County backs off limits on big boxes

Clark County staff members unveiled a substantially watered-down version of a proposal to restrict "big box" stores during their zoning meeting Wednesday, but held off taking any action on the ordinance until a June 7 meeting.

The proposal, dubbed the "Residential Neighborhood Protection Ordinance," originally would have required single-operator commercial operations over 115,000 square feet to be at least 500 feet from homes. The amended version said stores could abide by that provision or simply be 100 feet from the property line from homes.

Under the proposal, the setback could be reduced to 75 feet with the use of intensive landscaping on the property border.

The 100-foot setback is 40 feet more than the 60 feet now required by county building codes for such stores.

Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny, who proposed the ordinance, said she was forced to concede to the amendments as a practical necessity in getting it passed.

"This is a much more lenient ordinance. There's no two ways about it," Kenny said. "I would prefer more protection" for residential areas, but added that the earlier version was "not a practical option."

Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson-Gates said the amended ordinance doesn't go far enough to protecting homeowners from big-box stores.

"I'm not sure it protects neighborhoods," she said.

The 7-0 vote to hold the issue until June 7 came moments after the county Planning Department presented a video illustrating the problem of residential areas next door to big-box stores. The video showed six stores -- a Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, K-Mart, Costco, Target and two Home Depots -- with homes and apartments nearby, sometimes with windows peaking over barrier walls.

Ironically, most of the stores illustrated in the video apparently would conform to the rewritten ordinance.

The ordinance is designed to replace a law passed in October that sought to keep two large Wal-Mart stores from construction in the unincorporated county. Although a state judge later threw out the restriction on the two stores, the company backed a successful petition drive that will force the county commission to either throw out the old restriction or put it up for a vote in the November general election.

Union members had targeted Wal-Mart because of the company's history of keeping unions out of its stores.

Kenny, however, said she put the October ordinance forward to protect residential areas from big-box stores.

Kenny and other commissioners said they are ready to throw out the anti-Wal-Mart law, but also held that vote until June 7 so they can repeal the old vote and put in the new one at the same time.

Although Wal-Mart is clearly in a better position now than in October, company representative Amy Hill said the new, amended ordinance still is far from perfect.

Her concern is that the proposed ordinance treats big-box stores differently than shopping centers or strip malls, which can take up more space, draw more traffic and need more truck deliveries.

Hill argued that the commissioners can now treat each proposed store individually, requiring setbacks or amenities such as landscaping as the situation warrants. A cookie-cutter approach to such stores isn't practical, she said.

The proposed ordinance was scheduled for discussion and a vote during the morning portion of the meeting, but commissioners voted to hold it until the end of the day.

Throughout the day, Kenny, other commissioners and Planning Department staff huddled with stakeholders in the issue, notably land-use attorneys who represent commercial developers and Wal-Mart.

Launce Rake

covers growth issues for the Sun. He can be reached at (702) 259-4127 or by e-mail at [email protected]

archive