Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solterra topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ivins council delays vote on Solterra zoning, seeks broader input
Summary
Ivins City Council continued consideration of a concurrent land‑use map amendment and zone change for the 13.022‑acre Solterra development after members said more discussion and full council input were needed.
Ivins City Council on Thursday night continued discussion of a proposed concurrent map amendment and zone change for the 13.022‑acre Solterra development, saying the matter requires input from the full five‑member council.
The council did not vote to approve the request to change portions of the property from Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential (HDR) nor to change the zoning from RA‑1 (one‑acre minimum lot) to R‑1‑5 (single‑family, 5,000 sq. ft. minimum). After extended remarks from Councilmember Sharon Barton raising affordability and “missing middle” concerns, Councilmember Scott moved to continue the item; the motion was seconded and carried by unanimous vote of the members present.
The Solterra item had been the subject of a public hearing at a prior meeting and returned to council with revisions the applicant made after the city’s technical review. Barton told the council she had done additional research and remained opposed to the proposed concurrent land‑use and zone change as submitted, saying the developer’s stated starting price point of roughly $525,000 “does not address the missing middle issue.” Barton proposed keeping more of the site at Medium Density Residential and using R‑1‑10 zoning with accessory dwelling units to provide a broader range of price points.
Other council members said the developer’s willingness to work with the city and to limit higher‑intensity uses at certain corners reduced some risks Barton cited. One council member argued the developer’s proposal removes the possibility of taller multifamily or townhouse structures that could have been permitted under other approvals and that the proposal could deliver newer housing stock that might suit some local buyers seeking lower‑maintenance homes.
Because only three council members were present, any action this evening would have required unanimity. CouncilmembersScott (mover) and [second] made and seconded the motion to continue; the motion carried. The council indicated it will revisit the Solterra land‑use amendment and the associated development agreement at a future meeting when all members can participate.
Planning staff indicated the applicant had responded promptly to requests raised during the public hearing and subsequent technical review committee comments, and staff circulated a draft development agreement; however, councilmembers said more time was needed to work through affordability, lot‑size and design details and to hear from the two absent councilmembers.
The council also continued the separate agenda item to consider the development agreement for Solterra so both land‑use and agreement questions can be addressed together at a later meeting.
