By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
Representatives of the proposed Logandale Mesas residential development spent over two hours with about 75 community members on Monday, May 15 at a neighborhood meeting in Logandale. During that time, the representatives listened carefully to concerns, ideas and suggestions from residents about the project which is planned in a neighborhood on the east of Logandale.
The session began with the group meeting near the proposed site, at the corner of Gubler and Yamashita. After a brief discussion there, the session then moved to the nearby auditorium of the Moapa Valley High School.
Bob Gronauer, who represented the Logandale Mesas developer, brought out maps, depicting proposed plans, for attendees to review. But Gronauer was quick to say that these plans were still a work in progress.
“We are here tonight to listen to you and get your input,” Gronauer said. “We want to incorporate, as much as possible, the wishes of the community into these plans.”
Gronauer pointed out that the developer had already revised the original plans to include input received from local residents thus far in the process. Several items, raised by residents in the April 26 Moapa Valley Town Advisory Board (MVTAB) meeting where the plan was first proposed, had already been adopted into the plans, he said.
These items included removing block walls from the perimeter of the development and facing homes out toward the surrounding community. In addition, local input had been firm against the developer’s desire to vacate and abandon the Whitmore Street alignment north of Claridge. So that had also been dropped from the plan. In the original request the developer had also asked for a waiver of the required 15 foot landscaped setback with detached sidewalks along major exterior streets. Community members had expressed a preference that this waiver not be granted. So it, too had been removed from the plans.
“We can do any landscaping or sidewalks that are wanted by the community,” Gronauer said. “We want to work with you.”
At the April 26 meeting, the MVTAB unanimously recommended a denial of the proposal as presented. But the board had left the door open, requesting that the developer return to the community and discuss possible revisions that would make the plan more palatable for residents.
In consideration of this, County Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick had requested that the item be held for at least 60 days for such a dialog to take place. Thus it was not heard before the County Commission on May 3 as originally planned.
At last week’s meeting, Gronauer stated that the developer had decided to broaden the scope of the project to include a more full range of the site’s long-term plans. The project as presented to the MVTAB had included only the 23 acres east of Whitmore Street and south of Gubler. But the owner of that property also owns another 40 acres which is adjacent to the first parcel to the west.
Before the MVTAB in April, the developer was seeking a conforming zone change for the original 23 acres only. The parcel is currently zoned for up to 2 units per acre. But the county’s Land Use Plan specifies up to 3 1/2 units per acre on that parcel.
“The Land Use Plan is the guiding document for development,” explained Sami Real, Planning Manager of Clark County’s Department of Comprehensive Planning, who was in attendance at the meeting. “The zoning follows that document. Their proposed change to zoning would be conforming to the plan making it more consistent with the Land Use Plan.”
County staff had recommended approval of the zone change request in materials presented before the MVTAB.
On the other hand, the adjacent 40 acre parcel is also zoned at 2 units per acre. But the Lands Use Plan limits that property to only 2 units per acre. Thus, any more density than that, would require a non-conforming zone change for that parcel.
Gronauer explained that he had only presented plans for the first 23 acres because of the request for a conforming zone change on the parcel. Though the developer had plans for the other 40 acres, they did not include the need for a zone change. Thus no plans had been presented before the board for them in the April meeting, he said.
“In hindsight, we have realized that was not the best way to go,” Gronauer said. “We presumed that you knew we would eventually build 1/2 acre lots there (on the adjacent 40 acres) for exactly what it is planned for. But we realize now that we need to show the full plan for all 67 acres. That could also give us more flexibility to work with you on integrating the whole development as part of the surrounding community and to make it something that you can live with and be proud of.”
Many residents of the area expressed concern at the smaller lot sizes in an area where full acre lots surround the parcel. Some said that smaller lot sizes would not give the quality of life that future residents, looking to purchase the lots, might want. Pointing out that OHV use is a major draw in that neighborhood, some residents said that trailer space and RV parking space would be needed on the parcels. They doubted that this could be accomplished on 1/3 acre lots.
But Gronauer assured that it could. He said that the developer would try to incorporate this request into the design of many of the lots to make it work.
Neighboring property owners with larger lots expressed concern about suddenly having a number of small lots developed directly across the street from them. They asked if there could be buffered areas of larger lots on the perimeter to add to continuity in lot density. Then smaller lots could be developed on the interior of the development.
Gronauer agreed that this would be good idea. He said that the design plans could take this suggestion into account.
One resident asked if the developer would be including a neighborhood park in the design. Gronauer responded that they were not being required to do so by the county code for such a small development. “But we can do it if you want us to,” Gronauer said. “Depending on the lot sizes that we end up with, we can definitely look at things like that.”
However, he added that there would probably need to be a Home Owners Association established for the development to maintain and keep those amenities.
Many residents were concerned that the current property owner would get approval on the zone change and then sell the property to another developer who had made no promises to the community. But Gronauer explained that the current owner planned to follow the process all the way through. “The owner is working now on joining forces with a well-known residential developer,” he said. “Then we will work together with them to complete the project.”
Questions were raised about infrastructure including traffic planning, flood control, water supply and other concerns. Gronauer explained that the developer would be required to comply with the county requirements on all of these items.
Furthermore, the Moapa Valley Water District has more than sufficient capacity to service a development of that size, once an agreement is made on the cost of providing that service, according to MVWD General Manager Joe Davis who was in attendance at the meeting.
Some residents questioned whether there was sufficient demand in the real estate market to be able to sell a development of this size. They pointed to building lots in various existing developments which, many years after their development, still sit empty awaiting a buyer.
Gronauer said that the developer was anticipating the industrial growth that is expected to come at Apex, and which is already being built near the Las Vegas Speedway.
“We are expecting that will bring a varied new workforce to the region,” he said. “Some will want to live in North Las Vegas, some will want to be in places Summerlin; and some will want a smaller town lifestyle and will come out this way. We are preparing for that market.”
Near the end of the meeting, Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick spoke to community members in attendance and pledged her support. She said that she understands the concern about growth coming in and disrupting a rural lifestyle. She said she had experienced these same feelings 20 years ago when she fought to retain rural ranch estate-style properties in the northern Las Vegas valley where she lived at the time.
“This community is a special place and I want to support you in keeping it that way,” Kirkpatrick said.
Nevertheless, she added, there is a need for some growth in Moapa Valley. She cited a list of reasons growth was needed including rising utility rates because of small service territories, the cost of fire services, needed flood control infrastructure and the needs of small business in the community.
She added that she frequently hears from local residents that more services are needed in the community. For example, many people had asked for a community recreation center. But it has been difficult to justify the expense of such a facility given the community’s current tax base, she said.
“You need to grow your tax base,” Kirkpatrick said. “I have tried to help bring more services out here and we have been successful in bringing some things here. But I have to go begging to my colleagues for those things and eventually it becomes difficult.”
Kirkpatrick said that if it was the wish of the community to severely limit growth, then she would work to support that position. “But if that is the way we go, we have to have a real conversation about what kind of services you can have and what you can’t,” she said. “You can’t beat me up for not having the infrastructure and the healthy commercial sector, and all the other things that you want.”
Discussing next steps, Gronauer said that the developer would go back to the drawing board and incorporate many of the ideas discussed. Then he would bring a proposed design back to the community in the coming weeks.
