November 9, 2011


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


Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, November 15, 2011.

Board of County Commissioners 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, November 16, 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.




1.  Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on October 26, 2011.  APPROVED

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















NEXT MEETING DATE:  November 30, 2011




12/06/11 PC



APPROVE per staff conditions

ADDED Current Planning conditions:  The applicant agreed to the conditions below:

·   Design review as a public hearing for significant changes to plans

·   The project is limited to 108 residential units

·   Design review as a public hearing if pad height on 176-08-201-001 is higher than adjacent property pads.

·   Negotiate with the adjacent residents on the placement and type of boundary wall to be constructed.


ZONE CHANGE to reclassify 21.1 acres from R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and C-2 (General Commercial) Zone to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone for a single family residential development.




1) Increased wall height; and

2) Modified off-site improvements. 


Generally located on the southeast corner of Warm Springs Road and Fort Apache Road within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/al/xx  (For possible action)


There is strong neighborhood opposition to this project.  The neighbors had a petition signed by over 160 people.  The neighborhood would prefer this area remain commercial.  Their key points are:


1. 2009 Enterprise Land Use Plan - Planned Land Use is Commercial/General

2. Ingress and egress at Fort Apache Road and the proposed streets within the Lennar community

3. Conflict on the Rhodes Ranch property line wall

4. Grade and water flow issues adjacent to Rhodes Ranch


The expanded version of their key points is attached.


The strongest argument for not granting the non-conforming zone change is the long term best use of the property is commercial.  The following would favor commercial in this location:


·      Intersection of two arterial roads

·      Limited properties available for commercial along Fort Apache

·      Reduce the increase in the long term traffic congestion

·      Reduce travel for residents

·      Reduce future air pollution due to vehicle use


The above items were not seriously discussed by the TAB.


The TAB focused on the following:

·      Previous TAB experience indicates residents usually prefer residential projects over commercial projects adjacent to their property.

·      The need for up front engineering studies to fully evaluate the project

o           The property elevation drops 35 ft. over 1200 ft.

o           The amount of fill required is unknown

·      How to mitigate the project impacts.

·      Explaining the possible commercial that could go into a C-2 zoned district

·      How the boundary wall would be constructed

·      Insure the access to flood control and water pipe easements.


The TAB added four conditions.  The applicant agreed with all conditions.


The applicant volunteered to limit the project to 108 residential units.  The TAB, also, recommended a design review if the plans shown on the tentative map are significantly changed so the residents can voice their opinion.


The TAB opinion is the boundary wall should be connected to the current wall of the adjacent residents.  A second wall to satisfy code would have several negatives including a safety hazard, a good hiding place, and a place for trash to accumulate.  A negotiated solution between the residents and the applicant is the best solution.


Another concern is how the drainage studies and the grading plan will change what was presented to the TAB.  This project is another example of why engineering studies are needed up front.  The property elevation changes over 35 ft. from south to north in 1200 ft.  This is a 2.9% grade.  How will the property be graded and how much fill is needed cannot be shown at this time.  The TAB wants to ensure the fill will not significantly change how this project blends with the neighborhood. The TAB and the applicant discussed when a design review would be required because of the required fill.  The condition on pad height was an agreement reached between the applicant and the TAB.



APPROVED per staff conditions


VACATE AND ABANDON easements of interest to Clark County located between Fort Apache Road and Dapple Gray Road (alignment), and between Warm Springs Road and Hickory Heights Avenue (alignment) in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/al/xx  (For possible action)


3.      VS-0488-11 – HARMONY MOUNTAIN’S EDGE, LLC:

APPROVED per staff conditions

ADDED public works condition:

Update plans for drainage improvements to show a fifteen foot (15') wide area to accommodate the horse trail alignment on the north side of Le Baron


VACATE AND ABANDON a portion of right-of-way being Le Baron Avenue located between Buffalo Drive and Jerlyn Street (alignment) in an R-D (Suburban Estates Residential) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/rk/xx  (For possible action)


The RNP residents and Mountain Edge’s developer negotiated an agreement when the RNP was included in the Mountain Edge Master Plan.  This agreement was part of the original Master Plan approved by the BCC.  Part of that agreement was to limit the cut through traffic in the RNP.  This vacation fulfills the agreement.


The TAB recommendation is the original agreement must be upheld contrary to the Public Works opinion.


Other factors reviewed by the TAB were:

·        The alignment of Canyon Estates Ave and Le Baron is offset.  This would create a traffic hazard.

·        All the property in the RNP can be accessed from the east.

·        A cul-de-sac can be constructed along Le Baron alignment for emergency equipment.  This may require a waiver when the area is developed.  These waivers have been granted on a routine basis.


The applicant requested the TAB add the following condition to the Public Works conditions.


Update plans for drainage improvements to show a fifteen foot (15') wide area to accommodate the horse trail alignment on the north side of Le Baron


This condition satisfies the trail requirement shown on the County Trails map for the Southwest.


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.


Attachment 1 Resident Concerns


November 9th, 2011

Enterprise Town Advisory Board Meeting


Rhodes Ranch Residents) Concerns


1.              2009 Enterprise Land Use Plan - Planned Land Use is Commercial/General


1.1.     Residential zoning is not better than commercial zoning in this economic climate. In an I.5-mile radius 38% of the homes are unoccupied. The report and corresponding map are in your packets I provided.

1.2.     There have been no significant changes in this area that would justify the non-conforming zone change from the 2009 Enterprise Land Use Plan.

1.3.     The corner of Fort Apache and Warm Springs would be better suited for commercial use. The area needs room for commercial development especially with a regional water park under construction on the west side of Fort Apache.

1.4.     On Fort Apache from Sunset to Blue Diamond there is limited land that can be utilized for commercial development. There are only three 10-acre or larger parcels for commercial development.


2.              Ingress and egress at Fort Apache Road and the proposed streets within the Lennar community


2.1.     Fort Apache cannot safely handle the increased traffic from the proposed entrance until it is fully improved. Even if Fort Apache is widened one lane on the section of land owned by the developers, the other side of the street would only be one lane. An entrance and exit here will negatively impact' the safety on Fort Apache.

2.2.     It is not safe to have the proposed Cedar Springs Road running so close to the Rhodes Ranch community, especially considering the sharp curve near the end of the street.

2.3.     The financial responsibility for any repairs to the property needs to be established in case of foreclosure or bankruptcy (i.e. if the proposed road, Springwood Cove Avenue or Cedar Springs Road, needs to be tom out so the county can access the drain channel).

2.4.     A traffic study is presented at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting?


3.              Conflict on the Rhodes Ranch property line wall


3.1.     The homes in Rhodes Ranch that border the proposed development have wrought iron open fences, as seen in the photographs in your packets, and Lennar is proposing to put in a solid block wall.

3.2.     Redundant walls pose a safety concern.


4.              Grade and water flow issues adjacent to Rhodes Ranch


4.1.     Water pools behind our homes along the fence-line of Rhodes Ranch during a heavy rain.  Where will this water go? Will water become trapped between the redundant walls and flow over into the Rhodes Ranch homes? A drainage study should be presented at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting.

4.2.     What is the proposed grade?

4.3.     Which way will the water flow?

4.4.     How much fill will be used?

4.5.     According to Erik Denman (Deputy County Surveyor) and Layne Weber (Principal Engineer) at Pubic at Public Works any landscaping over the drain channel poses a safety concern because irrigation and the roots system can erode the drain channel.