Protect Wall St, Save Kane Creek!
|
Kane Creek Development LLC is in the process of leveling and back-filling in 180 acres of riparian area in the King’s Bottom floodplain right across the river from Wall St. This site was formerly a rustic campground and open space along the Colorado river, now they're developing the space into luxury condos! Protect the river, preserve the canyon! Spread the word. https://kanecreekwatch.org/ |
|
And how should we do this? As much as I'd like it to stop. Too little, too late. |
|
The area of that development is zoned C-4 [1], which means it is zoned as a General Commercial Zone [2]. From my reading of the zoning regulations, the allowed uses are just about anything outside of manufacturing. The date on the most recent zoning map is April 2023, so this has been the case for some time. There was likely a public comment period when that zoning map was approved. The plans to develop that area are likely pretty old, projects like this don't just pop up overnight. The approval process for a development like this often takes over a year at best. It was likely brought up the to the City Council and the Planning Board multiple times (assuming the City of Moab is like most other cities I have dealt with) and the respective boards approved the land use. The way zoning laws work, a City can't say no to a land use if it falls within the existing zoned uses and follows all of the applicable rules and regulation for development, even if the public doesn't like it. Being close to and within a flood zone, this would have also had to be approved by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. This was a battle that needed to be fought back when the zoning was set for the area or during the approval process with the State, not now that there is construction happening. It will be an eye sore, but it increase the housing availability in Moab. Also, it will have no impact on the actual climbing shit show that is Wall Street. I have no dog in this fight outside of enjoying the Moab area when I visit every few years. I am just trying to share some of my knowledge of the process developments go through in most cities. Long story short, pay attention to your local City Council meetings, just read through the posted agenda each month, and be proactive when you see something come up that may impact an area you want to protect. Zone regulations are boring until they impact you. [1] https://moabcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/80/City-of-Moab-Zoning-Map-2023?bidId= |
|
Greg D wrote: You can go to the posted site, sign a petition, and make a donation. That seems about it. Has construction actually started? If so, it’s probably too late to do anything effective. |
|
So…how much are these places going for? Asking for a friend |
|
Marc801 C wrote: Yes, site work has started. They had six haul trucks for rock when we drove by today. They have solar powered security camera too because projects that have community support need them obviously. |
|
Greg D wrote: Have you ever heard of The Monkey Wrench Gang? |
|
Nolan Nolan wrote: Most new construction sites now have those. |
|
This development is definitely not a done deal. The only clearances they’ve actually got are those necessary to move dirt around and fill in a river floodplain. They do not have any permits to build anything. Those permits are not guaranteed. Their water rights are under legal challenge by several entities, including the BLM and the local potash mine as well as Kane Creek development Watch. The developers have argued that the zoning is highway commercial, but they are basing that claim on non-binding convenience maps posted on the county’s GIS site— that the county is now investigating as probably incorrect (according to its website and several new stories). According to County standards, the road will need to be improved to 50 feet wide of pavement and a 66 foot right of way all the way up to the site. There is no known source of funding for this expansion. The current right of way goes barely beyond the edge of the pavement, and the landowners on each side are mostly either hostile private landowners, the BLM, or the Nature Conservancy. The feds have turned it down funding a smaller expansion of that road at least once. The development cannot be built without showing legally sufficient road access, just like if you were building on a back lot somewhere. The sewer plant they want to build is a conditional use in that zone because it is a major utility, and they do not have a right to the permit. They have to jump through a bunch of requirements to show that they should get to build it there because it’s not a right. Right now, they have avoided triggering federal environmental law review because they have stayed 30 feet away from the river’s high water mark. However, they’re just doing that to push off the federal environmental review process. This will kick in when the road must be expanded when the developers push out close to the current Levi. Then the developers will have to show that they are not harming the designated critical habitat for endangered fish all along the shoreline. The numerous archaeological sites in the area aren’t being harmed. And that they can comply with the BLM’s management plans for that area, which generally have tight restrictions for scenic views and similar impacts. The developers have known about all this the whole time. Their conscious strategy has been to spend early money and get a few easier permits before tackling the real stuff, so that when the serious issues must be addressed, they can whale and Nash their teeth and threaten lawsuits based on the money they’ve spent. However, you can’t get awarded a refund from the government when you were aware of the risks of your project. They have big lawyers, and one of them is an experienced developer. They were aware.
Right now, about a third of the housing stock in Moab is vacation homes. Counting hotel rooms and Airbnb, but not campgrounds, there are accommodations for about 1.8 people to every local here. Moab has far more jobs at low wages than it has workers. It has more construction jobs than can be filled by local people. Building a massive luxury resort will not help jobs or housing here. It will exacerbate both the jobs and the housing situations. |
|
Oh, and this is in Grand County, not the City of Moab. |
|
My friend still wants to know how much these places are going to sell for. |
|
John Clark wrote: Moab property is crazy expensive. These luxury condos will be too expensive for you. |
|
grug g wrote: That’s cute. You assume a lot about me. I might live on a golf course, drive a tesla, and have a converted van I only drive a handful of times a year. What counts as crazy though? |
|
grug g wrote: Not as bad as reno then. My friend will be intrigued
Ever consider that people will work well paid but maybe boring or shitty jobs in a place that isn’t exactly where they want to live so that they can make enough money that later in life they can retire, sell their place, and buy a nice condo somewhere gorgeous to live out their lives in a place that makes them really happy? Food for thought before you jump to the “rich people are the only people who want or can afford to buy these kinds of places”
Grug, yep, been to moab three times. You’d have to go pretty deep in the ticks to find my last visit though. |
|
John Clark wrote: You are part of the problem. I wish they were making more camping of different types at this site. Moab doesn't need luxury housing. |
|
grug g wrote: Edward Abbey would agree. Hayduke lives!!! |
|
Hayduke would long term camp the hell out of some luxury flood plain housing and make them pay for the favor. Y’all need to take it up several levels, with style and staging. |
|
John - Have you been to Moab? Don't see any tics on your profile but IDK. Luxury housing and Moab shouldn't exist together. Its not Park City/Vail/Aspen and I hope it never is. Moab NEEDS more camping options. Seeing that RV site for $250,000 makes me shake my head and realize that DirtBag-Moab is dead. It surely has been for a while but I have been clinging to a different notion. |
|
Heidi Gletscher wrote: This isn't a fight that I am going to get involved in. But I read the whole thread out of curiosity. I like posts like Heidi's. Well thought out, well argued but not argumentative. It was obviously authored by a concerned and intelligent person (who I have never met and likely never will). That's all. |
|
I believe the developers are such that will not run out of money and will achieve their goals. |
|
This development is definitely not a done deal. The only clearances they’ve actually got are those necessary to move dirt around and fill in a river floodplain. They do not have any permits to build anything. Those permits are not guaranteed. Their water rights are under legal challenge by several entities, including the BLM and the local potash mine as well as Kane Creek development Watch. The developers have argued that the zoning is highway commercial, but they are basing that claim on non-binding convenience maps posted on the county’s GIS site— that the county is now investigating as probably incorrect (according to its website and several new stories). According to County standards, the road will need to be improved to 50 feet wide of pavement and a 66 foot right of way all the way up to the site. There is no known source of funding for this expansion. The current right of way goes barely beyond the edge of the pavement, and the landowners on each side are mostly either hostile private landowners, the BLM, or the Nature Conservancy. The feds have turned it down funding a smaller expansion of that road at least once. The development cannot be built without showing legally sufficient road access, just like if you were building on a back lot somewhere. The sewer plant they want to build is a conditional use in that zone because it is a major utility, and they do not have a right to the permit. They have to jump through a bunch of requirements to show that they should get to build it there because it’s not a right. Right now, they have avoided triggering federal environmental law review because they have stayed 30 feet away from the river’s high water mark. However, they’re just doing that to push off the federal environmental review process. This will kick in when the road must be expanded when the developers push out close to the current Levi. Then the developers will have to show that they are not harming the designated critical habitat for endangered fish all along the shoreline. The numerous archaeological sites in the area aren’t being harmed. And that they can comply with the BLM’s management plans for that area, which generally have tight restrictions for scenic views and similar impacts. The developers have known about all this the whole time. Their conscious strategy has been to spend early money and get a few easier permits before tackling the real stuff, so that when the serious issues must be addressed, they can whale and Nash their teeth and threaten lawsuits based on the money they’ve spent. However, you can’t get awarded a refund from the government when you were aware of the risks of your project. They have big lawyers, and one of them is an experienced developer. They were aware.
Right now, about a third of the housing stock in Moab is vacation homes. Counting hotel rooms and Airbnb, but not campgrounds, there are accommodations for about 1.8 people to every local here. Moab has far more jobs at low wages than it has workers. It has more construction jobs than can be filled by local people. Building a massive luxury resort will not help jobs or housing here. It will exacerbate both the jobs and the housing situations. |