City poised to designate rural areas

By Ed Koch

Friday, Aug. 12, 2005 | 11:12 a.m.

Las Vegas officials are set to classify hundreds of acres within the city as rural.

Dictionaries define "rural" as rustic, having to do with the countryside, agricultural.

For many, if not most people, rural conjures up images of wide-open spaces with horses grazing in large, grassy yards beside quaint farmhouses and folks selling eggs out the back of their pickup trucks -- eggs laid by their chickens, which scamper across dusty unpaved streets where there are no sidewalks, gutters or sewers.

While there are some of those places left in the city, mostly in the northwest, a proposed city ordinance to create rural preservation neighborhoods includes the Scotch 80s and Rancho Circle developments, home to wealthy urbanites whose lifestyle far surpasses what one would describe as simple country living.

"Scotch 80s rural? You got me," said Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, a resident of Scotch 80s, south of Charleston Boulevard and east of Rancho Drive. "I think it is very urban. I drive home on (U.S.) 95 in 3 1/2 minutes. I'm as urban as you can get."

Rancho Circle, west of Rancho Drive and north of Charleston Boulevard, also is an urban area.

The proposed ordinance, which would have rural preservation areas scattered from the ever-burgeoning northwest to Sahara Avenue, is scheduled to be heard at Tuesday's City Council Recommending Committee meeting. That meeting is set for 4 p.m. in the city manager's eighth-floor conference room.

Whether Goodman and two other council members eventually will vote on the matter was unclear Thursday.

Because Goodman and at least two of his council colleagues, Steve Ross and Lois Tarkanian, own property within the proposed rural preservation districts, the three stand to gain financially from passage of the measure, County Assessor Mark Schofield said.

"A rural preservation neighborhood designation has the potential to improve the value of the land, so yes, they (council members who have homes there) do benefit if a buyer is seeking that type of property," Schofield said.

"It's common sense that if you have got protection against apartments being built next to you the valuation will increase. I cannot say by how much. That would depend on a lot of factors that drive valuation."

Schofield, however, said the motivation for the proposed creation of rural preservation neighborhoods appears to be to protect the rural lifestyle of hundreds of city homeowners, not to create a potential windfall for council members years from now when they attempt to sell their homes.

Goodman, Tarkanian and Ross say they will rely on the city attorney's advice as to whether it will be a conflict for them to vote on the measure. City Attorney Brad Jerbic did not return messages seeking comment.

Goodman said he was not even aware his neighborhood was being considered as a rural preservation district.

Tarkanian, who is a member of the two-person council recommending committee, declined to be interviewed for this story, but said in a statement released by a city spokesperson that she does not believe there is a conflict.

"Since I am a resident of an already fully established neighborhood, the Rural Preservation Overlay District would be of no personal benefit to me," she said.

Area homebuilders, not surprisingly, are critical of the proposed ordinance, calling it a means to appease "affluent" property owners who want to have the government ensure that apartments or modest homes can never be built near their property, despite the ever-increasing need for affordable housing in the valley.

Homeowners, tired of fighting developers seeking zoning changes to cram more people into smaller areas, say they were far from wealthy when they bought their homes years ago to get away from the hustle and bustle.

Supporters of the measure also argue that the extra layer of protection will preserve the integrity of homes on half-acre lots that are being threatened by the encroachment of higher density growth that, in some cases, surrounds them.

Andy Reed, senior planner with the city, said the reason areas such as Scotch 80s and Rancho Circle are included in the proposed ordinance is because the rural designations include all of the areas that were covered under the guidelines of a state law for rural preservation that expired in 2004.

"We've taken the language from the old state law to use in our proposed ordinance," he said, noting that the need for the ordinance resulted from the Legislature failing to pass a new state law at the last session. "It includes all of our RE (rural estates) zoning, which is two homes per acre."

The ordinance, as it is proposed, requires that rural preservation neighborhoods have at least 10 such contiguous homes but allows individual half-acre property homes within 330 feet of such clusters to be included.

The proposed ordinance says its purpose is to "ensure that the rural character ... is preserved."

The proposed ordinance leaves much room for interpretation as to how close higher density projects can be built to the rural preservation areas.

The ordinance requires "adequate buffer areas, adequate screening and an orderly and efficient transition of land uses." The word "adequate" is not defined.

The provisions also include maintaining the rural character of the area "unless a rural preservation neighborhood is ... within 330 feet of an existing or proposed street or highway that is more than 90 feet wide."

It does not, however, say that the areas to be protected actually have to be in rural Las Vegas.

While the map for the proposed Las Vegas districts is dotted with irregularly shaped and fragmented zones throughout the city, maps for other government entities that five to 15 years ago adopted ordinances for rural preservation neighborhoods appear to have more defined zones limited to rural areas.

Henderson, for example, has just four rectangular-shaped rural preservation neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city's limits. North Las Vegas also has rectangular-shaped "ranch estate preservation areas" east of Decatur Boulevard at Craig, Lone Mountain and Gowan roads.

Clark County's rural districts cover large sections, primarily on county islands within Las Vegas and North Las Vegas and on the far east and extreme southwest parts of the valley.

However, the county does have some fragmented zones and also has some rural preservation districts in urban areas, including a large section south of Sahara Avenue and west of Decatur Boulevard.

Chuck Pulsipher, planning manager for Clark County, said: "It doesn't matter if the rural area is surrounded by urban areas," noting that such places more than ever are seeking protection before developers encroach even further by buying up some of those homes and seeking zoning changes for more urban uses.

"Rural preservation neighborhoods are designed to give property owners and buyers an idea of what to expect and what not to expect, such as a high density neighbor. It establishes the ground rules for property owners and developers."

In addition to Scotch 80s and Rancho Circle, other non-rural areas slated for rural designation include a large chunk of urbanized land at Vegas Drive and Martin Luther King Boulevard, several parcels west of Torrey Pines Drive and north of Sahara Avenue and a parcel near Nellis Boulevard and Owens Avenue.

Such areas long ago lost their rural innocence, homebuilders say, noting such properties could be potential sites for infill development, including much needed moderately priced homes.

"Rural neighborhood preservation is a means of protection for affluent neighborhoods," said Monica Caruso, spokeswoman for the Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association.

"This is a national movement that started out to create rural areas for horses and livestock. In practice it has become codified neighborhood protection."

While that may be the result, Pulsipher said, when the county started designating its first rural districts in the early 1990s, it wasn't necessarily to protect the wealthy, but rather to protect a rural lifestyle enjoyed by a number of people.

"Land was more affordable back then and more people could build big homes," he said, noting that many of them were people of modest income who just wanted a peaceful place to ride their horses.

Caruso said despite her organization's opposition to the concept of rural preservation districts, the homebuilders will not fight the city's proposed ordinance because the zoning conforms to the city's 2003 master plan and the old state law.

But that doesn't mean developers are happy with the city's decision to implement the rural districts, especially in obviously urban areas.

"It is hurtful to us when it comes to infill development or changing zoning to bring in potentially good projects because once an area is designated as rural preservation, that's the end of the process," Caruso said. "But it is also not a hill to die for.

"Scotch 80s and Rancho Circle are in the middle of urbanized areas, have major arterials and are just off of freeways. They are classic suburban areas inside of urban areas. But they are not rural."

Caruso said "push is coming to shove in Las Vegas with the housing shortage and rising home prices." With rural preservation districts, developers will lose potential areas to build more homes, she said.

Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, is an advocate for rural preservation who encouraged the city to create its own rural preservation neighborhoods and helped draft the proposed ordinance.

"People invest in these homes because they want to maintain a rural lifestyle and need to have it protected," said Kirkpatrick, who lives in a rural preservation neighborhood in North Las Vegas, which, unlike the county, Henderson and Las Vegas, includes houses built on one-third acre lots.

"I absolutely believe it (Las Vegas' proposed ordinance) is a good plan because it protects interiors that already are developed," as opposed to just vacant land.

Kirkpatrick notes that 47 percent of her constituency lives in the city of Las Vegas, including 1,600 residents whose homes would become part of rural preservation neighborhoods if the ordinance passes.

Mike Malone, who for 18 years has lived in a home near Cheyenne Avenue and Rancho Drive, and Mark Edgel, who for 18 years has lived in a home he built near Alexander Road and and Rancho Drive, are two of her constituents who would be further protected should the proposed ordinance pass.

"Rural means, No. 1, being able to have animals -- I have neighbors with horses, turkeys, chickens, ducks and goats," said Malone, a Las Vegas resident of 42 years and a former state senator who represented several areas covered under the proposed ordinance, including Rancho Circle and Scotch 80s.

"If the developers were to get a hold of these one-, two- and and five-acre lots, split them up and change zoning designation to commercial, we would not be protected any longer and soon after the animals would be gone."

Malone, who now serves as president of the Northwest Area Residents Association, says Scotch 80s and Rancho Circle should be eligible for the same protection.

"There may be urban around them, but inside they are rural with half-acre lots or larger," he said. "There may not be horses and other animals there now, but there is still rural integrity."

Edgel, who has lived in Las Vegas for 37 years, remembers when he was a child that Rancho Circle was rural and that it needs protection now before its rural integrity completely vanishes.

"I believe rural is any property purchased to avoid being hassled by the crowds," Edgel said. "Low density is great because space makes good neighbors.

"The city may have grown up around the residents of Rancho Circle and Scotch 80s, but they still have their space in those developments. And they need to be protected."

Edgel said he has circulated three petitions to keep developers from encroaching on his neighborhood with higher density projects. He lost the last one at Gowan Road and Decatur Boulevard, where three to four homes will be built per acre on a five-acre parcel.

The affluent comment by Caruso irked Malone and Edgel.

"I'm offended by that comment because when I moved here I was not affluent -- I was a police officer at the time," Malone said, noting that it was a struggle then, even though property was more affordable in those days.

Edgel, a union laborer and father of six, said after he saved up to buy his property he could not afford a home with the amenities he wanted, so he built one at less than half the cost -- much of it with his own hands.

"I make a good living, but I'm not a doctor or a lawyer," he said. "At the time I built my home, I had to borrow money. In addition to the money I paid, I put in more than 50 percent of the sweat equity to build it."

Edgel, who says that as a construction industry worker he is not opposed to growth, but feels there should be some limits to control it.

"Some developers see a vacant piece of land and attempt to buy it and rezone it for higher density with no consideration for the impact it will have on the neighbors," he said. "With rural preservation neighborhoods, they will have to" take notice of established residents' concerns.

Ross, who like Tarkanian declined to be interviewed for this story, said in a statement released through a city spokesperson that rural protection is a key issue that defined his campaign for office.

"My whole platform in running for this position was protecting rural areas from growth, and that is not going to change," Ross said in his statement.

"At the same time there are some great projects out there, so it goes both ways. But protecting these rural areas and ranches is a challenge that I've accepted."