvement standards. Commissioner Waite cited the transportation plan while discussing how a rezoned development would have to meet city standards for curb, gutter and sidewalks and safe routes to school.

Commissioner Robinson said the requested zoning matches several nearby subdivisions’ lot sizes and that the rezoning “fits the plan.” Commissioners confirmed that the hearing tonight addressed only the zoning change; any future development plans must return to the city for review under applicable ordinances.

After discussion, the commission moved and seconded a recommendation to amend the zoning from RA‑1 to R‑1‑7.5 for the roughly 9.21‑acre tract. Commissioners Waite, Robinson, Brown and Clifford recorded “aye” votes and the chair also voted in favor; the motion passed.

The commission’s action is a recommendation; the transcript indicates the zoning amendment will proceed in the city’s decision process, and any specific development proposals — including lot layout, home heights and infrastructure improvements — must be submitted to the city and are subject to subsequent review and hearings.

Residents were urged by Commissioner Robinson to remain involved in the process because issues such as building heights and other site details will be addressed when specific plans return for review.

Votes at a glance: Planning commission recommendation to rezone roughly 9.21 acres at 400 South and 400 East from RA‑1 (residential agricultural) to R‑1‑7.5 (single‑family, 7,500 sq. ft. lots): motion moved and seconded; recorded votes—Commissioner Waite: aye; Commissioner Robinson: aye; Commissioner Brown: aye; Commissioner Clifford (via Zoom): aye; Chair: aye. Motion passed (recommendation approved by commission).","The Ivins Planning Commission voted to recommend changing zoning on about 9.21 acres from RA‑1 to R‑1‑7.5 after a public hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about views, building heights, traffic and water.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ivins planners begin work to remove secondary irrigation requirement from subdivision rules

Ivins planning commission recommends rezoning of 9.21-acre farm parcel at 400 S. and 400 E.