Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutRES-CC-2008-13Resolution #13-2008 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE MESA VILLAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY MILL CREEK DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 191 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 Mesa Village project, located at approximately Mill Creek Drive and Highway 191 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 Mesa Village 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 Mesa Village 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 May 27, 2008. SIGNED: `. _a..t 4 David L. Sakrison, ayor EST: a.Aate-41262.0-v-"N Rachel Ellisop, Recorder Resolution #13-2008 Page 1 of 1 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED MESA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY MILL CREEK DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 191 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 ofa 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 Mesa Village Development, located outside of current City limits at approximately 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 292 residential units on approximately 22.44 acres. The property is located in the Grand County LLR Zone for Large 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-14, which is a high density multi -family residential zone. The MFR-14 District is designed to accommodate increased residential densities (14 units per acre) based on a Master Plan for the development. Objections: 1. Insufficient information has been submitted to make a clear determination of all concerns and/or objections. 2. The location adjacent to Highway 191 can be prime commercial/retail property and mixed use development with ground floor commercial enterprises would be preferred to residential uses. 3. The specific units targeted for work -force housing designations need to be delineated and the mechanism to maintain these units for the purpose explained. 4. The private street that runs to the east of the project site may need to transition into a public right-of-way in the future if possible. It will be of benefit to understand how this street will intersect with Spanish Valley Drive and other future roads. If the street is to become a dead end then a turn -around that is not shown on the plat should be required. 5. The parking area is uninteresting and landscaping is not apparent on the submitted plat. A redesign of this portion of the development is suggested to break up the parking and allow access to the apartment units in other ways rather than the large parking area. It should be reviewed for fire, police, and EMS access problems. 6. The site appears to have topographical challenges that need to be addressed. These challenges include an apparent spring on the property, soil conditions that may require a soils study, hillside development issues, and storm water drainage and runoff issues. 7. A landscape plan is needed. 8. Given that the property is in the City's expansion area, and given that there may be future commercial and other development in the area surrounding the project that may require municipal services, the property owner should sign a pre -annexation agreement with the City. The pre -annexation agreement should contain the City's standard restrictive covenant that states that the property owner will petition for annexation when the City is ready to annex the property.