Enterprise TAB splits on Lennar neighborhood project: plan amendment denied; zone change and right‑of‑way actions partly approved

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board considered a multi‑file application from Lennar Holmes (PA24700042, ZC240765, BS240766, WS240767, TM24500166) on Jan. 29 and took mixed actions: the board denied the plan amendment for one eastern parcel, approved a partially modified zone change for several parcels, approved vacating some easements but denied the Santoli Avenue vacation, and denied the tentative map and related waiver requests.

Tony Celeste, representing the applicant, described a proposed single‑family detached residential development on roughly 10.16 acres split by Haven Street. The proposal included a master plan amendment to change selected parcels to mid‑neighborhood, a zone change to RS 3.3, waivers of several development standards (including landscaping, wall height and residential adjacency), a vacate/abandonment of county easements including portions of Santoli Avenue, and a 63‑lot tentative map.

Members of the public — including Daniel Stevermer, Alexander Fletcher and Beverly Stevermer — raised concerns about density, traffic, the scale of grading and a new retaining wall near existing properties, and impacts to horse‑zoned parcels and access easements. Fletcher asked whether existing access easements would remain; Celeste responded that a 15‑foot easement providing access to Haven would remain and be paved to 12 feet, so the parcel would not be landlocked. The applicant said retaining walls in one location would be about 10–11 feet tall and that tiering would be used adjacent to some residential lots.

Board discussion focused on the site’s split zoning, grading and fill quantities, the number of requested waivers, and the effect of the proposed change on existing rural residential uses. Several board members said the western parcels — already planned for mid‑neighborhood in places and adjacent to H‑1 zoning to the west — could support denser development, but they opposed changing the eastern parcel that abuts rural/residential uses. One member suggested RS‑10 would be a more appropriate transition than RS 3.3.

The board acted as follows: it denied the plan amendment (PA24700042) for the eastern parcel; it approved parts of the zone change package (ZC240765) converting many parcels to RS‑10 while denying the requested change on two APNs (1770940314 and 17709401017); it approved vacating and abandoning certain easements (BS240766) but denied the Santoli Avenue vacation and denied the Haven Street right‑of‑way vacation per public‑works conditions; it denied the waiver package WS240767; and it denied the tentative map TM24500166 for the proposed 63‑lot subdivision.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the number of waivers requested and remaining grading/fill concerns. One board member said the package contained “too many waivers” and that redesign — including larger lots or different grading — might avoid waivers. The board added a condition to preserve or require certain right‑of‑way dedications and left Santoli Avenue in place so additional connectivity to Las Vegas Boulevard could remain.

Because several approvals were denied and the Santoli vacation was rejected, the applicant’s next steps are to revise the plan and address board and public‑works concerns if the proposal is to be resubmitted.