Thursday, Dec. 30, 2004 | 8:59 a.m.
Although successful in blocking an unwanted high rise in their area, members of a Las Vegas neighborhood association say the handling of the proposed project shows that residents need more notice earlier in the development process.
The leaders of the Rancho Manor Neighborhood Association are also questioning the role of Las Vegas Planning Commissioner Byron Goynes, who they say acted as an advocate for the developer after the Planning Commission voted for the project.
Goynes attended a meeting between association members and representatives from the Ambling Development Co. that came after the commission's endorsement and before the City Council vote on the project.
Goynes said he attended the meeting because he heard some neighbors were upset and he liked the project.
Goynes also said he plans to run for the Ward 6 seat on the City Council in the coming spring city election. Current Ward 6 Councilman Michael Mack has said he will not seek re-election.
Ultimately, the council rejected Ambling's proposal to build three 28-story condominium buildings near the intersection of Alta Drive and Martin Luther King Boulevard. But before the Dec. 15 council vote, some council members expressed concerns that Ambling representatives may have thought their project would win easy approval from the council.
Councilman Lawrence Weekly, whose ward includes the project site, was especially vocal, accusing city staff of misleading Ambling representatives.
Two days after the council vote, Las Vegas Economic Development Manager Doug Lein resigned from his nearly $83,000-a-year position and received an extra month of paid leave.
City Manager Doug Selby would not comment on Lein's resignation, but did acknowledge that Lein had worked with Ambling.
Selby has also said that he believed no city employee intentionally misled Ambling representatives, but that instead the matter was the result of misinterpreted enthusiasm.
Neighborhood association leaders said they are happy the council rejected Ambling's proposal. The council voted 5-0 against the project, with Mack and Mayor Oscar Goodman abstaining because of conflicts of interest.
Association leaders also have nothing but praise for Weekly, who they feel stood by them, and stood up for them in the face of an imposing development. In addition to traffic and other concerns, neighbors feared the 28-story buildings would cut into their privacy because high-rise residents would be able to look down on their homes and backyards.
"It was a great thing that the council listened to their constituents," association board member Daniel Deegan said.
Weekly has not returned telephone messages in recent days, and has said through a city spokeswoman that he has no further comment on the Ambling situation.
But during the Dec. 15 council meeting, Weekly also said that he felt he was not told about the Ambling project early enough.
Weekly and Ambling representatives met several months ago, at which time Weekly said he told them that their project looked nice but added that they had to see what the neighbors thought of the project.
Association member Bill Stojack, a retired Clark County firefighter, said "something's broken somewhere" in the project approval process. "We were brought in on the tail end."
Deegan said neighbors and neighborhood groups surrounding a proposed development should receive notice of a potential project as soon as the city becomes aware of the project.
"There should be a pre-application phase of notification," Deegan said. "We want the citizens to be contacted at the beginning."
Residents within 750 feet of a project are notified at least 10 days before a project goes before the Planning Commission, and neighborhood associations are now given a month's notice.
But in the case of the Ambling project, the 750-foot radius meant that less than 10 homes in the Rancho Manor neighborhood received notice of the project.
Deegan said he thinks the notification area should be enlarged, although he's not sure by exactly how much.
"It depends on the size of the project," he said, adding that in the case of Ambling's proposal, the notification area should have at least been doubled.
Stojack said he and about eight of his neighbors were meeting in early December with Ambling representatives at the offices of Ambling's local attorney David LeGrand.
"Ten minutes in, Goynes walks in, and we were shocked because the Planning Commission had already passed it," Stojack said. "And he acted as an advocate for Ambling the whole time. ... The time for his advocacy is before the Planning Commission."
Goynes, a member of the city's Board of Zoning Adjustment from April 1992 until May 2000 and a member of the Planning Commission since Feb. 16, 2000, said he doesn't remember who invited him to the meeting.
"I went because it got approved at the Planning Commission and because the neighbors were upset. ... I went because I'm a planning commissioner who cares," Goynes said.
"I liked the project because I look at what is happening downtown and we have to start revitalizing downtown," he added. "I'm not in anybody's back pocket."
But Stojack said he and his neighbors don't really see their neighborhood, which is west of Interstate 15, as part of downtown.
LeGrand said he doesn't see why Goynes' attendance at the meeting was a big deal.
Le Grand also said Ambling might come back with a new development proposal for the land.
Goynes said he has gone to neighborhood and developer meetings in the past that happened after a Planning Commission vote. The last one he remembered attending though was several years ago and had to do with the West Oakey Baptist Church.
Councilman Gary Reese, a planning commissioner before being elected to the council, said he would not discuss the Ambling situation, or the issues surrounding it. However, Reese said he had never heard of a planning commissioner attending a meeting with a developer and neighbors after the commission had voted on the project.
archive
