April 25, 2012


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


Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

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


The application number UC-0399-08 would be entered as 08-399.  The year is entered first.  Then the item number is entered with no leading zeros.  The type of application is not used.




1.      Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on April 11, 2012.  APPROVED

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







Southwest Ridge Recreation Study

Community Open House

Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012

Time: Drop in anytime between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.

Location:  Robert L. Forbuss Elementary School

Multi-purpose Room

8601 Grand Canyon Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89178


The Southwest Ridge area, located near Summerlin South, Spring Valley and Red Rock, includes three County-owned park properties that total 1,200 acres. The Southwest Ridge provides spectacular and readily accessible views of the Las Vegas Valley at an elevation of approximately 3,400 feet. The site is remarkable and contains an iconic ridgeline, natural washes, and opportunities for trails, recreation and open space protection.


The Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department is completing a study to develop a community vision for Southwest Ridge and conceptual plan that will guide future park development.


Please help us plan the County's newest park by attending the upcoming Community Open House, or completing a short survey where you can share your ideas for Southwest Ridge




1.   Receive a report from the Enterprise Town Advisory Board Committee on RNP Traffic Mitigation (For possible action).


     The committee decided the scope of their discussion as follows:

·   Frame discussion within RNP-1 boundary.

·   Guiding principles:

o        Preserve and maintain identity of RNPs as viable neighborhoods. 

o        RNPs are unique areas requiring protections . 

o        Traffic safety and mitigation

·      Committee recommendations should accommodate circulation patterns for roads, trails and pedestrians.












05/15/12 PC


1.         DR-0475-10 (ET-0044-12) – HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH LV, INC:

NO APPLICANT:  Held to May 9, Enterprise TAB meeting


DESIGN REVIEW FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence the redesign of a place of worship with ancillary uses, buildings, and lighting on 14.3 acres in a P-F (Public Facility) Zone.  Generally located on the north side of Cactus Avenue, 1,300 feet east of Amigo Street within Enterprise.  SS/mc/xx  (For possible action)


2.         WS-0155-12 – LB STRONG, LLC:

NO APPLICANT:  Held to May 9, Enterprise TAB meeting


WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to allow an alternative roof pitch for a proposed single family residence on 0.7 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.  Generally located on the east side of Rancho Destino Road, 140 feet north of Robindale Road within Enterprise.  SS/rk/ml  (For possible action)


05/16/12 BCC


3.         DR-0165-12 – GRIMM NORTON 1, LLC:

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions


DESIGN REVIEW for a multiple family residential development on 20.0 acres in an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone.


WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-0296-11) requiring landscape plan with provided open space per plans on file.  Generally located between Irvin Avenue and Conn Avenue (alignment) and between Dean Martin Drive and Polaris Avenue within Enterprise.  SB/mk/ml  (For possible action)


This is an excellent project.  The project has been redesigned for greater compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood than the July 2011 design presented.  The developer has incorporated resident and TAB comments in their new design.  One of the larger units has been replaced with mansion homes.  Another larger unit has been moved to the interior. The mansion homes have been reoriented to face along the street.  The parking on the west side is no longer adjacent to the street.


The project includes the use of mansion homes.  This is the first time I have seen this of type multi-family housing used in a project. Mansion homes combine several residences within one large structure. The difference between a mansion home and the standard apartment is the mansion home looks like a single large residence.  This is a type of construction favored by Current Planning as an alternative to the standard apartment construction.


4.        VS-0164-12 – GRIMM NORTON 1, LLC:

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions


VACATE AND ABANDON an easement of interest to Clark County located between Irvin Avenue and Conn Avenue (alignment), and between Dean Martin Drive and Polaris Avenue and a portion of right-of-way being Somerset Hills Avenue located between Dean Martin Drive and Polaris Avenue in an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/mk/xx  (For possible action)


5.         WS-0151-12 – MERITAGE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC:

APPROVED Per Staff if approved Conditions


WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to appeal the administrative denial of an off-site improvement bond extension of time in conjunction with a residential condominium development in a C-2 (General Commercial) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community.  Generally located on the east side of Durango Drive and the south side of Blue Diamond Road within Enterprise.  SB/rk/xx  (For possible action)


This application raises two concerns.  First, how viable is this property if the bond is called?  Second, can the County legally collect the bond?  This application is typical of foreclosed or bankrupt projects that were bonded prior to the real estate market decline. 


Situation as presented:

·         County foreclosed on the property for back taxes.

·        A bank paid the property taxes.

·         Bank subsequently foreclosed on the property owner.

·         Control of the property is split between the developer, County and a bank

·         The bond is held by the original developer, not the bank

·         Approximately 60% of the infrastructure is completed


Information not presented to the TAB:


Units Constructed - 56 Total Units in 13 Buildings

·         Homeowners Owns 55 Units

·         Clark County Owns 1 Unit


Units Not Constructed - 136 Total Units in 27 Buildings

·         FNBN - Rescon I, LLC Owns 112 Units in 23 Buildings

·         Meritage Homes Nevada, Inc. Owns 24 Units in 4 Buildings


Note:  The Bond holder, Meritage Homes, currently controls approximately 12% of the property.


            The TAB considered the following:

·         Public Works has stated in public hearings that bankruptcies and foreclosures complicate the calling of improvement bonds.

·         The County may not be able to collect on a bond held by an entity that no longer owns or controls all the common elements and easements.

·         If the bond is called, the county must complete the bonded work.

·         The money available from this bond may not be sufficient to complete the infrastructure.

·         Meritage Homes is bonding infrastructure for property they no longer own.

·         Infrastructure completion would limit a successor developer’s ability to redesign the project to be commercially viable.

·         The project residents would like to have the vacant land built upon.

·         Today’s market is not conducive to completing a condo project.

·         The developer is exploring alternative solutions.


The TAB opinion is the best course of action is to grant the Waiver of Development Standards for a minimum of two years.  The bondholder and the bank should have additional time to work out a solution for this project.  The infrastructure completion at this time would lock the project into the current configuration.  This configuration could result in a very long time to complete build out.  Allowing the bondholder additional time to work out alternative solutions is in the best interest of all parties.


The legal questions are not part of this application, but have a bearing on how the bond call would affect the County.  It appears that some of the posted bonds are inadequate to cover the intended work or may not be enforceable due to foreclosure or bankruptcy. The TAB has asked the staff to provide information on the following questions:


·         Can Clark County legally extend improvement bonds on foreclosed and bankrupt properties?

·         Can Clark County legally call improvement bonds on foreclosed and bankrupt properties?

·         What off-site improvements and improvement bond obligations can Clark County impose on the successor owner/developer?

·         What off-site improvements and improvement bond obligations can Clark County impose on the successor owner/developer who would own part of the property but not the original bond?


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.