Trying to move mountains

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."

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.