County OKs land plan for northwest

Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2001 | 9:43 a.m.

A new land-use agreement by the two most powerful local governments in Southern Nevada -- Clark County and the city of Las Vegas -- could mean that thousands of residents will get a coherent approach to zoning and services.

The agreement covers the northwest corner of the Las Vegas Valley, where the city and county have frequently been at odds over land-use and service issues. County leadership has protested annexation efforts by the city, and city leaders have protested county zoning decisions that have put high-density residential and commercial alongside bucolic "rural" areas throughout the area.

A divided Clark County Commission approved Tuesday a plan that, on paper at least, would alleviate or eliminate those issues of dispute.

"It's a huge victory for the northwest," Commissioner Chip Maxfield, who represents the area, said. He predicted that the Las Vegas City Council will approve the interlocal agreement during its meeting today.

The agreement will work to eliminate city-county conflicts in at least nine areas, including the flashpoints of land use and annexation, he said.

"It will once and for all put land use issues in their simplest form, saying what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the area," Maxfield said.

Both residential and commercial developers have targeted the fast-growing part of the valley. The growth has sometimes pitted developers against existing homeowners, especially in the unincorporated county.

The agreement will give some guarantee that people who move to the northwest for its rural character will not see arbitrary changes, and that those who like living in the county won't be suddenly annexed into the city, Maxfield said.

Maxfield said he is confident that the Las Vegas City Council will approve the interlocal agreement when it considers the issue today.

The agreement would provide a framework for:

* Unified road and transportation development.

* Cooperation on sewer service and the use of recycled "gray water."

* Uniform standards for different types of land uses, including what would be allowed in different zoning categories.

* A unified front before the Regional Flood Control District to prioritize flood control projects throughout the affected area.

* A coherent approach to developing parks and trails throughout the northwest.

The agreement also calls upon the two governments to develop a "seamless" land-use plan for the entire northwest by January 2003.

However, another provision of the agreement fueled opposition on the Clark County Commission. The agreement freezes the existing master plan for county land within the target area, which is about half of the 33,000 acres.

Commissioner Erin Kenny has objected to the provision, which would prohibit master-plan amendments to allow high-density residential and commercial projects in and near rural areas until the land-use plan is adopted.

The protests of residents in the area, especially those in the unincorporated county, helped push Maxfield to draft the agreement.

During an earlier round of debate on the issue, Kenny said the provision would not allow the County Commission flexibility for zoning in the northwest. Kenny opposed the agreement again Tuesday.

But Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates, participating via telephone Tuesday, switched sides to vote for the agreement. That gave Maxfield, who helped write the agreement, the needed four votes to pass it on the county side.

Commissioners Myrna Williams and Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, as they had before, also opposed the agreement.

Kincaid-Chauncey noted that the agreement still allows the city to annex areas in the northwest, though it requires consultation with the county and notice to residents in rural areas.

"Does anything in this document prevent the city from encroaching upon existing townships?' she asked. Kincaid-Chauncey and Kenny said the agreement should require county approval for any annexations.

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury said the agreement already rolls back annexation rights the Nevada Legislature granted in the spring. Requiring county approval for any annexation would require the city to give up all of its legal ability to annex, he said.

He also dismissed concerns expressed by Williams that the townships of Winchester and Paradise, heavily developed areas in the unincorporated county, would be affected by the agreement.

"We're dreaming up situations that have nothing to do with reality," Woodbury said.

City Councilmen Michael Mack and Larry Brown represent the city wards in the area. Neither were available for comment Tuesday.