March 28, 2012


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


Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, April17, 2012.

Board of County Commissioners 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, April 18, 2012.


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 March 14, 2012.  APPROVED


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


NOTE:  There is no item #4 on the agenda




ANNOUNCEMENTS:                        NONE









Several residents commented on the establishment of an assisted living facility in their cul-de-sac at 8020 Fairfield.  The residents were not informed of the conversion of a single family residence to the assisted living facility.  The conversion was done on a Current Planning administrative approval.


NEXT MEETING DATE:  April 11, 2012





H-1   WS-0070-12 – LENNAR COMMUNITIES NEVADA, LLC:    04/03/12 PC

         APPROVED per the landscaping plans submitted to the TAB


WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARD to reduce the corner side setback.


DESIGN REVIEW on common lot elements (pool/cabana and other associated amenities) in conjunction with an approved compact lot single family development on 20.0 acres in an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community.  Generally located on the east side of Buffalo Drive, 660 feet south of Cactus Avenue within Enterprise.  SB/rk/ml  (For possible action)


Only part of this development has been mapped.  The landscaping plans submitted included the entire project including the unmapped portion.  The TAB specified the approval is based upon the landscaping plan presented.


H-2   NZC-0982-04 (WC-0020-12) – HURLEY, STEVE & DONNA:   04/04/12 BCC

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions

ADD Public Works condition:

·               Waiver of full offsite until October 6, 1213

WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a non-conforming zone change requiring full off-sites to include paved legal access on 2.0 acres in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone.  Generally located on the north side of Gomer Road, 285 feet east of Fort Apache Road within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/co/xx  (For possible action)


The TAB considered the following: 

·               The property owner should not be relieved of the responsibility to construct the off sites.

·               The off-sites are not required at this time.

·               The off-site expense could negatively effect the business. 

·               The second extension of time is up on October 6, 2013. 

·               Fort Apache is not paved to Blue Diamond and may not be for the foreseeable future.


The requirement for off-sites should be coordinated with the end date for the second extension of time.  The applicant will need to assess the business at this location when the extension ends.




04/03/12 PC




WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce side setbacks on a 0.5 acre portion of a developed 5.0 acre single family subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone.  Generally located on the south side of Red Kansas Court, 120 feet east of El Capitan Way within Enterprise.  SB/jt/ml  (For possible action)


04/17/12 PC




DESIGN REVIEW for a foothill transitional area on 21.1 acres in R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone in conjunction with an approved single family residential development.  Generally located on the southeast corner of Warm Springs Road and Fort Apache Road within Enterprise.  SB/mk/ml (For possible action)


3.      UC-0096-12 – EMERY FAMILY LIVING TRUST 1980:


USE PERMIT to allow an accessory commercial building not compatible with existing buildings on-site.


DESIGN REVIEW for an accessory commercial building in conjunction with a convenience store on 1.5 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone.  Generally located on the northeast corner of Cactus Avenue and Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise.  SB/mk/ml (For possible action)


The TAB considered the following:

·               Placement of the building on the site.

·               Number of expected patrons - up to 20 mingling around the site amongst traffic. 

·               Conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic

·               Number of parking locations around the building

·               Staff analysis and recommendation

·               The ramifications of a  precedent.

·               Kiosks could proliferate.  How many should be allowed?

·               At what point are the design standards for a particular site no longer valid.


Pedestrian safety is a major concern with these kiosks with how they are placed in parking lots of these busy commercial sites.  The design of these kiosks does not blend into the surrounding area commercial buildings.  Southern Highlands has stringently enforced its architectural standards in and around their development.  This kiosk clashes with those standards. 


The site currently has a water windmill kiosk that was approved administratively in August 2009.  It appears that all kiosks are not treated equally in the development code.  The TAB questioned why one is approved administratively and the other requires use permit and design review. 


04/18/12 BCC


5.      UC-0104-12 – MP BARROW, LLC, ET AL:



USE PERMIT for a recreational facility (indoor mountain biking facility).


WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for parking lot landscaping.


DESIGN REVIEW for a recreation facility in conjunction with an existing office/warehouse and distribution center on a portion of 25.5 acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) (AE-60 & AE-65) Zone.  Generally located on the west side of Dean Martin Drive and the south side of Sunset Road within Enterprise.  ss/pb/xx  (For possible action)


6.      VS-0105-12 – PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC, ET AL:



VACATE AND ABANDON easements of interest to Clark County located between Pebble Road and Raven Avenue and between Tomsik Street and Gagnier Boulevard in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/mk/ed (For possible action)


7.      WS-0106-12 – IOTA CINNAMON, LLC:

APPROVED (3 – 1) per staff condition

ADDED conditions by the applicant

·A minimum of 17,200 square foot lots approved only on Lots 5 — 10; All other lots must be a minimum of 18,000 square feet.

·Lots 1 & 10 shall front Tomsik Street.

·Front setback to Lots 1 & 10 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.

·Paving on Tomsik Street, Raven Avenue, Gagnier Boulevard and Pebble Road to be reduced to 32 feet using standard drawing 209

·Modified 30 inch roll curb is permitted if allowed by Drainage study

·No streetlights, curb, gutter or sidewalk along Pebble, Gagnier Boulevard, Raven Avenue & Tomsik Street

CHANGE Public Works condition #3 to read:

·Execute a Restrictive Covenant Agreement (deed restrictions) along Pebble Road only.




1) Reduced lot area;

2) Increased length of a dead end street;

3) Full off-site improvements; and

4) Modified street improvement standards


in conjunction with a proposed single family residential development on 7.3 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.  Generally located on the southwest corner of Pebble Road and Tomsik Street within Enterprise.  SB/rk/xx  (For possible action)


The applicant has added 5 acres to their original project.  The design standards from the original application are carried through this application to produce a consistent neighborhood.  The added conditions are similar to those previously approved for the project. 


The TAB did not see the necessity for the restrictive covenant when the local public roads are being developed to current county standards.


One TAB member objected to the lots less than 18,000 sq. ft.


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.