Commission approves industrial park, Pepsi plant

Thursday, Nov. 21, 2002 | 9:42 a.m.

The Clark County Commission swept aside objections from Spring Valley residents Wednesday and approved siting a $70 million industrial park that will bring a regional soft-drink distributor and printing plant to the area.

The commission approved an amendment to the Spring Valley land use guide, a 2-year-old document, to allow the industrial park, then approved the zone change for the project.

Residents and other opposition said the actions strip so-called county "master plans" of meaning. They also charged that the county lost millions in the deal, since the industrial park will be built on what was once county land -- and three years ago sold for well below what commercial property would go for.

The site near Jones Boulevard and Sunset Road is slated to be home to seven buildings, including a regional Pepsi distribution center and a printing plant.

A four-vote commission majority rejected pleas from three commissioners to delay action on the issue, requests from residents to keep the area rural and the Spring Valley Town Advisory Board, which had argued that the industrial area would leave little in the way of a buffer to rural homes.

The majority of Dario Herrera, Erin Kenny, Myrna Williams and Mary Kincaid-Chauncey also rejected calls from county staff members to protect the right-of-way for Torry Pines Drive, which until Wednesday had been slated to become a major north-south thoroughfare through what now will be the industrial park.

The project had the support of Nevada Development Authority Vice President Jody Mack, who said the combined payroll for the new businesses at the site would be $14 million and would bring in millions in state and local tax revenue.

Attorney Chris Kaempfer, representing applicant Nevada Commercial Development, said the 63-acre site could never be developed for anything other than commercial or industrial development because it is within the cooperative management area, a zone affected by aircraft noise.

"It must be developed commercially or not at all," he said.

Kaempfer rejected arguments from the opposition that residents throughout the area had not been property informed of the development proposal. Kaempfer and some board members also rejected arguments that the process, combining a master-plan amendment and a zone change, was flawed.

Master plans, also called land-use guides, are prepared in a process that includes many people over a period of months or years, said attorney Garry Hayes, representing neighbors who opposed the zoning change. Spring Valley's master plan was passed into county law two years ago.

"The process should be that if you do a master plan amendment, it should be an open process," he said. "I don't think that this was ever the idea behind the master-planning process."

And the developer paid the county only 35 cents a square foot for land that was designated in the plan as open space, understanding that it could not be developed, Hayes said. The rezoned land is worth $6 or $7 an acre, he said.

"There is a tremendous windfall that is going to be made at the public's expense," he said.

Supporters of the project said those figures were exaggerated but did not dispute that including dozens of acres of open space in the commercial development saved developers money.

The county aviation department, which formerly owned the land, sold the property three years ago for $4 million. Aviation Director Randy Walker said the land was sold in a block including both open space and commercial zoning designations.

The aviation department no longer sells land designated as open space, he said.

Opponents cited the tangle of issues of land value, land-use changes, road right-of-way and public notification in their arguments.

Commissioners opposing the action were Chip Maxfield, Yvonne Atkinson Gates and, through a request, Bruce Woodbury. Woodbury, recovering from surgery to correct a hearing problem, was not at the meeting.

Woodbury represents the area. Hayes, Maxfield and other opponents noted that it is very unusual for commissioners to ignore a request to hold an item from the commissioner representing the area.

"This is a perfect demonstration of a process that is flawed," Maxfield said. "This is a zoning-driven change to the master plan which is contrary to the system we use in Clark County."

Kaempfer said the timing of the amendment and the zone change for the park coming at the same time on the same night was a coincidence. And Williams argued the amendment had "nothing to do with any specific zoning business."

But passing the plan amendment prompted the county planning staff to reverse its recommendation to deny the zoning change.