HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-2007-044
Resolution #04-2007
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE HACIENDAS PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 930 MILLCREEK DRIVE
WHEREAS, Utah Code Annotated Section 10-2-402 provides for municipal review of urban development
that takes place in the City's expansion area; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code Annotated Section 4-2-402 specifically provides that a county may not approve
such developments unless the municipality either approves the development or submits to the county a
written objection to the county's approval of the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, urban development is defined as any residential development with more than 15 residential
units and an average density greater than one residential unit per acre or any commercial development
with a cost projection of greater than $750,000; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Haciendas Planned Unit Development project, located at approximately 930
Millcreek Drive is in the City's expansion area and meets the criteria for urban development; and
WHEREAS, Grand County has forwarded said project to the City for the City's review according to Utah
Code Annotated Section 10-2-402; and
WHEREAS, said proposed development has been reviewed by the Moab City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Moab City Planning Commission has approved a Statement of Objections to the
Haciendas Planned Unit Development project and has recommended said statement to the Moab City
Council for their approval; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Objections is attached to this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, WE THE GOVERNING BODY of the City of Moab do hereby approve the
attached Statement of Objections to the Haciendas Planned Unit Development project and direct the
appropriate City officials to deliver said statement to Grand County.
PASSED AND APPROVED in open Council by a majority vote of the Governing Body of Moab City
Council on February 13, 2007.
Rachel Ellison, Recorder
Resolution #04-2007
Page 1 of 1
,
CITY OF MOAB
217 EAST CENTER STREET
MOAB, UTAH 84532-2534
MAIN NUMBER (435) 259-5121
FAx NUMBER (435) 259-4135
MAYOR: DAVID L. SAKRISON
COUNCIL: KYLE BAILEY
JEFFREY A. DAVIS
KEITH H. BREWER
GREGG W. STUCKI
ROB SWEE I EN
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS
TO THE PROPOSED HACIENDAS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 930 MILLCREEK DRIVE
Background
Utah Code provides for City review of urban development that takes place in the City's
expansion area. This means that any residential development with more than 15
residential units and an average density greater than one residential unit per acre or any
commercial development with a cost projection of greater than $750,000 that is in the
City's proposed annexation area is subject to City review.
Utah Code Annotated Section 10-2-402 provides that:
(5) The legislative body of a specified county may not approve urban development within a municipality's
expansion area unless:
(a) the county notifies the municipality of the proposed development; and
(b) (i) the municipality consents in writing to the development; or
(ii) (A) within 90 days after the county's notification of the proposed development, the municipality
submits to the county a written objection to the county's approval of the proposed development; and
(B) the county responds in writing to the municipality's objections.
The Haciendas Planned Unit Development, located outside of current City limits at
approximately 930 Mill Creek Drive, meets the criteria for City review. It is located in the
City's proposed annexation area as provided for in the City's Annexation Policy and in
the General Plan. The Project proposes a division of 5.87 acres of land into 37 twin
home sites with a 4215 square foot average lot size. The property is located in the
Grand County SLR-2 Zone for Small Lot Residential, with an overlay zoning of MFR,
which means that the county included this area in a larger area to be considered for
more dense residential development. The applicant has proposed a rezone of the
property to Grand County Zone MFR-8, which is a high density multi -family residential
zone. The MFR-8 District is designed to accommodate increased residential densities (8
units per acre) based on a Master Plan for the development.
Objections:
1. The Project should be subject to a pre -annexation agreement as part of the
development process and the applicant should proceed immediately with
the City to negotiate such an agreement. Further approvals from Grand
County should be suspended until the agreement is in place.
Because of the nature of the project as urban development within the City's proposed
annexation area, the property, along with surrounding properties, is suitable for eventual
annexation into Moab City Limits. The project is immediately adjacent to City limits and
is across the street and adjacent to City R-2 zoned property and adjacent to a significant
amount of RA-1 zoned property to the north and west. A pre -annexation agreement is an
excellent mechanism to ensure that properties that are suitable for annexation are
consistent with the City's General Plan. The City has used pre -annexation agreements
as a tool in many other instances, most notably in the North Corridor. Pre -annexation
agreements can go so far as to stipulate that a given project meet all applicable City
codes, they can stipulate that only particular standards be met, or they can accept
County approvals as non -conforming uses. The particular approach to this project
should be determined during the negotiation process with the property owner and with
guidance from the City Planning Commission. The pre -annexation negotiation process
can be used to help the property owner receive benefits from annexation and to develop
a project that fits in with the City's General Plan. Note that some of the following
objections may be addressed through a pre -annexation agreement, but absent a pre -
annexation agreement they are valid objections.
The pre -annexation agreement process is also a way for the City to engage in a
deliberate discussion about the appropriate zoning for the area surrounding the subject
property. Given the mix of residential, agricultural and commercial uses in the area, as
well as the significance of the road corridor and access to Mill Creek Canyon, how this
area develops should be the product of careful deliberation and attention to consistency
with the City's General Plan, and not solely the result of property owners' requests.
2. The Project as submitted to Grand County does not meet the requirements
of the Grand County Land Use Code. The following issues under (a) and (b)
should be addressed prior to approval.
(a) At a minimum, any project slated for the County's MFR District must
submit a Master Plan and have approved a Master Plan that shows the
following:
3.10.2 Master Plan Requirement
In approving MFR district development in accordance with this section, the County Council shall require a
master plan of the development. The master plan shall be approved and filed prior as part of the ordinance
approval. Such required plan and ordinance shall set forth the following:
A. A statement by the applicant describing how the proposed development provides greater benefits to
the County than would a development carried out in accordance with otherwise applicable zoning and
development regulations;
B. A narrative addressing the proposed development explaining and tabulating the land uses by net acre,
number of dwelling units by housing type, maximum building coverage by housing type, residential density
and/or square footage of non-residential uses per net acre, common area acreage, potential traffic
generation, overall character and architectural style, the relationship of the proposed development to
existing development in the area and other related development features;
C. A site plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 6.20 shall be approved and filed with
the findings of fact as part of the approval; including but not limited to, major roads, major utilities, existing
and proposed land uses, entrance locations on existing roads, common area, landscaping plan and a
conceptual drainage plan;
D. Density and dimensional standards to be applicable within the proposed district;
E. Identification of site planning features designed to ensure compatibility between on -site residential and
nonresidential uses, and with the surrounding neighborhood and land uses;
F. A statement of how the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan; and
G. Other relevant information as may be requested by the Zoning Administrator.
While County staff did request that this Master Plan be part of the approving ordinance
for the project, City staff believe that the Master Plan is a necessary review document
and decision making tool, not something that should be attached after the fact. As you
can see from the above section of the Grand County Land Use Code (LUC), many
issues with respect to the suitability of the project for the surrounding area should be
addressed by the Master Plan Submittal. Issues such as trail connectibility and other
coordination issues could also be addressed. Since the surrounding area is of specific
concern for the City, city staff deem this application to be incomplete without this
important submittal.
(b) Given the County's own Land Use Code (LUC), short term rentals as a use
is not allowed in the zone contemplated for the Hacienda project and the
allowance of said use is a potential conflict with surrounding uses and the
uses permitted in adjacent city zones, as well as the apparent intent of the
MFR overlay.
The development contemplates using the units as short term rentals, which is a business
activity that should require a Grand County business license and the collection of both
County and City Transient Room Tax. According to the Schedule of Use Regulations in
the LUC, "short term rentals" or "overnight accommodations" (less than 30 days) is not a
permitted use in any County residential zone. Moreover, Section 3.3 of the LUC
provides that "uses not identified in a particular column with a "P", "R", "C" or "T" are not
allowed in such District unless expressly permitted in this LUC." City staff have been
told that the County has promoted the interpretation that that such a use is allowed,
since the County does not distinguish between short term and long term rentals.
However, through the administration of the County Transient Room Tax (TRT), it does
seem that Grand County does in fact make such a distinction. The LUC should either be
clarified to include short term rentals as a permitted use in residential zones, or Grand
County should enforce its in -effect use standards.
Allowing short term rentals in the MFR zone does in many ways seem contrary at least
one apparent intent of the zone —to provide a mechanism for affordable housing.
Putting the MFR zone closer to the center of town does make sense for affordable
housing, but allowing this core housing to be used as short term rentals promotes a
continuance of the trend toward higher housing costs and takes the area most suitable
for affordable housing development out of the picture for affordable housing
development. This appears to be one of the main issues with allowing short term rentals
in a multi -family zone.
3
The issue of short term rentals is also important to the City because with the exception
of beds and breakfasts, which are subject to very specific use conditions, short term
rentals are not a permitted use in residential zones. Short term rentals as a use have
different impacts on a residential area than standard residential uses, including impacts
relating to traffic patterns, parking issues, noise, etc. If this area is to ultimately be
annexed into City limits, or even if it is to remain adjacent to City limits, the County's
practice of allowing this use even when not permitted under the LUC should be
addressed. If a development that promotes an overnight accommodation use in a
residential area were to be annexed into City limits, it would be a non -compliant use that
would need to be curtailed unless the property were annexed in as a commercial zone.
This incompatible use could also pose problems for adjacent residential uses and zones
independent of the annexation potential.
3. If a pre -annexation agreement is not negotiated, the County should not
only ensure that the development meets all applicable County codes, the
County should also ensure that the proposed zoning is compatible and
interconnect with surrounding uses and zones, with special consideration
given to the existing zoning in the area.
As indicated above, the City would like an opportunity to help guide the zoning for this
area. With a significant amount of City RA-1 zoned property located adjacent to the
subject property, the issue of upzoning the property is of particular concern to the City. If
the City is not in a position to deal with the appropriate zoning for this project through a
pre -annexation agreement, then the City would request that the County recognize the
discretionary nature of the decision to upzone the property and take the surrounding
area into consideration in this decision making process.
4