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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Cruisertrash]

We're not infallible but the size of the cobble in the fill isn't determined by some guy running a front loader.

Going to jump in on this admittedly minor point here.

Having worked in the trades my whole life ... yes, the on-the-ground reality is usually determined by the guy running the machine, 99% of the time anyway. Engineers and architects can lay the best plans (and in this case, I won't comment on the meaning of the word "best"), but the guy running the front end loader in the hot sun all day just wants to go home and crack a cold one. There's far less care given to exactly what he does all day than the engineer probably hopes for. Framers are a huge example of this, and excavators are probably second. Now, my experience with excavators is usually for foundation digs and not floodplain engineering, but the point stands.

You certainly won't find the architect or engineer on site 8-10 hours every day, 5-6 days per week haha. Not to diminish what they do, but a lot of it is behind a desk. Occasional site visits, yes. Being on site hammering things out all day every day or providing oversite to the earth moving contractor's employees? No.

 

[Cruisertrash]

To be clear, the engineers, architects, and earth movers all bust their ass in their respective trades. Earth movers can hammer a nail into a board with one tooth on their bucket - they are highly, highly skilled at what they do. But for all three of these folks it's just their job. I've learned not to expect too much out of any of them - and framers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, too - whether that was when I was a framer, a painter, or a general contractor.