Neighbors against apartments have to hold fire

By Mike Trask (contact)

Friday, Feb. 22, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Ken Klosterman and his neighbors stuffed the North Las Vegas City Council meeting Wednesday night, ready to speak out against a zoning change for a tract of land near their homes.

But they are going to have to wait another month for somebody to listen.

The council voted to delay until April 2 action on an ordinance that would allow up to 600 apartments on nearly 25 acres at Centennial Parkway and Valley Drive.

The date was changed to allow developers to hold a neighborhood meeting, which so far hasn’t been scheduled.

The property already has been rezoned to allow 432 condominium units. Previously, it was zoned for commercial use.

Neighbors claim high-density housing in the area just south of the Las Vegas Beltway will lead to increased traffic and overcrowded schools. Councilwoman Stephanie Smith, who lives in the area, has said she will vote against the project.

She said Wednesday that she was disappointed a meeting between the developers and neighborhood residents had not already been held.

Her neighbors agreed, as many had changed travel plans and left work early to attend the 6 p.m. council meeting.

At a previous meeting Mayor Mike Montandon had promised to delay the decision until after developers met with the residents.

“We know that while we are here every two weeks, that’s not part of your schedule,” he said, trying to calm the residents.

•••

Setting the agenda in North Las Vegas on Wednesday turned into a 45-minute ordeal.

In addition to those interested in the proposed project at Centennial and Valley, another crowd attended for a scheduled public hearing on a 344-unit multifamily development three miles east, at Centennial and Revere Street.

That hearing also was delayed until April 2 to allow time for meetings between the neighbors and developers.

There are similar quality-of-life concerns. And neighbors were similarly miffed at the delay.

“If it’s any consolation to you, I’m against it anyway,” Councilman William Robinson said.

•••

Six months ago the talk of the town in Boulder City was whether 71-year-old Ken Harper and his neighbors would be allowed to stay in their recreational vehicles, parked permanently in a trailer park.

He has been there for a decade, voting in local elections and paying his taxes.

City code states that RV park residents are limited to 180 days of continuous occupancy, which RV dwellers took to mean that if they simply left for a day, they could return and start a new 180-day cycle. A former city attorney agreed with that logic.

Then complaints started, many from Ben Andrews, who purchased the Boulder Oaks RV Park in 2002. The 276 lots are individually owned, but to rent them out at a set price of $637 per month owners must go through Andrews, who gets a 40 percent cut.

Owners living on the lots equal less money in rental fees.

In July city officials said they were considering rewriting the ordinance to crack down on the full-time RV residents, partly out of fear that Andrews would sue for loss of business.

It hasn’t happened yet, and the status quo remains at the trailer park, a nice one with amenities such as a pool and a game room.

Harper’s still waiting to see what happens, still sleeping in his 40-foot vehicle.

“I just want it settled so I can get on with my life,” he said.