County OKs businesses at Kyle Canyon Road

Thursday, Jan. 4, 2001 | 11:02 a.m.

Clark County commissioners voted to allow a controversial commercial development on the road that winds up Mount Charleston on Wednesday, despite appeals from environmentalists and neighbors.

The commissioners voted to establish local business zoning near the intersection of U.S. 95 and Kyle Canyon Road, allowing a shopping center that would include retail businesses, a gas station and convenience store.

"I'm just appalled with this County Commission decision here," said Rabu Hanzalah, chairman of the Lower Kyle Canyon Citizens Advisory Council. "There was no concern for the residents of Kyle Canyon Road."

Representatives for developer Kyle and Frontage said construction on the site, now open desert, would likely begin within two years.

The advisory council, neighbors, the city of Las Vegas, the Sierra Club and county planning staff had urged denial.

The Clark County Planning Commission had recommended approval, and land use consultant Greg Borgel, representing Kyle and Frontage, argued the developer's case.

Borgel pointed out that the general land use plan for the site calls for commercial development.

He added that the developer agreed to numerous conditions, including scrapping a proposed car wash and directing traffic on the U.S. 95 frontage road rather than Kyle Canyon Road.

Commissioner Mary Kincaid said the intersection was ready for the project.

"It's not in the middle of a wilderness area," she said. "It's right on the edge of a highway."

The developer originally asked for general commercial zoning, which was denied, but Borgel agreed to local business zoning. That request passed 4-2, with Kincaid, Erin Kenny, Myrna Williams and Dario Herrera supporting it.

Angry residents said after the vote they believed the decision was engineered before the public hearing, a charge that commissioners denied.

"There were no back-room deals," said Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who was sworn in Tuesday and represents the area. Maxfield abstained, saying he has a business relationship with the developer.

The two commissioners who voted against the project, Woodbury and Atkinson Gates, said the area is not ready for commercial development.

The area lacks infrastructure such as municipal water or sewer services, Atkinson Gates said.

The developer will likely turn to the Las Vegas Valley Water District for water and the city of Las Vegas for sewer service, Borgel said. If the city and district are reluctant, the developer could seek approval for a septic tank and a commercial well, he said.

Williams was one of the project's strongest advocates on the board.

"I think we have a credibility issue here," Williams said. "We have people who invested based on a land use plan."

Failing to follow the land use plan would mean "we might as well forget about planning," she said.

Williams went on to vote five times, in succession, to approve zone changes that did not conform to existing land use plans.

Those other non-conforming zone changes, she explained later, represented other issues and did not draw significant opposition from nearby residents.

"I think Myrna Williams' statement was code for 'whatever developers want, we need to give them,' " said Jane Feldman, conservation committee co-chairwoman for the local group of the Sierra Club.