Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enterprise TAB approves Horton Pebble subdivision entitlements despite hillside concerns
Summary
The board approved vacation, waiver and tentative map applications for a proposed 122‑lot Dr. Horton subdivision on about 23.1 acres near Pebble Road, approving waivers for retaining‑wall height and other development standards amid significant discussion about hillside rules and public‑works safety.
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on March 26 approved three related applications from the applicant associated with a proposed 122‑lot subdivision by D.R. Horton on approximately 23.1 acres along Pebble Road. The approvals covered vacation/abandonment of easements (VS250176), waivers to development standards including increased retaining‑wall and fill heights and alternative driveway geometry (WS250175), and the tentative map for 122 lots (TM25500040).
Applicant representatives described the site as sloping roughly 40 feet from south to north, with natural drainage channels that constrain developable area. To accommodate the topography they requested waivers for retaining‑wall height (up to 6 feet where 3 feet is permitted in places), reductions to internal driveway curves and elimination of a second landscaping row along Pebble. The applicant also proposed buffer lots along the western edge, including lots exceeding 10,000 square feet adjacent to existing homes.
Some residents and board members raised objections on hillside‑control grounds and expressed concern about the scale of fill, potential slope stability and adherence to Title 30 hillside development standards. “Hillside talks about maximum of 2 units per acre for development… I don't think this is a time to make an exception to the hillside ordinance,” a board member said while reviewing Title 30 guidelines. Residents asked whether large fill areas could be stabilized against earthquake‑related liquefaction; applicants said standard geotechnical measures would be used but final engineering details were not part of the hearing record.
Board discussion noted public‑works input on internal driveway geometry and that the waivers are mainly for internal site design, not public‑right‑of‑way approaches. After debate the board moved and carried motions approving the easement vacation, waivers and tentative map. The motions were recorded as carried with board members responding “Aye.”
The approvals include conditions the applicant must meet in engineering, grading and final improvement plans under Clark County review. The transcript records substantial concern among board members and residents about the hillside waivers and the precedent of allowing larger fills within sensitive slopes.
