September 28, 2011


The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the following dates:


Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, October 18, 2011.

Board of County Commissioners 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, October 19, 2011.


HOLDOVER/RETURNED APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.


The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed to the BCC within five business days of the date of the PC hearing.  Appeal form is found at:


 Clark County Appeal Form


An appeal may be made in person at the Current Planning desk or by fax (702-455-3271).  Call Current Planning (455-4314) to find out how to file an appeal.  Help in filling an appeal may be obtained from the Southwest Action Network (SWAN).  You can contact SWAN at:


702-837-0244 · 702-837-0255 (fax)
email:   swan@lvswan.org


Note: If you ctrl+click on the blue underlined text it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.



Pledge of Allegiance:

Introduction of County Staff




1.           Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on September 14, 2100.  APPROVED 

2.           Approve the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes       APPROVED






Enterprise TAB will collect and make recommendations for the Clark County 2012 capital budget.

Items previously submitted by the TAB.


1. A four-way stop, or other traffic calming device, installed at Warm Springs and Lindell

2. Red Flasher added to stop signs at Shelbourne and Placid

3. Construct a walkway along Robindale from Sierra Vista High School to Nevada Trails.

4. Build out Cactus from Las Vegas Blvd to Fort Apache.

5. Enterprise Community Center

6. A four-way stop, or other traffic calming device, installed at Robindale and Gilespie.

7. Extend the divider on Silverado Ranch east of Las Vegas Blvd.

8. Four-way stop at Robindale and Haven.

9. Complete the intersection at Jones and Blue Diamond

10. Upgrade traffic control device at Robindale and Placid

11. Traffic signal at Warm Springs and Buffalo

12. Traffic signal at Warm Springs and Valley View

New items

13. Align traffic lanes at Cactus and Bermuda









NEXT MEETING DATE:  October 12, 2011




PC    October 4, 2001


H1.   UC-0307-10 (ET-0083-11) – EMPRESS GROUP, LLC:


CHANGE Current planning bullet #1 to read:

Until April 4, 2014 to review as a public hearing;


USE PERMIT FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to review a dog kennel in conjunction with an existing shopping center.


DESIGN REVIEW for an outside dog run/play yard in conjunction with a kennel on a portion of 5.8 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone.  Generally located on the east side of Bermuda Road, 370 feet south of Silverado Ranch Boulevard within Enterprise.  SS/co/ml  (For possible action)


This application was originally held to seek input from Animal Control.  The revised staff agenda sheet provided the TAB with significant additional information.  There were two complaints about barking dogs a month after the facility opened.  This was caused by taking new clients to the dog run and the dogs reacting to unknown individuals.  This practice is no longer in effect.  One complaint has been settled.  The other is still open. However, there has been no action on the complaint since March 2011.


The TAB discussion centered on the dog run and if there should be a review period.  Some TAB members felt the lack of action on the complaint warranted the review period being dropped.  Another opinion was the review period should be retained because of the complaints and questions about the appropriateness of the dog run location.  The applicant stated the review period was a threat to his business.  Without the dog run, the business would close.  The staff position is the dog run is not appropriate in this location.


The first motion made was to approve the application without a review period.  The vote was a 2 to 2, resulting in no recommendation.  After further discussion, a second motion was made and approved 4 to 0.  This motion extended the review period to 2 ½ years.  If the applicant can effectively control the barking, the review is not a problem.  If there is a problem with the dog run location, the review will allow the County to correct the problem.


One potential problem is the 18 inches between the block wall and chain-link fence for the dog run.  The current County standards for spacing between redundant walls only apply to solid block walls.  It does not include a chain-link fence next to a block wall. Does the placement of a chain-link fence 30 inches or closer to a block wall pose the same safety hazards?



         HELD to October 26, 2011 TAB by the applicant


USE PERMIT for an on-premise consumption of alcohol (tavern) establishment within a commercial development on a portion of 2.7 acres in an H-2 (General Highway Frontage) Zone in the MUD-4 Overlay District.  Generally located on the west side of Cimarron Road, 550 feet south of Blue Diamond Road, and the north side of Montecito Ridge Road within Enterprise.  SB/dg/ml  (For possible action)




10/18/11 PC




ADD Current planning condition

·   Generator testing to be conducted during daylight hours only.

SUGGEST the site be moved to northwest corner of the property.


USE PERMIT for a communication tower.


DESIGN REVIEW for a communication tower and associated equipment in conjunction with an existing motel on 1.2 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District.  Generally located on the west side of Giles Avenue, 445 feet south of Shelbourne Avenue within Enterprise.  SS/mk/ml (For possible action)


Currently, the antenna site is located adjacent to Giles.  The applicant stated the property owner wanted the site located on the back of his property as the reason for this location.  Examining the current and potential development around the proposed antenna site, the TAB concluded a better placement would be the northwest corner of the property.  The TAB prefers sites that provide some setback from a right-of-way.  The antenna located in the northwest corner is a more appropriate location.  The current location is not ideal for the property owners on the east side of Giles.


2.      UC-0411-11 – MAURI, CHRISTOPHER D. & NICOLE L.:


Use Permits 1, 2, & 4


Use Permit 3

ADDED current planning condition:

·Office hours limited to:

      Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

      Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.


USE PERMITS for the following:


1) Allow a home occupation to be conducted within an accessory structure (existing guest house);

2) Increase the floor space of a home occupation;

3) Allow customers to come to the residence; and

4) Allow employees other than family members to work at the site


in conjunction with an existing residence on 1.2 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-1) Zone.  Generally located on the west side of Rancho Destino Road, 300 feet south of Shelbourne Avenue within Enterprise.  ss/pb/ml  (For possible action)


The request for the home based business is reasonable.  The plans show the guest house being converted into an office use with a reception and meeting area, office, file rooms, and other accessory uses. There will be no changes to the exterior of the buildings that will negatively impact the neighbors.  The TAB agreed with the staff that the requested increase in area of the office space allowed for a home occupation.


The primary questions the TAB had were allowing additional employees and customers to come to the  property.  The following were considered:


·Customers and employees creating addition traffic

·The rural character of the neighborhood

·Precedent in granting use permits 3 and 4

·Difficulty in enforcing use permits 3 and 4


The staff recommended use permits 3 and 4 be denied.


The applicant stated that he, his spouse, and office manager will be at the office full time while 4 other employees would work at locations where the projects are located. Those 4 employees may come to the office for brief periods to pick up and deliver paperwork and answer phone calls.


The TAB opinion was use permit 4 was required for the business to function.  The number of employees should be limited to those stated in the application.


TAB recommended the denial of use permit 3.  There are a number of ways a client can be met off the site. Clients can be shown completed projects and plans, for instance, over coffee at a local restaurant.  If Use Permit 3 was granted, it would be impossible to control the number of customers coming to the property.


The TAB expects to see an increase in home based business and does not want to see a precedent set that would change the residential character of a neighborhood.


The TAB also recommended the office hours given by the applicant become a condition due to employees coming to the property.


The statements, opinions and observations expressed in this document are solely those of the author.  The opinions stated in this document are not the official position of any government board, organization or group.  The project descriptions, ordinances board/commission results are reproduced from publicly available Clark County Records. This document may be freely distributed and reproduced as long as the author’s content is not altered.  Additional comments maybe added.  Additional comments must be clearly attributed to the author of those comments and published or reproduced with the document.  The additional comments author’s affiliation with any government board, organization or group must be clearly identified.  This attribution statement must accompany any distribution of this document.

David D. Chestnut, Sr.