MVTAB Approves Logandale Mesas Development

By VERNON ROBISON

Moapa Valley Progress

The Moapa Valley Town Advisory Board (MVTAB) approved zoning requests for the Logandale Mesas residential development by a 3-1 vote at a meeting held on Wednesday, November 14 in Overton.
The proposed development would create 167 new residential lots on a total of 79 acres located on the east side of Logandale in the area roughly south of Gubler Ave and east of Yamashita St.

Liz Delk, who represented the developer at the meeting, recapped the long process of community input that had taken place over the past two years for the project. She pointed out that the plans had first been discussed at neighborhood meetings held about 18 months ago.

At that time, developers had begun with a smaller project in acreage; but having a somewhat higher density. But the community had asked that overall density be kept at around 2 units per acre. In addition, neighbors of the project wanted larger lots on the perimeter of the development to act as a buffer to the existing large lots in the area.

So the developer went back to the drawing board, Delk said. “We stepped back for a year and a half and reorganized the plan so that we could bring something to please the neighbors better,” she said.

In doing so, the developer increased the overall acreage of the development. More acreage was incorporated to the east of the original proposal. And a large parcel was added west of Whitmore and south of Claridge.

This allowed for the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) where a variety of lot sizes, both larger and smaller, could be incorporated into an overall plan. Taken together the project would average 2 units per acre.

Delk explained that larger lots had been planned at the perimeter. She admitted that not all of them were a full acre, but they ranged between 3/4 acre and 1 acre.

On the interior a band of half acre lots had been planned. Then at the center would be much smaller lots ranging down to a 10,000 sq ft minimum.

Delk said that planned home styles would be limited to single story, single family residences. Pricing on these homes were projected to start in the low $200,000 range and go up from there, Delk said.

The developer was seeking approval on a Use Permit governing the PUD and a Design Review on the plans for the development.

Also requested was a conforming zone change which would allow the two units per acre across the 79 acre parcel. The zoning request would be a conforming change as the County Land Use Plan designation for the acreage currently would allow zoning for up to 3.5 units per acre, Delk said.

Finally, the developer requested the vacation and abandonment of right of way on a segment of Whitmore Street between Gubler and Claridge to accomodate the development plans.

Beginning the discussion, MVTAB chairman Gene Houston raised a number of questions for the developer.
First Houston was concerned about access to the project. The developer is required to provide full improvements to the major streets adjacent to the project including paving, curb and gutter. But if that was all that was required, the approach to the development from the west on Gubler and from the south on Yamashita would be left unpaved. Houston asked how this was to be addressed.

Delk said that the developer already planned to pave Yamashita from the high school up to the project. In addition they are trying to contact the owner of the parcel to the west to partner on the paving of Gubler to St. Joseph.

Houston said that whether an agreement could be reached with the other property owner or not, Gubler would need paving to provide access to the project.

Houston also insisted that full curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements should be made on Yamashita to accommodate kids walking to the high school and to the school bus stops in that area.
Streetlights would also be needed, at least at the intersections that were major access points into the development, Houston added.

Finally, Houston was concerned about the “hammerhead” design at the ends of some of the interior streets in the project.
“Hammerheads have been used in Vegas and they cause a lot of trouble,” Houston said. “It’s a problem for parking, traffic patterns and for emergency vehicle access. I’d prefer you plan for a full radius cul-de-sac in each of those areas.”

When the floor was opened to public comment, additional concerns were raised.
Neighbor, Randy Thompson, was concerned about flood control. With several small washes running through the area, he was worried that drainage could become worse in the area. But Delk said that the county would require a full drainage study to be done. The developer would be required to conform to the recommendations which came from the study, she said.
“We won’t be allowed to build if it makes the drainage worse in the area,” Delk said.

Logandale resident Dorene Starita said that the developer had not delivered on the commitment to provide full one-acre lots on the perimeter. “We have asked for that again and again and this plan still falls short of it,” Starita said. “There are only three full-acre lots in the whole plan and they are all facing Claridge where there are no existing homes. None are facing current homes.”

Megan Porter, another neighbor of the project, worried about the impact of the development on current services in the community.

Porter expressed fear that the increased demand of the project would create a shortage of water resources in the community and that rates would then rise. But MVWD General Manager Joe Davis, who was in attendance at the meeting, dispelled this concern. Davis explained that the district has ample water resources in reserve to supply this development. What’s more, buildout of the development would more likely lower water rates because there would be more households over which to spread the district’s costs, Davis said.

Davis did advise, however, that the developer come and meet with MVWD staff to discuss the details and costs of water services. Specifically, he told MVTAB members that the district was currently opposed to the request for vacation and abandonment of Whitmore as no discussion had yet taken place on how water infrastructure would be built out for the project.

Porter was also concerned about “overcrowding” in public schools which would result from the 167-home development; as well as the stretch in fire protection resources it might cause to the community.

But Delk said that the relatively small size of the project left the developers with little control over those major elements.
“Those impacts are hard ones for us to have much say in,” Delk said. “The Clark County School District won’t build schools unless the rooftops are in place to support the schools.”

In the area of fire services, Delk explained that the developer is being required to install sprinkler systems into the homes for fire suppression, since there is no full-time fire services in the community.

Porter was also worried that the influx of new residents would generate complaints about livestock already in existence in the surrounding area. “We have seen it in Vegas where people have been there with their livestock forever,” Delk said. “Then a new development comes in and they are forced out because all the newcomers don’t want the smell or sounds or whatever.”

Janice Ridondo, of County Commissioner Marilyn Kirkpatrick’s staff, addressed this concern. She said that Kirkpatrick is very sensitive to this plight as she herself was one of the rural residents of North Las Vegas who was pressured by rapid growth in the area.
“I can tell you that our office is not even accepting code complaints on livestock in areas like this,” Ridondo said. “So that is just not going to happen.”

During the board discussion, MVTAB member Brian Burris stated that he did not feel that the developer had come far enough to satisfy the wishes of the community.
“This development would change the feel of this community,” Burris said. “It is too much and it doesn’t match with the existing area. I can’t support it.”

But Houston disagreed. “No matter what comes to be built in the community, there always seems to be a fight,” Houston said. “Whether it is businesses, houses whatever; people want to move in here and then shut the gate and let nothing else in.”

Houston pointed out that the developer was not asking for zoning that wasn’t already allowed on the property. “We can’t be opposed to people developing a property as it has already been planned and zoned,” Houston said. “What they are asking for has been part of the land use plan for ten years or more.

It isn’t new. You all should have known about the zoning when you bought the land there.”
In addition, Houston pointed out that the developer had worked with neighbors and community members to create buffering with larger lots facing the existing homes. “I’m okay with two units per acre and that is what they have done here,” Houston said. “I like the big lots on the outside. And they have kept the total density to 2 per acre. I think it is a good fit, if it is done right.”

Burris began by making a motion to deny the Use Permit for the PUD. But the motion didn’t gain traction. It fell on a 1-3 vote with Burris being the only one in favor. MVTAB member Joe Perez was absent from the meeting and, thus, did not cast a vote.

Houston then made a series of motions for approval of the zone change, the PUD Use Permit and the Design Review. However, he imposed a number of conditions. These included the adjustment of all perimeter lots to meet a minimum of one acre; paved access to the project on Yamashita and Gubler; full curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements being added to Yamashita all the way to the high school; street lights at every major intersection accessing the development; and the replacement of all “hammerhead” designs with full cul-de-sac street ends.

Houston also made a motion to deny the request to vacate and abandon Whitmore Street until the developer had entered discussions with MVWD on the loop water distribution system to the project.
All of these motions were approved with a 3-1 vote with Burris being the only dissenting vote.

The matter will receive a final hearing before the Clark County Board of Commissioners in Las Vegas on December 5.