May 9, 2012


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


Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

Board of County Commissioners 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, June 6, 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 April 25, 2012.  APPROVED

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






Presentation and discussion regarding Cooperative Management Area (CMA) termination by Jeff Jacquart. 


This presentation covered the changes to the CMA and the airport’s plans for the deed restrictions within the CMA.  The airport’s position is no changes to the current residential construction restrictions.  However, commercial uses have been expanded.  A detailed analysis of the airport’s position will be forwarded as a separate e-mail.


Note: Answers to several bond questions from the last TAB meeting are attached.




NZC-0004-12:  Discuss the non-conforming zone change to build single family homes at the southeast corner of Pebble and Durango (APN: 176-21-101-001, 005 thru 007 and 022).  Proposed zoning is R-2.


May 15, 2012, 5:30 pm

Windmill Library

7060 W. Windmill Lane, Las Vegas, NV   89113










NEXT MEETING DATE:  May 30, 2012





05/15/12 PC


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

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions


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)


H-2.  WS-0155-12 – LB STRONG, LLC:

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions


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)


The TAB’s only question was to the staff.  Why do we have a fixed roof pitch in the code?  A range of acceptable roof pitches would allow an applicant to proceed without a Waiver of Development Standards.

The applicant needed less roof pitch to position solar panels for the house.




06/06/12 BCC


1.            VS-0183-12 – ROCKY-G. LIVING TRUST, ET AL:



VACATE AND ABANDON a portion of right-of-way being Agate Avenue located between Dean Martin Drive and Interstate 15 in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District within Enterprise (description on file).  SB/bk/xx  (For possible action)


The TAB considered this item and WS-0181-12 together.  The TAB recommendations on both applications are coordinated to provide a single solution.


The TAB considered the following:

·   Proposed flood control project along Agate linking to current flood control east of I-15

o        County may need to repurchase land to complete drainage project if the vacation is approved.

o        Commission has been reluctant to release public right-of-way when the County has a planned public improvement project in that right-of-way.

o        Too early to release public right-of-way, build-out of the area has not been determined.

o        Flood plain across this area may require a different approach to development.

·   The land use in this area will continue to evolve

o        In the last three years, the land use has gone from Commercial Tourist to Business Design Research Park and Office Professional

·   No Design Review on file

o        TAB has constantly recommended denial for right-of-way vacations without plans

·   Applicant does not own all the property along Agate.

·   The applicant does not own all the property required to complete the project as originally proposed.

·   The market has not determined how this property will be used

·   Property to the south may need additional access along Agate to be successfully developed.

·   If Assemblies of God, 3085 Raven, does not sell the property, additional access on Agate may be needed.


The TAB determined is too early to vacate the Agate right-of-way for the following:

·   The County may need public right-of-way for flood control.

·   The applicant does not have a project plan

·   The eventual use of the applicant’s and surrounding property has not been determined.


2.            WS-0181-12 – ROCKY-G. LIVING TRUST, ET AL:

APPROVED the bond extension subject to a review on June 17, 2014


WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to appeal the administrative denial of an off-site improvement bond extension of time in conjunction with an approved hotel and retail center on 4.6 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District.  Generally located on the north and south sides of Agate Avenue, east of Dean Martin Drive within Enterprise.  SB/bk/xx  (For possible action)


The TAB considered this item and VS-0183-12 together.  The TAB recommendations on both applications are coordinated to provide a single solution.


The TAB recommended the bond be extended until June 17, 2014.  This will coordinate the bond with the Resolution of Intent (ROI) expiration date. At that point, the applicant will have to make some decisions concerning the property.  The TAB determined the offsites are not required at this time and may not be required for several years. Until there is a project plan and the flood control project on Agate is completed, the bond should be maintained to protect the County.


Answers to several questions were provided to the TAB.


- What exactly was bonded? 

The offsites were only designed and required on APN 177-20-104-015 and this parcel only has frontage on Agate.  The offsite plans (O/S 04-49061) are only for this parcel and include curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, paving and a drainage facility.


- Were the offsite improvements on the project only involving Agate (nothing on Dean Martin)?

Yes, see answer above.


- Would approval of VS-0183-12 make WS-0181-12 obsolete?

Once the vacation is approved by the board, staff will not pursue calling in the bond to allow time to process the vacation.  Therefore, the waiver is no longer necessary.  Once the vacation is recorded, the applicant can request to release the bond.  If the applicant lets the vacation expire, Public Works could call in the bond.


- How many times has the bond been extended?  Is the recommendation for denial solely because of how long it's been extended or are there other extenuating circumstances?

Yes and yes.  This is only the 2nd extension.  However, the 1st extension wasn't granted until 2011.  This applicant did not respond to continued mailings from our department that their bond was expired and finally filed for an extension approximately 5 years later.  The other factor considered is that no physical improvements have been started on the site since 2004.


- What would be the impact of denying both applications?  Would the developer be required to put in offsites right now?

Yes, the offsites would be required now.  Public Works (PW) would look for progress in the offsites being completed.  Once it was determined that no progress was being made, PW could call in the bond.


3.            ZC-0184-12 – LEWIS INVESTMENT CO NV, LLC:

APPROVED Per Staff Conditions

ADDED Current Planning conditions:

·   Design Review as a public hearing for lighting and signage.

·   Provide a pedestrian access to the west end of the communal development.


ZONE CHANGE to reclassify an 18.1 acre portion of a 44.5 acre parcel from C-2 (General Commercial) Zone to R-4 (Multiple Family Residential - High Density) Zone for an apartment complex.


DESIGN REVIEW for an apartment complex.  Generally located on the north side of Silverado Ranch Boulevard, 250 feet west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise (description on file).  SS/al/ml  (For possible action)


This is generally a well-designed project.  The plan depicts 6 different models of apartment buildings that vary in height from 24 feet to 28 feet. The buildings will all have pitched tile roofs and stucco exterior. The buildings will have a variety of pop-outs, window fenestrations, covered entries, and varying roof lines to break up the vertical and horizontal building surfaces.


One TAB concern was the 24 ft. drive isles.  If any parking occurs on drive isles this narrow, it will form a choke point.


The pedestrian circulation can be improved by adding southern access to the planned commercial property.  The TAB added a condition to accomplish this.


Light and signage were not part of the Design Review.  A condition was added to require a public hearing for these items.


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.



1.      Bonds are posted to guarantee off-site improvements infrastructure, not building, landscaping or any other developmental improvements. There are three types of bonds; performance, cash in the treasurer's office and cash-in-lieu in a bank.

2.      Bonds are typically posted by the owner of the project, occasionally contractors have posted the bonds.

3.      If a bond holder goes into bankruptcy, the County files with the courts to protect our interests. That does not relieve the bonding company of their obligations. Some courts have required the bond holder to continue to pay the bond premiums while the properties were in receivership to complete the development.

4.      If the bond holder loses ownership of their property, that does not relieve them of their obligation to build/complete their off-site improvements based upon what they have recorded or built. The County may still call in their bond.

5.      Bonds are based on an estimate of the costs of the off-site improvements. The more of a project that is completed, the better the chances of the County recovering all costs associated with completing the project. County costs to complete are generally more than the developer costs due to our bidding process and prevailing wages.

6.      Any project can be abandoned and their bonds released:

a.      Any commercial project that never built or completed and their building permits have expired.

b.      Any recorded subdivision that is reverted to acreage.

c.      In both cases there can be no safety issues caused by the project.

7.      The county has no way to verify the financial viability of the project or developer.

8.      Bonding is a requirement at the time of map recordation or building permits. The County cannot require the new owner of a subdivision to post a new bond, but we have the ability of holding building permits for the posting of a new bond. That plan does have issues with subdivisions that have been sold to multiple owners as to who is obligated for which portion of the infrastructure improvements.

9.      Funds collected on a default bond can only be spent on that project, any excess funds must be returned to the bonding company/bond holder from which the funds were collected.