Groups tangle over Strip high-rise project

Thursday, Feb. 17, 2005 | 10:50 a.m.

A legal opinion by the county's attorney sent a high-rise developer back to square one and sent sparks flying in the Clark County Commission chambers Wednesday.

Relying on the legal opinion, the commission approved only one of two planned 522-foot towers at Convention Center Drive and Las Vegas Boulevard South, a setback for the Related Cos., a company that has in recent years led some of Las Vegas' more high-profile development efforts.

Related Cos.' representatives suggested that they might take at least some of their business out of Las Vegas.

"If we wanted to drive them away, we would be hard pressed to do better than what we have done," Chris Kaempfer, an attorney representing the company, told the commission Wednesday.

County counsel Rob Warhola's opinion, mirroring arguments from a high-rise developer of a neighboring property, essentially said because Related Cos.' second tower was a significant re-drawing of previously approved land-use plans the company will have to go through the potentially lengthy county approval process. That process doesn't guarantee approval of the plans for the second, 48-story tower.

Neighbors to the proposed towers include the developer Lorenzo Doumani, chief executive of Majestic Resorts, which is building its own high-rise next door on the site of the old La Concha hotel site. He has argued that the Related Cos.' project would literally cast a shadow over the entertainment center of his project, which would include the ground-level pool.

Attorneys for Majestic went to Commissioner Myrna Williams, who asked for a legal opinion on whether last year's commission approval of the plans for two towers on the Related Cos.' property were still good.

Warhola, in a three-page memo dated Feb. 15, said they were not. He referred to representations by Kaempfer and others at a contentious meeting before the commission last month in which the re-design of the second tower constituted "some minor changes ... to the overall layout."

"Contrary to the representations made at the original hearing, the design review application presently pending before the Board of County Commissioners proposes major changes to the overall layout of the project," Warhola said.

Such a significant redesign means that the project needs to go through the entire application process and face public hearings before the Winchester Town Advisory Board, the advisory Clark County Planning Commission and finally, again, the county commission, he said.

According to company representatives, Marty Burger, Related Cos. executive vice president, was not happy with Warhola's opinion, or with learning of the opinion from the Doumani team at what would have been a discussion to work out a compromise.

"We've never experienced anything like this," Burger told the commission. "We have over $20 million invested in this site ... We've played by the book and we continue to get delayed.

"Now they (the Majestic Resorts representatives) have won because the county commission cannot vote."

The commissioners found their hands tied because of the legal opinion.

Burger told the commission that the Related Cos. principals in New York, where the company built the Time-Warner Center, and Miami were also unhappy with the decision. He said the company would continue its plans to develop a large furniture market in downtown Las Vegas, but said the company would "try not" to pull out of plans to develop the city-controlled 61 acres downtown.

Majestic Resorts said the threat to its property was at least for now gone.

"I was told this morning that settlement discussions were off, that there was no point in further discussions," attorney Bill Curran, representing Majestic Resorts, told the commission.

Commissioner Chip Maxfield, usually a calming voice in the dais, reacted angrily to the cutoff of discussions between the neighboring developers. He noted that the commission had asked the two developers to work together for a compromise.

"Tell me sir, how is this working together?" Maxfield asked Curran. "Telling them that they're no longer going to talk to them, that's at attempt to work out issues?"

He also questioned the process by which Warhola came to the legal opinion. Majestic Resorts attorney Susan Johnson talked to Commissioner Williams before Williams asked Warhola for the legal opinion, all sides agreed.

Warhola said he routinely drafts legal opinions based on the requests of principals, but said he does so looking at the law, not the arguments of those with an interest before the commission. He noted that he has talked with Kaempfer "thousands of times" in similar situations.

Johnson, directly addressing Maxfield, said "this was a legal issue, commissioner." She explained that the planning staff may have held a different standard for bringing such approvals back through the process.

"You have no idea of what you're doing," Maxfield interrupted. He told the Majestic Resorts representatives that he would "make damn sure" the approvals sought by the company were appropriate.

The exchange has led to at least one change in county policy. Maxfield and Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who is a lawyer, instructed Warhola that from now on, he had to seek input from both sides of an issue before producing a legal opinion.

Warhola said later Wednesday that the instructions could add significantly to his work load.

County counsel and Deputy District Attorney Mary Miller said it is not clear that Warhola's opinion will lead to a significant increase in the number of land-use requests that have to go back through the planning process.

She said Warhola's decision appeared to be soundly based on county code, but should probably not be construed so broadly as to say that minor changes force a project to go through the circuit of the approval process.

"I reviewed it (the Warhola opinion) carefully," Miller said. "I believe it was very well reasoned."

The commission, despite the sharp words from the board members, accepted the compromise of approval for "tower one," which no one appeared to have difficulties with, and denial of the second tower. The vote was 6-0.

Greg Borgel, a land-use consultant on the Related Cos.' team, said the conflict between neighboring high-rise developers is probably indicative of issues that will become more frequent as new skyscrapers crowd the Strip.

He said what is needed is more thought by developers about what potentially their neighbors might build, not county rules that would govern how views or shading should impact other properties.

"There will be issues that need to be resolved as neighboring companies develop towers," he said. "If people are sensitive in doing their own design, 90 percent of these issues will go away ... Do we need to develop 'air' or 'view' rights? I don't think so.

"Unless we only build one high-rise on the Strip, there is going to be some obstructing by other towers."