Moab • The zoning of roughly 180 acres of land along Kane Creek Boulevard has recently come under scrutiny as records associated with a 32-year-old zone change appear to contradict one another.
The parcel, currently eyed for a 580-unit development with up to 72,000 square feet of commercial space, is about two miles out of town in the Colorado River corridor, much of it in a floodplain.
Most of the land, however, gained what is in some ways Grand County’s most lenient zoning in a 1992 rezone.
While some records indicate the rezone was intended to cover only 10 acres, the official ordinance describes more than 10 times that acreage. The ordinance also doesn’t comply with a corresponding map or with the area’s current zoning.
The seeming discrepancies raise questions about how the county’s most permissive zoning was applied to sensitive lands where a controversial, high-profile development is starting to take shape.
The discrepancies
The ordinance that the Grand County Commission unanimously approved in 1992 converted about 115 acres along Kane Creek Boulevard from the General Grazing zone, G-1, to Highway Commercial, then known as C-3.
But the legislation, Ordinance 229, appears inconsistent with an accompanying map as well as the current zoning of the parcel, per the Grand County website.
Mallory Nassau, the Grand County Commission administrator, acknowledged “a discrepancy between the legal description found on Ordinance 229 and Grand County’s online zoning map.”
“We are currently searching for other historical documents which might bear on the zoning of the affected parcels,” Nassau wrote in an email. “We want this search to be thorough and accurate, and this will take time.”
For example, Ordinance 229 excludes most of the land on the river side of Kane Creek Boulevard, leaving it zoned General Grazing.
But Grand County’s online zoning map, accessed Jan. 26, showed that land zoned almost entirely Highway Commercial.
On Feb. 5 that online map did not show any zoning for the eight Kane Creek parcels, however. Nassau said the county removed the relevant information from those parcels while it is investigating the discrepancies.
Trent Arnold, one of the leaders of the forthcoming development, previously told The Times-Independent that he was aware of the alleged discrepancies but declined to comment further.
Seeking a campground in 1992
When Charlie and Lucy Nelson sought in 1992 to rezone their property along Kane Creek Boulevard, they mainly aimed to build a campground, according to rezone request form submitted to the Grand County Planning Commission.
The property described in that form includes large swaths of land both east and west of Kane Creek Boulevard, plus land at the mouth of Pritchett Canyon at the southern end of the property.
According to minutes from planning commission meetings on May 4 and May 18 in 1992, however, the Nelsons presented a request to rezone just 10 acres.
(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) Construction on the Colorado River on the site of that was previously the Kane Creek Campground near Moab, Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2024.
That’s also what Sam Cunningham remembers. A Grand County commissioner at the time, Cunningham attended both relevant planning commission meetings in May 1992.
Cunningham said she remembers conversation revolving around just 10 acres — and commissioners were “delighted.”
The property had been subject to illegal campers who for years had improperly disposed of human waste and damaged the land. Cunningham said officials saw the rezone as a first step toward managing Moab’s nascent tourist industry.
“There was tons of discussion,” she said.
Some, however, worried the proposed zone change was too broad.
That’s why John Hartley, a planning commissioner, voted against the rezone request.
In a recent conversation, Hartley said he had thought temporary measures, such as a conditional use permit or a variance, could have helped the Nelsons without permanently changing the parcel’s land use potential.
“I just didn’t think a zone change was needed to do what they wanted to do,” Hartley said. He said he didn’t remember the exact acreage of the proposed rezone, just that it didn’t cover the Nelsons’ entire property.
At the time, the C-3 zone was the only one that permitted an “overnight camping area.” (A different commercial zone, C-2, allowed for “vacation vehicle courts.”) The C-3 zone also permitted a range of other commercial uses including bus terminals, grocery stores, car mechanics and motels.
The C-3 zone in 1992 also allowed for almost no residential development, but today its modern equivalent, Highway Commercial, permits up to 18 residential units per acre — by far the most of any zone — and a number of commercial uses.
Eventually, the planning commission voted to recommend approval of the rezone on May 18. The county commission then held a public hearing on June 22, 1992, when the minutes also show the proposal covering just 10 acres “on the east side of the Colorado River at the mouth of Prichett [sic] Canyon.”
After no citizens spoke up at the public hearing or at the next county commission meeting, commissioners unanimously voted to approve the rezone on July 6.
That ordinance, however, describes parcels totaling about 114 acres and specifically excludes most of the land west of Kane Creek Boulevard.
While a search of Times-Independent articles at the time yielded almost no mention of the rezone, two broadcasts from the local Channel 6 News television station briefly discussed it.
Both broadcasts, from June 24 and July 7, 1992, refer to the rezone as being along Kane Creek “near the mouth” or “at the entrance” of Pritchett Canyon.
During the first broadcast, a man whom former Channel 6 News Producer Jim Mattingly identified as Planning Commission Chairman Tom Rees recalled “lots of discussion” around the rezone.
In that broadcast, Rees said commissioners had very little concern with the idea of a campground; “the concern was primarily with the fact that the C-3 zone was so broad” and had “many permitted uses.”
The tapes, shown to The Times-Independent by Mattingly, are in the process of being digitized and made publicly available.
Cunningham emphasized that at the time, Grand County was just coming out of a severe economic bust after mining dried up while trying to manage its fast-growing popularity. County government lacked the resources and sophistication it has today.
“It was not like it is now,” she said. “… We were people trying to do a job as citizens.”