Ivins City Council debates ADU definitions, size and owner-occupancy as staff readies clarified draft

Ivins City Council spent most of its July 17 work meeting examining a proposed update to Chapters 11 and 12 of the city code to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs), with staff and council members debating definitions, unit size, lot coverage and an owner-occupancy rule.

The council’s presenting staff member opened the discussion by saying the ordinance rewrite responds to state changes that broaden ADU allowances and to a requirement in the city’s Moderate Income Housing Plan (Goal E, Milestone 3) due August 1. The draft replaces a set of prior code sections and consolidates Planning Commission edits into either of two alternatives (the Planning Commission version and a redlined Version 2 submitted by staff). Staff framed the ordinance as aiming to protect safety and neighborhood aesthetics while adding more long-term rental supply.

Council members and staff focused early discussion on definitions. The group agreed the ordinance must clearly distinguish internal ADUs (units within an owner-occupied primary dwelling) and external/detached ADUs (separate accessory buildings). After extended debate over acronyms and consistency with state language, council asked staff to adopt spelled-out terms with short acronyms to be used in the draft (ADU‑E for external accessory dwelling unit and ADU‑I for internal accessory dwelling unit) and to make every ADU reference unambiguous.

Short-term rentals were a recurring concern. Staff read a provision that states, “ADUs are intended to provide long term housing and shall not be used as vacation rentals, short term rentals, or transient lodging,” and the council directed that restriction be applied consistently to both internal and external ADUs in the ordinance.

Members debated the owner-occupancy requirement in the draft. The existing language in prior code required the owner of record to occupy either the primary dwelling or an accessory unit; some councilmembers proposed loosening that standard to allow a primary resident who is not the owner. Staff noted the state sets a minimum that a primary resident occupy one of the units, and council discussion centered on whether Ivins should accept the state minimum or adopt a stricter owner-occupied requirement. No final change was adopted at the meeting; staff were asked to clarify the language in the next draft.

Councilors also pressed for clearer technical definitions and cross-references: separate definitions for garages and carports rather than a single mixed definition; an explicit definition of “gross building area” and what is, and is not, included when calculating ADU square footage; and consistent references to where more-detailed garage/carport standards appear in the code.

Size and lot-coverage limits drew notable debate. The draft referenced a commonly discussed 600–1,000 square-foot planning range and a 30% rear-yard lot-coverage metric; some members suggested allowing smaller units (around 400 sq ft) to encourage affordable tiny-home options while others warned that too-small units can look out of scale or defeat rental-affordability goals. Several council members proposed pairing a maximum unit size with a lot-coverage cap (for example, a percent of rear-yard area or a fraction of the primary dwelling footprint) to prevent oversized ADUs on large lots.

Utility metering was another point of contention. Councilmembers discussed whether separate utility meters should be permitted for external ADUs to allow owners to bill tenants directly and to encourage conservation. Staff cautioned that separate meters have the practical effect of treating an ADU as a separate dwelling and can create impact- and service-related complications; the council asked staff to clarify the ordinance’s approach and any code references.

No ordinance vote occurred. The Mayor paused the work session and the council moved and seconded a short adjournment to resume the regular meeting. Staff were directed to incorporate the agreed clarifications (spelled-out ADU types with acronyms, consistent short-term rental prohibition, clarified owner-occupancy language, separate garage/carport definitions, square-foot/lot-coverage clarifications, and utility/ meter guidance) into the draft for future consideration.

The Planning Commission’s recommendations, staff redlines and the council’s direction will be reflected in a revised draft to return to council for further review and possible action at a later meeting.