Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape Buffer And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Ivins over Black Desert parking screening; city says 3.5-foot wall conforms to ordinance
Summary
Reserve neighborhood residents asked Ivins officials to require a taller berm or wall to screen more than 500 parking spaces for the Black Desert Resort; city staff said the project complies with an approved PUD and the municipal screening ordinance, which currently requires a 36-inch (3.5-foot) masking wall within a 30-foot landscape buffer.
Residents from the Reserve and Encanto neighborhoods urged the Ivins City Council Thursday to require a taller screening berm or wall along Snow Canyon Parkway for a new Black Desert Resort parking area, saying a 3.5-foot rock wall will not block headlight glare, noise or the visual impact of hundreds of parked vehicles.
Jim Martinson, speaking for his HOA, said the proposed 3.5-foot dirt berm and rock wall “would fulfill none of [the resort’s] promises” for limiting light, noise and visual intrusion. He urged the city and developer to require at least a 6-foot landscape berm with rock accents or a taller rock wall similar to existing tall rock borders along the parkway.
City staff and Black Desert representatives said the parking-screening plan was approved through the property’s planned-unit development and that the city’s ordinance requires a 36-inch masking wall within the 30-foot buffer between the parkway and the parking area. Rob (city staff) explained that the approved landscape wall sits at the property line and that building a taller or thicker masonry wall would require an amendment to the previously approved CUP/PUD because it would encroach into the landscape buffer that contains the required trail and right-of-way elements.
Coco Head, identified in the meeting as managing counsel for Black Desert, said the developer was willing to consider raising the wall if the city allowed the wall to encroach farther into the buffer or otherwise provided engineering relief. She emphasized the constraint is not an unwillingness to improve screening but a space/encroachment issue tied to the approved site plan and the rock-wall type approved under the city’s land-use standards.
City staff told residents that options include revisiting the PUD/CUP to amend the approved wall dimensions or exploring a masonry wall that takes less lateral width. The council did not direct any immediate enforcement or ordinance change; it characterized the neighbors’ concerns as a request that the developer elevate the wall to reduce headlight glare and visual impact and asked staff to pursue the technical feasibility of a taller, thicker wall or different construction approach.
Key technical details discussed: the city’s screening ordinance specifies a 36-inch (3.0–3.5 foot) vertical screening wall in commercial parking situations; the required landscape buffer between curb and the trail/parkway is approximately 30 feet; a thicker or taller rock berm would require either additional horizontal space (encroaching into the required buffer) or an amendment to the approved development agreement.
