new Kane Creek development

[cruiseroutfit]

The greater Moab area is a conundrum, we (and everyone else) love it to death, but I can assure you it doesn't love the motorized community back. Many of those against responsible development of private property... are very much the same people that don't want Cruise Moab or motorized users in general.

I often watch/listen to the Grand County Council meetings, primarily to hear about the status of upcoming 4x4 events. For example Cruise Moab, Easter Jeep Safari, etc get discussed by this exact council when considering "intent to apply" permits for large events. Recently the annual Bronco Safari had their long-standing annual event cancelled/forbidden by Grand County based on the actions of a couple of participants during their event. They are not actively looking for more motorized events in the greater Moab area imo. As such, I listened to the full Kane Creek development meeting, nothing shocking, folks upset at development, dismayed land like this can be and has been private for many, many decades (SITLA lands sold to fund our Utah schools), and talk of the need for affordable housing and responsible development. Many are relative new-comers to Utah (we call then NewTahns ) and Moab but they just "love the place and can't believe anyone would want to develop/build there". Their predecessors said the same thing about each and every development in the greater Moab area, this is just the newest one and the one they were there for. Ironically this one had zoning approved decades ago and had permitted planning over 2000 homes. It's my understanding the project will be more in the 600 range.

What we do know about the Kane Creek Development. The owners have historically been friends and advocates of the OHV community, they let Cruise Moab use the property for the event when most others properties in the area were not interested in assisting. They have committed to preserving access to the Pritchett Canyon 4x4 trail, a flagship trail in the area that can only be accessed through their property. RS2477 and state ROW laws would protect this route in the event they were advocates of closing BUT Grand County isn't exactly fighting for their roads/trails like many other Utah Counties, quite the opposite really so the support of the developers to maintain this route is important.

Much of the comments I've read on FB/IG about this development are misleading. I'm not saying there isn't cause for discussion with any development in anyone's favorite place but much of it is simply false. For example I've seen it commented that the development will block access through the private parcel and on to Hurrah Pass, Chicken Corners, Lockhart, etc. The state and county have ownership of that road and State ROW statutes absolutely protect it's access. It's been talked how construction will destroy the Kane Creek Road and make it undriveable for normal vehicles. It's my understanding road improvements will be part of their requirements to being in necessary infrastructure to the site.

 

[BritKLR]

Thanks for the update.

 

[nuclearlemon]

thanks for the inside scoop Kurt

 

[Corbet]

(we call then NewTahns )

😂
I guess I was once a NewTahn but before it was cool.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

😂
I guess I was once a NewTahn but before it was cool.

No, no, I definitely see your name on the roster, current status "hiatus". Logs started in 1896

 

[Burt88]

I've been following @kanecreek_development_watch on instagram and the names of those in charge of the development are public. This is a disgusting display of human destruction in an inappropriate location. I really don't give a crap about what these developers say to win over anyone's opinion on the development because as we all know too well it will change. After the homes are built, and the natural environment along the river and floodplain is irreversibly changed (destroyed), the new homeowners will decide what access will be like past their luxury resort neighborhood. There are far more appropriate areas to develop 600 luxury homes in the area of Moab. One of these days we're gonna look back at all of the things we allowed to happen because we justify with money and realize it wasn't worth it.

Quoted in a recent post:
"The 3 men in charge are Craig Weston, Tom Gottlieb, and Trent Arnold. Greg Miller has joined them as a new landowner and major investor. They have hired Bruce Baird, an attorney infamous for working for deep pocket developers on extremely unpopular projects."

 

[DaveInDenver]

Quoted in a recent post:
"The 3 men in charge are Craig Weston, Tom Gottlieb, and Trent Arnold. Greg Miller has joined them as a new landowner and major investor. They have hired Bruce Baird, an attorney infamous for working for deep pocket developers on extremely unpopular projects."

Any idea if this Greg Miller is that Greg Miller, @cruiseroutfit? On one hand I hope not but OTOH that might, I reservedly stress might, lend credibility to the ownership group.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Found this interesting about the real estate lawyer they brought on. Polarizing person to say the least. He's originally from Fruita, CO.

Colorful attorney has reshaped Utah’s landscape one lawsuit at a time

A profile of Bruce Baird, attorney for deep-pocket developers, who has had a big hand in shaping Utah's growth, and most recently was involved in the Bridal Veil Falls and Hideout vs. Summit County controversies.

www.sltrib.com

 

[nakman]

I drove by the development last Saturday... it's interesting. They brought in a ton of gravel and dirt, and yes it's elevated up like 5' from what it was before. Looks like the start to a bunch of soccer fields or something. Access to the area is going to be really difficult- that Kane Creek road is super narrow, and they have a 15mph speed limit for OHV's... I could see that getting old real quick if one were to live back there.

 

[Burt88]

@DaveInDenver all I know for sure is the named developers are from Salt Lake and Aspen. It seems likely that Greg Miller is the same one we know in our community.

 

[Burt88]

I drove by the development last Saturday... it's interesting. They brought in a ton of gravel and dirt, and yes it's elevated up like 5' from what it was before. Looks like the start to a bunch of soccer fields or something. Access to the area is going to be really difficult- that Kane Creek road is super narrow, and they have a 15mph speed limit for OHV's... I could see that getting old real quick if one were to live back there.

The latest plan shows they’re clearing nearly all the trees along the river bank. A lot are still standing but will be gone. The plan also shows Kane Creek rd 3 lanes wide.

 

[BritKLR]

Kane Creek development and our ‘adventurous Small Town Spirit’ - The Times-Independent

The key lies in ensuring that growth aligns with the spirit of the community — with the people that live and work here every day.

www.moabtimes.com

Interesting article and real points made. Looks like the developers are take a page out of the front range neighborhood development by passing future infrastructure costs onto the homeowner and/or locals in the event of a catastrophic event.
BTW, it's in a known friggin flood zone! They have to raise it by 10 feet per FEMA. I wonder how that first flood is going to impact the community?

 

[BritKLR]

Actually setting the record straight on Kane Creek - The Times-Independent

In October 2021, they told this newspaper they planned to build an “innovation hub” and “30-50” dwellings ..."

www.moabtimes.com

This is an even better article about how big development actually works and the reality of how future costs will be passed onto the local government (tax payers) by how they play a very expensive, long game. If you've ever had the opportunity to work with lobbyist, in state government, for a local benefit you can see the writing on the wall.

 

[Burt88]

Kane Creek development and our ‘adventurous Small Town Spirit’ - The Times-Independent

The key lies in ensuring that growth aligns with the spirit of the community — with the people that live and work here every day.

www.moabtimes.com

Interesting article and real points made. Looks like the developers are take a page out of the front range neighborhood development by passing future infrastructure costs onto the homeowner and/or locals in the event of a catastrophic event.
BTW, it's in a known friggin flood zone! They have to raise it by 10 feet per FEMA. I wonder how that first flood is going to impact the community?

A point about their permit to raise the floodplain. Originally the developers had a maximum size of backfill set at something like 4 inches or smaller to ensure greater compaction and resistance to settling. They've since changed that to 10 inches which the engineers reports indicate a high risk of settling. So the water has the potential to infiltrate underneath the homes and cause settling damage in the future. Save a buck.

 

[BritKLR]

A point about their permit to raise the floodplain. Originally the developers had a maximum size of backfill set at something like 4 inches or smaller to ensure greater compaction and resistance to settling. They've since changed that to 10 inches which the engineers reports indicate a high risk of settling. So the water has the potential to infiltrate underneath the homes and cause settling damage in the future. Save a buck.

Interesting point.

Again, developers/investors ONLY care about the bottom dollar and return. 20 years from now when problems occur due to poor or rushed development and the development corporation has been sold and resold with previsions in the contracts stipulating that the county will fund repairs/improvements (negotiated based favorable bonds, returns, etc with a new group of commissioners....) it will come back on the taxpayers. It always does.

 

[DaveInDenver]

A point about their permit to raise the floodplain. Originally the developers had a maximum size of backfill set at something like 4 inches or smaller to ensure greater compaction and resistance to settling. They've since changed that to 10 inches which the engineers reports indicate a high risk of settling. So the water has the potential to infiltrate underneath the homes and cause settling damage in the future. Save a buck.

Can you point to this report? I usually see anything over 75mm (about 3") considered cobble and not unclassified fill. I'd like to read what the engineer has stamped. The geo-techs will augment and protect soil and gravel (this would be what passes through a #10 sieve or smaller depending on the specification) with cobble. Number 10 is about 2mm gravel and that's fairly course. The large stuff prevents washing away and provides a structure.

I wonder if something is being lost in translation as it passes from the cognizant engineer-of-record through the chain of laypersons. The fill spec for material and layering isn't a simple one-size thing, compaction (consolidation), permeability, mechanical shear, seepage, settlement, displacement factor in when determining what you put under foundations. There may ask to mix cobble and aggregate in the fill.

Even if you practice for a firm your engineering liability can't be shielded for negligence or willfully not following best practices when dealing with board action and E&O or NFIP (FEMA flood) insurance. So I suspect someone is reading and reporting something out of context. There'll be a licensed surveyor and geotechnical engineer involved most likely and maybe a professional geologist, too.

That's before the other civils would have to sign off on their parts for the foundations and structures put on top of the fill. They'd have a need for spreading load and the subgrade is either capable of doing it or not. Or at least is designed and tested with the expectation of that. They can't knowingly compromise anything that puts their licenses at risk.

 

[Notyourmomslx450]

I saw this on book face and instantly thought of this senecio.

 

[Burt88]

@DaveInDenver I don't have the actual report. What's happening is the material the developers are moving from higher on the hill is now allowed to include larger material in the overall mix of backfill dirt. We're not talking about compacting underneath a structural footprint. It is not uniform material and it is just being used to raise the larger area. But it doesn't actually take an engineer to understand that with larger material it becomes more likely for water to filter through the material. In the case of a floodplain the water from a flood can infiltrate and loosen the ground setting things up for problems. What do you know will happen if the water from a flood saturates the new porous backfill above the natural layer of compacted floodplain? It will move, most likely. Mud. Perhaps they intend to build all the structures on micro piles. I understand these things in real terms after a decade with an excavating company.

What's happening is the developers are already finding ways to cut corners and playing games with mother nature and the power of a river, it's not a good idea.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Water permeates almost all soil material. Clay and silt don't, but they absorb and swell, so that comes with a different set of issues. What's important is how it reacts.

If you want I can direct you to some undergraduate soil mechanics texts that I've used to try to not be a total noob when dealing with geo-techs.

Since talking engineer isn't acceptable to the mob forming against this I'd only suggest thinking about what you see in creek and river beds. What about earthen dams? Is it uniformly small or large material? Cohesive or not? Dry, saturated or partially?

The shape and mass of material will determine if it moves downriver or not. Boulders and large cobble lets the water flow through and serves to slow down the velocity, which reduces how much of the smaller material, sand and gravel, is flushed.

So what you see is a mix of things that consist of material and voids that are dependent on the velocity and flow of the water. They refer to it as a 3-phase soil, meaning soil particles, water and air, and it's done in layers. Some layers are designed to slow down or direct the water, some to give structure and foundation, some to bind, hold or release the water intentionally.

It does actually take some engineering and experience. It's not just random people looking at the site and fill plans. It's someones with names, titles and several with state licenses. Question the developers and motives, politics are rife with corruption. This line of argument that there's somehow a flaw in the fill is a dead end. We're not infallible but the size of the cobble in the fill isn't determined by some guy running a front loader.

Especially in a flood plain subject to Federal oversight. What red tape was cut by which back slapper and how palms are greased won't matter when the engineer of record is defending him- or herself to the Utah State Engineering Board. And even if that was somehow occurring I really doubt the developers would cut corners that put their bonds holders and flood insurance at high risk. I dunno, maybe the whole thing is a James Bond evil mastermind scheme to money launder and the long game is to defraud the city and insurance.

 

[Burt88]

The floodplain and wetlands around a river that are naturally formed serve a purpose to absorb excess water flow during an event. Altering the natural flows in this environment cause damage and problems that developers and engineers love to ignore. I’ve dealt with numerous engineers in the excavation industry who loved to prove their abilities ability and math their way to exacting tolerances only to realize that Mother Nature doesn’t care for their math. Whatever the engineers on this project are determining is in agreement across the board. One composition of backfill was determined to be more adequate than another. But the cheaper option was ultimately accepted.