Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ivins council approves rezoning at 320 North Main after heated public hearing
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment and council debate about spot zoning, the Ivins City Council voted to change land use at 320 North Main from medium-density single-family to allow a twin-home (two attached residences), 3–2, allowing the applicant to proceed with an R‑2/10 twin home plan.
Ivins City Council voted 3–2 on April 2 to approve a land-use change at 320 North Main that allows a twin home (two attached units) on a 0.23-acre lot.
The request, made by applicant Justin Bennett, asked the council to amend the land-use designation from MDR (medium-density residential) to HDR (high-density residential) and rezone the parcel from R‑1‑10 to R‑2‑10. Staff clarified that the resulting R‑2/10 designation would permit two attached residences but retains residential height limits for structures; the twin-home form, not an apartment or condo, was emphasized in staff comments.
The public hearing drew a lengthy stream of comments. Randon Lessing, who said he lives two lots from the site, called the change “spot zoning” and warned it would be legally risky and create a precedent for further upzoning in the neighborhood. He told the council, “Approving a 1‑off high-density rezoning with no compelling community benefit would be viewed as arbitrary.” Other long-time residents raised concerns about water supply, neighborhood character and investor-driven turnover. By contrast, renters and younger speakers urged more housing choices: Caitlin Krause told the council she and her husband, with a student spouse, would not be able to live in Ivins without rental options.
Applicant Justin Bennett described his intent: “I live in 1 side of the twin home. I’ve rented the other side out long term,” and said the model is a modest two-unit house, not a multi-unit complex. Bennett also said he performs background checks on renters and called the neighborhood “diverse.”
Council members split along lines of concern for neighborhood character versus providing ‘‘missing middle’’ housing. Several council members repeatedly referenced the city’s ADU ordinance as an alternative for owner-occupied additional units, but emphasized that ADUs require owner occupancy while the applicant said he would not live permanently on the new lot. Councilmember Hurt argued for the importance of middle-housing near the downtown core, saying such options help retain younger residents. Other members described the request as an infill opportunity and said that Ivins has little remaining land for that housing type.
A motion to approve the concurrent map amendment and rezoning passed in roll-call: Councilmember Pennington—Aye; Councilmember Hirt—Aye; Councilmember Barton—Nay; Councilmember Scott—Nay; Presiding Officer (Mayor Pro Tem)—Yea. The council directed staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting that vote.
What happens next: staff will prepare the ordinance language and, if adopted as drafted, the applicant may proceed under the R‑2/10 standards. The decision was framed by council members as case‑by‑case; several said a broader General Plan review would be appropriate to address systemic policy questions raised by this and similar requests.
