Enterprise advisory board denies 83‑unit Pebble‑Giles townhome project after resident pushback

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board voted March 12 to recommend denial of a package of land‑use applications that would have allowed construction of 83 townhomes on a roughly 6.3‑acre site north of Pebble Road and east of Giles Street in Enterprise.

The board’s motions denied a plan‑amendment, a zone change, easement vacations, a planned unit development, a set of waivers and a tentative map tied to the project; each motion passed after the board asked questions and heard more than a dozen neighborhood speakers, and the board chair called the votes in the affirmative. The items will next be considered by the Clark County Planning Commission.

The applicant, represented by Mark Mulhall, told the board the site’s current land‑use designation is neighborhood commercial and that the project would reclassify it to compact neighborhood and rezone to RM‑18 to allow 83 townhome units for sale. Mulhall said the development would cover about 6.32 acres, yield a density of about 13.13 dwelling units per acre, provide two‑car garages for each unit, and supply roughly 71,000 square feet of open space and on‑site amenities including a playground, dog park and covered picnic area.

Neighbors strongly opposed the project at the town‑board hearing. “These are glorified apartments,” said Casey, a nearby resident, arguing the townhomes would depress property values and increase traffic on streets used by horse riders and pedestrians. Melinda Stender, who lives on Haven Street directly behind the site, told the board the project would block her view and could change the character of the rural‑feeling neighborhood. “I specifically bought my property three years ago so that I could be in a more rural area in Las Vegas,” she said.

Others told the board the proposed lot sizes and building heights do not respect the adjacent Ranch Estate neighborhoods, and several speakers pressed staff and the applicant for technical details: bedroom sizes (the applicant said primary bedrooms are about 160 square feet and secondary bedrooms roughly 110 square feet), distances from the eastern property line (the applicant and staff said the building face would be about 24 feet from the east property line after a patent easement vacation), and whether a traffic study had been completed (the applicant said a traffic study would be submitted later).

Board members questioned the project’s compatibility with surrounding low‑density homes, fire access on private stub streets and whether the planned unit development mechanism was being used to circumvent residential adjacency standards in Title 30. One board member summarized the concern: the proposal, while less intense than a previously approved commercial‑resort plan, still “puts five‑hundred‑plus feet of 35‑foot building with no relief” adjacent to very low‑density lots.

Mulhall and staff noted the site had a prior 2006 approval for a 164‑unit resort condominium that subsequently expired, and he used that history to show the RM‑18 proposal is less intense than some earlier approvals for the parcel. Staff recommended approval of many project components in their report, and the applicant emphasized the project would provide housing choice with more on‑site parking than code requires.

After public comment and staff responses, the board made the following recommendations: deny the plan amendment (PA25700010), deny the zone change (ZC250141), deny the vacation of easements (VS250140), deny the planned unit development (PUD250143), deny the waivers of development standards (WS250142), and deny the tentative map (TM25500032). The board recorded the motions as carried by the members present. A boardmember noted the package will next be heard by the Planning Commission on April 1, 2025.

The record of the public hearing shows the main points of neighborhood concern were density, parking spillover onto adjacent streets, loss of views and the adequacy of emergency vehicle access; the applicant and staff offered technical clarifications but did not withdraw the proposal. The Planning Commission and, if needed, the Board of County Commissioners are the next decision points for the applications.