Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News
Mar. 08, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Trying to move mountains

Mount Charleston residents express objections to plans for condo project

By SCOTT WYLAND
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Mount Charleston residents Joan Vlchek and Richard Long stand Thursday on the site where a 66-foot-tall condo project is planned. They and other residents say the project, approved a decade ago, would obscure the view of the mountains from their homes and the road.
Photo by John Gurzinski.



Residents of these condos at Mount Charleston are concerned that the planned 66-foot-tall condo project will partially block their mountain views.
Photo by John Gurzinski.

Joan Vlchek points to rugged, snow-dappled mountains slung against the sky, a sight that has greeted her for 18 years as she has walked out the front door of her condominium.

She stands on a ridge near the site where a developer has planned for 11 years to build a 66-foot-tall condo complex on five acres between her two-story condo and Kyle Canyon Road. The 60-unit complex would block her view of Mount Charleston and shroud the vistas from travelers driving the scenic byway, she said.

Her boyfriend, Richard Long, 61, climbing atop the ridge, gazes at the mountains and frowns.

"It's too close to the road," Long says. "It's going to be an eyesore for anybody that comes up here."


Most Popular Stories
  • MOUNT CHARLESTON: Four die in plane crash
  • Two couples died in crash
  • NORM: Steve Wynn goes for mega-yacht
  • FAMILY SERVICES: Three visits preceded boy's death
  • NORM: Kirshner works on big Vegas project
  • NORM: Playboy models in state spotlight
  • Body of diver who jumped off 90-foot Lake Mead cliff found
  • NORM: Playboy 'coed': Dad's OK with it
  • NORM: Elvis fan club will have star its way
  • NORM: Curtain falling on Stage Deli



    • The couple's frustration is compounded by a vague four-word clause -- "no resolution of intent" -- that makes the basic site plan unchangeable. No Clark County leader can order revisions to such features as height, number of units and the distance set back from the road, even if the decade-old plans don't conform to current codes.

    The couple and their neighbors are upset that in 1997 the Clark County Commission approved the height at 31 feet above the 35-foot limit, and that commissioners imposed a rule preventing the project from being tweaked as long as developers don't enlarge it.

    Shane Ammerman, assistant planning manager for the county, said it's not uncommon to make a site plan permanent if it complies with all land-use codes.

    However, this one was given a significant variance for height, so these days planners might be less inclined to make the site plan unchangeable, he said.

    Ammerman said he has no idea why the landowners, Stanley and Linda Zurawski, have let the project sit idle for 11 years.

    Although the basic site plan can't be touched, new regulations to curb hillside disturbance called for the county to review the design. That gave the public a forum to speak for or against the project.

    At a hearing Wednesday, some residents complained to county commissioners about the proposed complex.

    "This is absolutely wrong for Mount Charleston," said Stephanie Myers.

    Local fire crews are volunteers who are ill-equipped to tackle a blaze in a 66-foot-tall building, she said, noting that their tallest ladder is 27 feet.

    Jean Perry-Jones, another resident, called the design an 11-year-old "Godzilla dinosaur" that doesn't fit the surroundings.

    "These condos look a little bit like they should be on South Beach" in Miami Beach, she said.

    Aside from diminishing the mountains' beauty, the condos would cast a shadow across the road, causing black ice to form in the shaded spots, Perry-Jones said.

    The plan, she said, was approved in 1997 by a 4-3 vote. Two of the four commissioners who backed it, Erin Kenny and Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, are serving time in federal prison for corruption, she said.

    Several people at the hearing spoke in favor of the project, saying they wanted to buy mountain condos instead of houses with driveways.

    "I don't want to shovel snow," said Cheryl Davis. She said the design looked European, not South Beach-style.

    Scott Martin, a wildlife photographer who said he is diabetic and partially disabled, said he needs a low-maintenance condo near the mountains so that he doesn't have to travel to shoot outdoor photos. He said he thought the complaints about the project's visual impact were overblown.

    "It does have an impact, but a mild impact," Martin said.

    Stanley Parry, an attorney representing the developers, said that none of what supporters and critics were debating was relevant.

    The only thing that commissioners are allowed to consider is whether the site design meets the codes for hillside disturbance, Parry said, arguing that the evidence shows it does.

    Changing anything else would violate the law, he said.

    Commissioners grudgingly agreed.

    "I don't do it happily," Commissioner Chip Maxfield said, adding that he is powerless to fix flaws he sees in the project.

    Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, who owns a house on Mount Charleston, said neighbors have been unjustly accused of trying to stop newcomers from moving in.

    A history of shady land-use politics is the true source of many people's discontent, she said.

    "They get tired of things being done to them," she said, "based on who they (developers) are connected to."

    Developers must begin work on the condos within two years or undergo another hillside-design review. Again, the scope of the review would be limited to the project's impact on slopes.

    Long said he wondered whether the owners could start construction that soon, given the slumping real estate market.

    He said he was baffled by the people who testified that they need the big complex to buy condos. He pointed to a vacant parcel on which a different owner has tried unsuccessfully to sell eight condos.

    Long worries that a large complex could wind up empty, blotching a once beautiful stretch through the canyon.

    "If they can't get enough (buyers) to build eight over here, how are they going to build 60 over there?" he said.

    Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@reviewjournal.com or (702) 455-4519.



    Leave Your Comment 12 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Vegas Vic wrote on March 08, 2008 03:32 PM: I seriously doubt that ANY condos will be built on the property when there are 8 that still haven't been built to be sold at another vacant parcel of land. Construction financing is going to be a real bear to acquire, especially with the financial "troubles" in the housing market today.


    douglas wrote on March 08, 2008 11:39 AM: the issue of that proposed [or current] condo being an attractant for lightning is obviously a red herring. there are far, far more structures, even trees in the area that are way higher in elevation.

    the lightning caused fires in this area are usually along high ridges that are difficult to reach by firefighters. during summer lightning "storms" we often see single, isolated trees burning at higher elevations. those seem to be just watched and not pursued by fire fighters.

    a fire whatever the cause adjacent to the state highway would be easier to deal with. and again, i'd guess that the combined gubmit development will overspend as usual, in adding sufficient infrastructure support adjacent to the present and proposed condos. my money says that the area immediately west of present and proposed condos will be better protected than at present.

    residents farther into the canyon might be adversely affected if the old town sited, nevada division of forestry fire station is relocated easterly to be just across the road from the condos/hotel/golf course development area.

    in years to come, it might well be that all privately held property ringing "the mountain" will have condo type structures. kinda like the red rock casino's site with views to calico basin/red rock. might be a time to speculate on whatever privately held land is available on the other sides of mt charleston, not only kyle/lee/snow/coldcreek/pahrump.


    ET wrote on March 08, 2008 11:08 AM: douglas, lightening and the area is not interested in cell towers,only high rises that block its natural trajectory through space in time.


    Robert wrote on March 08, 2008 10:49 AM: This is perhaps one of the most well thought out and proper condo projects in Clark County. Not a high-rise (66 feet does not qualify), architecturally designed to be appropriate for the area, integrating the public land around the complex and designed to be appropriate for the space. If you have seen the designs which were proposed, there would not be as much hue and cry.

    As for the comments about juice and corruption, this project is not the mastermind of a connected developer. It is owned by a local couple. It is interesting that when they do not rush the Project through before the public can catch wind, they are accused of being corrupt.

    As for the comments that it will be built without reservations, Mr. Long clearly has no idea how financing works for a Project such as this.


    douglas wrote on March 08, 2008 10:36 AM: as to infrastructure, police and fire services, the extra 60 units and occupants likely wouldn't be a blip on the radar relative to the hundreds [thousands ?] of visitors on weekends. the earlier, privately proposed development on the north side of the road was in part defeated because it did not include additional infrastructure proportional to the requested occupancy of the "strip mall"/entertainment complex.

    as to height attracting lightening, guess the cell tower next to the old lodge should then be removed. that site is about a thousand feet higher.

    that immediate condo area, just west of the hotel is scheduled for further development anyway. the former golf course was bought by some amalgamation of federal, state, and county agencies. plans for that improvement i haven't seen. scuttlebutt is that there's to be some added recreation facilities including mebbe some more camping spaces for visitors. that area from the golf course to the hotel might get busy with added visitors. and i heard discussed some shuttle bus stop and larger parking areas. that to reduce personal, individual visitor vehicle traffic further into the canyon/forested area.

    no doubt the gubmit developed complex on the golf course site would include some such added fire and police services. last i heard was that the forestry service fire station in old town might be relocated perhaps to the present metro substation and highway department sites nearer the golf course.


    ET wrote on March 08, 2008 10:15 AM: Fire,is the solution,they what to built condos,in a lighting zone, everybody knows about the lighting in that area and the condos would attract lightening because of the height, and could burn up.The fire dept. is too small, in the area.


    douglas wrote on March 08, 2008 09:16 AM: a couple of years back in a discussion with the clark county assessor's staff, they advised me that "view" was *not* a consideration in the [mountain] home's assessed value.

    thus if the taxing authorities do not consider "view" as a value factor perhaps they have no onus to protect or maintain some view for existing residents. that's why i bought an adjacent lot when building so as to ensure that the "view" would not be obstructed by another permitted structure.

    as to those condos next to the hotel, what's the difference ? as long as they otherwise comply with building codes, let them be. "density" at that mostly out of "the forest" site doesn't adversely affect wildlife further into the forest. condos *in* the forest otoh, would.


    James wrote on March 08, 2008 09:02 AM: The developers are destroying Nevada.


    Time to talk to Erin wrote on March 08, 2008 09:01 AM: Maybe, it is time for the FEDS to have another chat with Erin Kenny. How many underhanded deals went on? If this one stinks it should be investigated. If something is wrong it should be corrected. The current commission should be able to overturn nefarious zoning issues made by corrupt politicians.


    Shane Shelton wrote on March 08, 2008 07:50 AM: In America,Condos belong wherever the owner of the Land wants to put them.


    Read All Comments