Council approves contentious zone change

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

Property rights were held above the personal preferences of neighboring residents in a zoning decision made by the Mesquite City Council at a meeting held Tuesday night, Jan. 11.

In a 4-1 vote the Council approved a zone change that would allow for two homes to be built on a hilltop overlooking the Lake-ridge II development just to the west of Greens Way in Mesquite. The approval was given despite apparently unanimous opposition from residents of the area who showed up in force to the meeting.

For nearly 45 minutes of public comment, a flurry of concerns were raised by area residents opposing the two new hilltop homes. These included worries about additional traffic coming onto Greens Way from the two homes, the loss of natural open space, the elimination of wildlife habitat, the stability of the soil on the hilltop, drainage issues and more.

Homeowners Association (HOA) leaders in the area stated that members of their organizations were overwhelmingly opposed to the rezoning. Lake Ridge II HOA President Carol Shepherd said that all of the 22 homeowners in her association had collectively expressed opposition to the proposal.

“Lake Ridge II has been a mature development of mostly retired residents for almost 20 years now,” Shepherd said. “The insertion of a new development in the middle of it would be unnecessary intrusion given the ample availability of undeveloped land elsewhere in Mesquite.”

In addition, the same petition had circulated in the nearby subdivisions of Vista Heights, La Scala, Villa La Paz and Falcon Glen with a total of 351 signatures gathered in opposition.

In some introductory remarks, City Planner Richard Secrist gave background and history of the project. He explained that the Oasis Golf Club had recently approached local builder Nevada Residential Construction (NRC) to purchase the 6.87 acre hilltop parcel overlooking the 10th hole of the Palmer Course.

The parcel currently was zoned as Parks, Recreation and Open Space land, Secrist said. The request was to change the zoning to Rural Estates which would allow for the homes to be built.

Secrist said that NRC had initially proposed a 10-lot subdivision on the site with the idea that it would be rezoned as single family residential.

But in subsequent neighborhood meetings held to present the idea to the surrounding residents, the concept met with “pretty much unanimous opposition,” Secrist said.

The developer then went back to the drawing board and revised the plan. The revision included only two flag-shaped lots, Secrist said. One of the lots would be 2 acres in size and the other 1.5 acres. The remainder of the 6.87 acres, immediately adjacent to the homes on Lake Ridge II, would be left as a buffer of open space and common area.

“Unfortunately, flag-shaped lots are not permitted in a single family zone,” Secrist added. “But agricultural zones do allow for that. Rural estates zoning is kind of an agriculture category. So that is what they are asking for here.”

Secrist also divulged that, technically in the code, this would also allow for livestock and farm animals to be kept on these lots. But he emphasized that this was not what was intended by the developer.

“In fact, if this rezoning goes through, I would recommend that the council express their intent that there be no animal rights associated with it,” Secrist said. “Clearly this is not a site for grazing horses or cows.”

Members of City Council had several questions for Dylan Jensen of NRC. On the subject of livestock on the property, Jensen stated that this was not an issue. The property would still be under the Mesquite Vistas Master HOA and all of its covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), he said.

“We know that CC&Rs trump zoning,” Jensen said. “So we never intended to have any sort of rural animal things going on up there.”

Some concerns had also been expressed in public comments about the entrance to the project from Greens Way passing too close to existing homes on either side. Jensen acknowledged that it actually was because of the insufficient access point that he had been unable to proceed with the originally proposed subdivision.

“But there is enough access for a common driveway to service two lots,” he said. “That is why we have sized it down to just two lots. And that would be our intent in this case.”

He added that this private driveway would not be a city street and would not be the maintenance responsibility of any existing HOA. Rather it would be left to the two homeowners to take care of it.

In addition, the traffic coming down the driveway would not be any different than that of the other driveways coming out onto Greens Way, he said.

Councilman Brian Wursten also asked about a concern, expressed by residents, that the two large lots might someday be subdivided bringing more homes to the hillside.

“We are legally limited to two homes up there,” Jensen responded. “We just don’t have the access to build any more than two.”
Wursten asked Jensen to address the questions about the stability of soils on the desert hill. Jensen said that the soils there were similar to all of the other desert hills which had been built upon years ago in the area. But he added that it would be part of the process of building to do a soils investigation to determine the suitability for building there.

Finally, Wursten asked about what was being done to plan for drainage from the two lots. Jensen responded that, since the project was no longer a subdivision, a full drainage study would not be required. But he would expect that the City Engineer would require a drainage plan to address any drainage issues from the hillside homes.

Councilman George Gault asked what the plan was for the open space portion of the property. Jensen responded that the design had been put together to allow the open land to be a buffer between the new homes and the existing homes below.

“Our intent is to leave it as undisturbed as possible,” Jensen said of the open space land. “If you look at a topography map, the elevation changes a ton in there. So you are probably going to see some retaining walls in certain areas. But the idea is to leave those common areas as close to native as possible and let them still be owned by the golf course.”

Some City Council members recognized the opposition to the project, but also emphasized the need to balance that with the rights of the property owner.

“In the end, what I have a hard time with is telling somebody what they can or can’t do with what they own,” Wursten said. “How can we turn to somebody and say, ‘You can’t do this. You can only do what we want you to do, even though you own the property.’”

Councilwoman Karen Dutkowski pointed out that, with the current Parks/Recreation zoning, the owner could rightfully build basketball courts or pickleball facilities or other recreational facilities on the site.

“So it seems clear that the community could have either recreation/parks or homes there,” Dutkowski said. “I can tell you, we have had debaters here about homeowners that don’t want a pickleball court in their backyard.”

“I love wildlife and I certainly like the views around here,” Dutkowski added. “But I think that the community needs to understand that it could be something else there besides two homes. And they already have the zoning for that.”

In the end, Wursten made a motion to approve the request. Councilwoman Sandra Ramaker was the only dissenting vote.