Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

TAB approves 31‑lot Mountain’s Edge infill subdivision with added architectural condition

June 25, 2025 | Enterprise, Clark County, Nevada


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

TAB approves 31‑lot Mountain’s Edge infill subdivision with added architectural condition
The Enterprise Town Advisory Board on June 25 approved a 31‑lot single‑family subdivision in Mountain’s Edge at the west side of Rainbow Boulevard north of Cactus Avenue after staff recommended approval with conditions. Applicant representative Joe Thomason said the project is an infill site with lot sizes averaging approximately 3,427 square feet and private streets; Signature Homes is the proposed builder.

Board action and conditions: The TAB approved the zone change to RS‑3.3, the vacate request and the design review and tentative map, and added a comprehensive planning condition requiring two additional architectural features on any elevation that faces a public right‑of‑way. Staff had recommended approval of the design review but flagged a concern about use of a hammerhead (a T‑style vehicle turnaround) as the terminus of the internal street; the applicant said a cul‑de‑sac would consume more land and push houses closer to existing neighbors.

Project details presented
- Site area: approximately 3.9 acres.
- Proposed lots: 31 single‑family lots; average cited in drawings ~3,427 sq ft.
- Home sizes/prototypes: the applicant showed four two‑story models ranging from roughly 1,850 to 2,450 square feet; typical materials described included tile roof, stucco exterior and pop‑outs for fenestration.
- Street design: private internal streets with a hammerhead terminus requested on the tentative map; county staff raised the tentative map issue related to the hammerhead.

The TAB and applicant discussed retaining walls and a late‑filed design detail near a utility pad that may require a retaining wall greater than 3 ft; the applicant said this would be the only potential need for additional retaining and that they would coordinate with staff on whether to renotice or return with an amendment if needed.

Ending: TAB members described the project as a positive infill that “fills it in” without extensive waivers; the board added the architectural feature condition to ensure public‑facing elevations are visually varied.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee