MVTAB Denies Development, Vows to Continue Discussions

By VERNON ROBISON

Moapa Valley Progress

The Moapa Valley Town Advisory Board (MVTAB), in a meeting last week, unanimously voted to recommend denial on a proposal for a residential development on 27 acres in Logandale. In doing so, however, board members made the point that they were not slamming the door once and for all on the project. Rather they urged property owners to spend time working with community members on details of their design in order to reach a compromise more palatable to local residents.
The proposal was the first sizeable new residential project to come before the MVTAB since the real estate crisis of 2008.

Representing the property owner, CAN & Company, LLC, was Elizabeth Delk who explained that the proposal included a subdivision of 80 lots on a 27 acre parcel bordered by Gubler Ave. on the north, Lou St. on the east, Wittwer Ave. on the south and Whitmore St. on the west. Building the proposed number of homes would require a density of just under 3 units per acre, with lot sizes of between 10,000 and 18,000 sq. ft, Delk said.

The parcel is currently masterplanned for up to 3 1/2 units per acre. But the current zoning on the property allows only two units per acre. Thus, part of the request was a conforming zone change to allow for the higher density, Delk said.

Planned is a neighborhood of single story, single family homes. These would be mainly ranch-style residences between 1600 – 2100 sq ft in size, Delk said.

In addition to the zone change request, the project required two other items which were up for approval. The owner was requesting a waiver of development standards for landscaping along the northern end of the project. Required in the rural Moapa Valley overlay to the county code is 15 feet of landscaped setback and a detached sidewalk along the perimeter of the development. The owners were asking that to be reduced to a six foot wide landscaped area with an attached sidewalk.

Another request the owner was bringing before the board was to vacate and abandon the street right-of-way for the Whitmore St. alignment, from Claridge Ave to Gubler Ave.
During the public comment period, many area residents rose to express opposition to the project. They brought concerns about whether adequate planning was going into infrastructure for the new neighborhood.

Area resident Tim Terry was concerned that approving the project would open the door to rapid development of large empty parcels surrounding the one in question.
“Once you start the ball rolling, all of a sudden instead of just 26 acres under development, we would be facing as much as 150 acres in that area,” Terry said.

Terry pointed out that the owner of the current property also owned another 20 acre parcel adjacent to the west.
In fact, a neighborhood meeting was held in March of 2016 to float the idea of a large residential development on that western parcel. That earlier proposal was dropped by the developer after opposition was voiced at the neighborhood meeting.

With all of the potential for development, Terry doubted that enough planning had been done about how the traffic would flow through the area. Currently many of the key streets in the area are either still gravel roads, or are wholly undeveloped, he said.
“There is not enough pavement being planned here to accommodate all of that traffic,” Terry said.
Other residents protested that the development was not in line with Moapa Valley’s rural ideal.
“We need to preserve a rural lifestyle and a western quality of life,” said Doyle Raines who recently built a home in the area. “I’m sure that if we reviewed the land use plan that we could find a place in the valley for this kind of growth. Personally, I don’t think we want that much anywhere. But this area is especially not the place for it.”

“If we wanted neighborhoods like this, we would move to Las Vegas,” said Robert Bruce. “But you bring all of these Las Vegas people out here and all of a sudden they will be complaining about our horses, and the smells, and the things that are important to our rural lifestyle. Things will change.”

Janell Foster of Logandale worried that if the project should be approved, and the land cleared, there would be no market to purchase the new lots. She pointed to the unpurchased empty building lots at Valley Heights off of Whipple Ave. in Logandale as an example.
“I think it is important that we maintain the integrity of the desert landscape,” Foster said. “I don’t want to see them clear the land and then have no buyers for the property. They should clear the lots and build the homes, only as they sell the property.”

A few at the meeting commented in favor of the project. Regional developer Tony Ricco, who is a former Logandale resident and owns property in the community, said that small lots with modest homes would fill an important need in the market. He pointed out that, in addition to rural lifestyle values, the community also upheld strong family values.
“I love it here and I loved living here,” Ricco said. “I would like my kids to be able to come back and live here someday. But it is hard to find property to buy for starter homes. There is a shortage of inventory in the area for young families. Young people just can’t find a home to raise a family in this community.”

Local real estate agent Tracey Thornton, who lives in the neighborhood of the proposed project agreed that more of these types of homes were needed in the community. She also stated that the proposed project was not really a ‘Las Vegas-style’ development at all.
“This is a nice project,” she said. “The developer is doing a good job on this project..
Thornton explained that the developer was striving to keep the development under the FHA standards for rural areas. As a real estate agent, she said that she had seen many people wanting to use rural FHA loans for financing on homes in the community. The qualification for that could be narrow with not a lot of local properties fitting those qualifications, she said.

Thornton also pointed out that the developer seemed willing to work with the community on meeting many of the concerns that had been voiced. “I feel like this developer will work with us on something that is conforming to our values,” she said. “We should give them a chance.”
After the public comment was closed, MVTAB members each gave their views of the project. Most were unsatisfied with elements of the project.

Perhaps most vocally opposed to the project, MVTAB member Brian Burris contested the idea that the zoning request was really conforming to the Land Use Plan. He agreed that the density being sought was within the range of what the document allowed for the property. But he said that there were other elements that were not in conformity with the plan.
“There are some things that this developer is not telling you when they say this is a conforming change and that it should be an automatic approval,” Burris said. “There are things in the land Use Plan that this project is not following.”

Burris listed a number of items where his reading of the Land Use document did not reconcile with the requests. This included a compatibility with adjacent uses in the area, a tendency toward the preservation of rural lifestyles and existing large lot neighborhoods, the need for transition areas between areas of low and higher density and more.
“I can’t support a project that only follows what the developer wants in the Land Use Plan and ignores what would benefit us,” Burris said.

Other board members expressed similar reservations about the project, but voiced a desire to work with the developer to find a compromise.
“Why can’t we form a committee to work with them and get them to conform to what we are looking to do in this community,” said MVTAB member Ann Markle.
Board member Joe Perez said that he saw a “lot of good things” in the proposal, and also expressed an openness to work with the developer.

MVTAB chairman Gene Houston questioned the validity of several members of the public who had expressed fear that people moving to the community from Las Vegas would bring crime and other undesirable elements.
“I moved here many years ago and I came from Las Vegas,” Houston said. “Most of you have moved here from somewhere else, many from Las Vegas. No matter when you came, people always want to shut the gates and not let anyone in behind them. But the reality is that the community needs some growth.”

At the same time, Houston said that he could not support such small lots in the development. Though the developer was saying lot sizes would be at least 10,000 sq ft, when the private streets were factored in, the minimum sizes were closer to 8,000 sq ft, Houston pointed out. He felt this was too small for the area.

Houston also didn’t like the idea of reducing the 15 ft landscaped setback to just 6 ft with a block wall around the perimeter of the neighborhood. He suggested that the houses on the perimeter should be faced out so that it would not be a walled-in community.
“To tell you the truth, I would support this project if you faced the (perimeter) homes to the outside and you went to at least 1/2 acre lots,” Houston said.

Delk said that the developer would be willing to put a hold on the project so that input from the community could be received and agreements could be reached on the design. But Janice Ridondo, of Clark County Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick’s office, pointed out that the item was already on the County Commission agenda for May 3. At this point it was too late to pull the item and would be heard one way or the other, Ridondo said.

Board members decided that the best course of action would be to recommend denial of the project. Delk then agreed to hold the item before the Commissioners so the developer could work with the community going forward.
Earlier this week, Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick announced over social media that the item would be postponed for at least 60 days.