Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

Planning Commission meeting to order Staff roll call and posting please Thank you.

The agenda was posted in accordance with Nevada open meeting all all members are present with the exception of member crumb member ride and member D Teresa who are absent Please join me in standing and saying the Pledge of Allegiance

We will now conduct the initial public comment period.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. Each person has three minutes to speak on a specific agenda item. The public may call in at 702-589-9629 to provide public comment. Seeing and hearing no one, we will close the first public comment period. The first item on the agenda is introduction of the new city planner, Lauren Keaton.

Good evening, Vice Chairman Scott and members of the commission. I'm Nakesha Lyon, planning manager with the Community Development Department. So it's with great pleasure to introduce to you all Lauren Keaton, who is our new city planner. who recently joined the Community Development Department on July 6th. I think it's her seventh day here. City planner Keaton was born in Las Vegas where her family has lived here for generations. She was raised in Idaho and returned to Las Vegas when she was a teenager and continued living here earning her bachelor's degree in urban studies from UNLV. And then she started her career as a planning technician with Clark County during the last year of her studies. And prior to joining our staff, she was a planner with the City of Henderson, working on a variety of land use entitlement applications, building permit reviews, as well as inspections. So we're very excited to have her on staff with her skill set and knowledge. She'll be a great fit and a really valuable addition to Boulder City. And so I just ask the Planning Commission to join me in welcoming her. And City Planner Keaton, if you'd like to say a few words, you may.

Thank you, Nakisha, for the introduction. Good evening, Vice Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Lauren Keeton and I am the new city planner for Boulder City. I'm just super grateful for the opportunity to join Boulder City's team as we continue to serve the community together and excited to work with you all on future Planning Commission meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you. The second item on the agenda for possible action, approval of the minutes of the June 17th, 2026 regular meeting.

I make a motion to approve.

All in favor say aye. Aye.

This other one? Thank you.

Motion is approved unanimously. Next item on the agenda is item number three for possible action, planning commission resolution number 1285, a resolution providing a recommendation to the city council on a final map for phase three of Liberty Ridge, BC subdivision number 115. Staff report.

Nikisha Lyon, planning manager with the community development department for the record. Item number three is for consideration of a final map application for phase three of the Liberty Ridge, Boulder City subdivision number 115, commonly known as track 350. As shown on the screen, Liberty Ridge is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Adams Boulevard and Bristol Cone Drive and contains 122 single family residential lots in the R1-7, R1-10, and R1-15 zoning districts. Page 10 of the agenda packet provides a recent history of the subdivision and associated land entitlement processes that it's gone through. The applicant and future property owner, Toll South LV LLC, received approval by the city council to purchase and develop the property in three phases back in 2024. As also shown on the screen with the overview of the tentative map as you may recall the City Council approved the tentative map in October of last year and this allows for the developer to proceed with final map applications in order to Create the lots for sale the developer purchased two parcels that are outlined in blue which represent the first development phase of the project and the first takedown or closing that's associated with their land purchase agreement. Toll South LV LLC purchased the phase one in December of last year and then moved forward with the associated final maps. Based on the appropriate naming for our subdivisions, the first phase of the development was actually recorded in two phases. which is phase one and phase two of the subdivision. And the second phase of the overall development represents the second takedown or closing associated with the land purchase agreement, and that is phase three, which is the final map that's before you tonight, but represented in purple here as phase two. So phase three is 13.5 acres of vacant land. It's located on parcel 4-2 of the overall subdivision. So south of Adams Boulevard at the southwest corner of Adams and Bristol Cone Drive. and that's represented here outlined in red. This phase contains 39 lots, 23 of those lots are zoned R110, and 16 lots are zoned R115. And together with the previously recorded final maps for phases one and two, which contained 56 lots. This final map would bring the total so far to 95, which is a correction from what was provided in the staff report. So 95 of the lots for the 122 proposed lots in the overall subdivision. The final map for phase three complies with the applicable standards for the R-110 and R-115 zones and all lot areas and widths meet or exceed the zoning requirements. The density of 2.71 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the low density residential future land use designation that's applicable to the subdivision. And the final map is in conformance with the approved tentative map that is on file. Phase three access will be provided off of Adams Boulevard and that will be constructed via Victory Wave Place which you can see here on the screen as well as in your agenda packet. This aligns with the existing right of way for Aspen Drive that is across Adams Boulevard. Victory Wave Place leads into Courage Crest Lane, which runs parallel to Adams Boulevard, and in the final phase of development, Courage Crest Lane will eventually provide access to Bristol Cone Drive. Phase three does not include any private parks. There are two small common areas for landscaping along Victory Wave Place as you're coming into this phase of the subdivision. All common areas and private streets within the development will be regulated by the Homeowners Association per the conditions, covenants, and restrictions that are associated with the subdivision. The subdivision will be served by extension of utilities in the area at the developer's expense and installation of these utilities are currently under review by the Public Works Department. And a grading permit has been issued by the city and is underway for the entire subdivision. The zoning ordinance does not have landscape requirements for the R1 zone. However, conceptual landscape plans were submitted and approved for the lots in conjunction with the development allotment application that was reviewed last year. And then landscaping for common areas will be reviewed in conjunction with the improvement plans. The city does already have landscaping along Adams Boulevard and maintains that landscaping that exists there today and will continue to. The allotments associated with the development of the single-family homes on these Lots They've been partially approved by the City Council which occurred on October 28th of last year and That allotment application included 30 residential allotments, each for construction years 24-25 and 25-26, so 60 in total, and then 30 reservations for construction year 26-27, pursuant to Title 11 of Chapter 41 of our city code. So the applicant will need to convert the 30 reservations that they already have approval for, within this construction year, so construction year 26-27, and then they'll need to apply for reservations or actual allotments to develop the remainder of the lots, and that would be in construction year 27-28. There's no noticing requirements associated with a final map application, so the request before the commission tonight is to consider the final map application and make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the final map based on the findings and conditions in the associated resolution. There is draft language already included in the agenda packet on page 13. Staff is available for any questions that the commission may have. Also, Isaac Summers, who is the Vice President of Land Development for Toll Brothers is present tonight and can also answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

Do I have a motion? I move for the approval of resolution number 1285 with the recommendation in favor of the final map.

I'll second.

Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion is approved unanimously. Next on the agenda is item number four, possible action for public hearing and consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to allow for a private heliport at 1001 Villa Grande Way. Staff.

Thank you, Vice Chair Scott and Keisha Lyon again for the record. Item number four, this is consideration of a conditional use permit to allow for a private heliport on approximately 11.65 acres that's located at 1001 Villa Grande Way which is within the R180 single family residential zone as you can see on the screen on the location map. The applicant and property owner, Casey Craig of the Craig Family Trust is requesting a conditional use permit for a private heliport located on the southeast portion of the property. As you can see here on the site plan, this will include a helipad that's built to the Federal Aviation Administration standards, as well as a 2,000 square foot hanger that's attached to the residence via a covered breezeway. So this is a rendering of the helipad. This is an overview of the home and the helipad portion as well as the attached hangar and the breezeway. And another viewpoint of that as well. And then this is just showing the heights which do conform to the zoning standards that we have. And then an overview of the site layout. So the subject property currently is under construction for a principal residence and then an accessory structure, which you can see in this rendering. As you may recall, the applicant and property owner of this R1 zoned lot did apply for a zoning tax amendment late last year to add a private heliport as a conditional use to this zoning district and that would be subject to certain requirements. And on February 18th, this commission unanimously recommended approval of the text amendment. And then on April 14th, the city council approved the text amendment, which then added the conditional use to city code. The use is subject to five conditions that are denoted on page 22, which the private heliport must comply with. This includes an FAA letter of determination stating no objection, hours of operation that are limited between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., a minimum 500 foot separation distance from adjoining residential or noise sensitive property lines, owner occupant only operation so no commercial use of the helipad or heliport and then no on-site aircraft fueling to allow for the use to occur on the subject property conditional use permit application must be considered and approved by this Commission the justification narrative FAA determination letter and the site plan renderings and location map associated with this request are included in the agenda packet and that starts on page 31 So per city code, the commission must evaluate each application based on several factors to ensure that the proposed use aligns with adjacent uses and structures and will not be detrimental to the health safety morals and the general welfare of the city. So there's five criteria that are outlined in this section for consideration by the commission, which at minimum must be found to be satisfactory as it applies to this conditional use permit. So this includes consistency with the master plan and the future land use map, compatibility with adjacent uses and the character of the area that the design is not detrimental to again health safety and the general welfare of the public nor will the uses create nuisances for the abutting property owners as well as there needs to be adequate public facilities available to serve the site and so further details regarding conformance with each of the criteria based on the applicant's response and then staff's analysis that's provided on pages 22 and 27 of the agenda packet. So to summarize, from staff's analysis, the subject properties master plan future land use designation is low density residential, which is similar to the residential properties located to the west and the southwest of the site that are in the view estate of the lakes and then the Lake Mead view subdivisions. Though the master plan does not specifically address private helicopters or any similar aviation type uses, staff finds that the proposed use is not contrary to the policies applicable to the low density residential future land use designation. The proposed heliport does not displace, diminish, or interfere with the single family residential use of the property and occupies a limited and defined footprint located on the property and is accessory in nature. The adoption of the recent text amendment indicates that the city has determined that a private heliport is a compatible use within the R180 zone and that's subject to the applicable conditions. The proposed heliport does not conflict with the applicable master plan policies in regards to residential character, lot size, or neighborhood location. The subject property is surrounded by other residential uses that are also zoned R1 single family residential as well as city owned land zoned governmental park and then federally regulated land that's to the north. The proposed use is not incompatible with these nearby uses of land and is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on surrounding properties. The layout of the proposed private heliport and then the associated storage hangar is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to uses and property in the immediate area. And then further evaluation of conformance with site-specific design and layout standards that are associated with the helipad and the building addition, that would occur through the applicable permitting process, so such as a building permit or a fire permit. that would be submitted upon approval of this conditional use permit. It's also not anticipated that the proposed use will pose issues in regards to noise, odor, traffic, or other nuisances and dangers to abutting property owners. So during the zoning text amendment consideration process that was associated with establishing the private heliport as a conditional use, city staff did engage with Kauffman Associates to prepare a noise modeling technical brief. to evaluate the potential noise impacts that would be associated with the proposed private heliport, given its surrounding residential areas, as well as to assess compliance with the city's noise ordinance. And that allows a maximum permissible sound level for receiving residential or other noise sensitive use of 70 DBAs LEQ, which is the average noise level for a minimum duration of 15 minutes. Based on the findings of that study, a setback of 500 feet from the nearest noise sensitive receptor use could be used from the perimeter of the private heliport to remain in compliance with that threshold. So this was included again as a requirement of the zoning text amendment for the use. So the applicant conforms with this requirement in addition to the other requirements that were adopted. This supports mitigation of any of the potential impacts in regards to undue noise. Helping to support any impacts for odor traffic and other nuisances or dangers to the abutting property owners So the attached resolution notes that if there should be any unresolved complaints that a new public hearing Would be required and a possible revocation of the conditional use permit can also be required as well The building division public works department utilities department and fire department they reviews the proposed request drawings and materials Provided by the applicant and they have no comments or revisions at this time as it relates to the conditional use permit The use will be served by adequate essential public facilities and services And then again, any further evaluation of public facility infrastructure needs that would be associated with the development of the private helipad and the building addition of the hanger, that would occur at the building permit process if they did receive approval of the conditional use permit and move forward with submitting that. And any improvements, upgrades, or extension of those services, if they are required, that would be at the applicant's expense. The commission does have the option to approve modifications to this request if they deem necessary. And then this is the first conditional use permit application that we've received for a private heliport in the R180 zone since the zoning tax amendment was adopted. The application was noticed in accordance with state law Since the publication of the agenda pocket the city has received for public comments To and support and to an opposition and that has been provided to the Commission One of the comments that are in opposition is from a group of neighbors about representing about five properties Four of which are adjacent to the property located along Stone Canyon Road So the Community Development Department respectfully requests that the commission tonight conducts the public hearing and considers the conditional use permit application that's before you tonight and make a motion to either approve subject to conditions or deny. based on staff's findings that's included in resolution number 1284. staff is available for any questions that the commission may have the applicant and property owner casey craig he is in attendance tonight and he does have a brief presentation for the commission thank you any commission questions for staff

One real quick. So we can make a recommendation to change some of the five conditions if we had a wording change?

It depends on what the wording change is.

It's item four where it says private helicopters shall only be operated by the property owner or occupant. I'd prefer that to read by the property's current owner and strike or occupant.

So I don't think that that change would be something that we would be able to accommodate because that is the language that was Specifically added into the code.

Okay, so that wouldn't be something we'd be able to modify Of course, I do have a question on the fueling issue does that pertain to just this heliport and this property or Are people allowed to have fuel if they have RVs or Razors, off-road vehicles? They're allowed to fuel at their homes, but he can't?

Yeah, so people are allowed to have small containers to fuel up their RVs and cars and things like that. The language specifically adopted is specific to aircraft fueling. So any sort of aircraft fueling related to the helicopter itself would not be allowed to occur on the property.

Thank you. Of course. Any other questions for staff? Mr. Craig, you're up.

Casey Craig, for the record. Yeah, that'd be great. I had 10 pages in Acacia. I welded it down to four. but I think she gave my whole presentation. I wanted to talk a lot about, you know, we'll talk about 4.J, which is the Conditional Use Permit Requirements, but what is it, 30-4-A? I have it right here in my notes, but the Yeah, 30-3.a, which is the criteria against which the Planning Commission is to evaluate the conditional use permit applications. I mean, she hit everything. And I'm so grateful that she did. For the conformance with the master plan and future use, it is a private accessory, maintains low density and a state-style residential character. It supports the master plan and efficient use of land. No additional new public infrastructure of any kind is required. In fact, I already put an additional fire hydrant in at my expense just in anticipation of doing this. It aligns with the policies of preserving the community's rural residential identity through the, we have a generous 600 plus foot setback. But I just wanna say, I'm grateful. When I was here on February 11th, I wanted to thank the Planning Commission for hearing my presentation and approving this the first time, and I'm grateful. So thank you, thank you very much. And I'm glad that the City Council did the same at a four to one affirmative vote. And I think that the real determining factors for the city council approval was concrete evidence of the minimal impact and the safety with which this can be done. And so I want to share a little story with you. Every city council member and a number of city employees were able to attend sound tests that we did at the airport. We did six of them. And at the request of one city council member, we flew the helicopter to the property and we simulated a real world scenario. And I wanna tell you about that. Can we go to slide number two? There we go, that's number two. I brought my fancy little laser pointer here so I can point at things. So, oh, it doesn't even work on the screens. Darn it. Okay, that's okay. Well, I can walk us through it. The blue oval, Yeah, that's where the house is being built. The small blue square is where the helicopter pad will sit. We put it as far away from everyone as we could. On the northeast, so going up to the upper right hand corner, that's a northeast departure lane. And all of that grayed out area, that's a big wash. And between the wash and the helicopter pad, there's a ridge right there. When the helicopter comes in, you can't even see it. It's completely behind the ridge. And that ridge ends at the landing pad. We had a number of neighbors up and down the street. Everybody was invited to come to this test and see for themselves. The houses on the left, the second house up, we had a group of neighbors there at that home standing in the backyard. And then if you go six to the sixth one down or last from the bottom, right, gray roof, we had a number of neighbors in the backyard of that home. And at each home, we had a city council member so that they could observe and take notes. And the city council member that was in the gray-roofed house had a handheld walkie-talkie radio that's FAA frequency so we could talk. And this is what happened. I made my approach as planned. I came right up where the landing pad will be and I hovered there until I was told, that's enough, you can head back out. But he said, don't go too far. We might need you to come back. And the reason why they wanted me to come back is because they were completely surprised at how incredibly quiet it was. And so I said, I'll hang it out here. And he said, OK, we're ready for you to come back. But what they did is they dispatched a city employee and said, you go hike the two football fields across the lot. through the desert and you stand up there with your phone and you video Mr. Craig and make sure he really comes to the property and goes to the landing site because we're not so sure that he did. So he hiked over there and he got his camera out and I came back again and I was told, okay, you can fly away but don't go too far because we have some who still aren't convinced because it was too quiet. Did you turn an engine off? Did you not come up to the landing pad? So we'll come back to that story. Can we go to slide three? If you remember, this was the noise study that was done for the city. And the red circle is at 450 feet. And it was determined that at 450 feet, the noise that would break the noise ordinance would stay on the property. That's where it stops. The extra 50 feet to get 500, in the CUP requirements was a buffer. Can we go to slide three? Four, how about four, let's try four. Okay, so the large arrow going from the right to the left, it goes from the center of the helipad over to the closest neighbor boundary. That's 642 feet, so we exceed that requirement by 142 feet. And then the two arrows below are pointing to the house and to the hangar as structural noise and sound and sight barriers. The home sits over 30 feet above the helicopter pad and the hangar sits over 20 feet above. And then we have a wall and a covered breezeway between the two, creating an additional sound barrier. And a big portion of that's not even built yet. So let's go back to the story. Again, I came back because there were those who were concerned that I still hadn't actually come to the landing pad. And the third time I was asked to come to the site, I hovered directly above the future landing pad. And then I was told to hover higher. And then I was told to hover higher. And then I was told to come up even higher until I came up above all the structure and the hillside so they could see me. So they could say, yep, we saw him. He actually came over. And then they said, you got it. You can fly away now. Because you see, that's the thing. When we'll be landing and taking off, you can't even see it. It's completely hidden. So at that point, I think everyone believed it. And it gave those in attendance the ability and those council members to say, definitively, this isn't a problem. It's been properly mitigated. And the conditional use permit requirements that the staff outlined with the daytime restrictions, the 500 foot setback, which we exceed considerably, the owner occupant use only, the FAA requirement, and the non-fueling, more than comply with the master, I'm using the wrong vocabulary, with the master plan and future land use map for the city. We checked all the boxes. And one person said, hey, you know what? That was quieter than a semi truck that was airbraking down the highway at more than double the distance from where the helicopter was. So I also like the fact that this CUP path, it was designed to guarantee that there won't be multiple private helicopter paths. there is only one property and this was stated by staff in a prior meeting there's only one property that can comply with the CUP requirements this one that's it so we're not talking about a proliferation event either I could hit A.1, two, three, four, and five, but I think it would be repeating what Nikesha said. Maybe I'll just hit one thing here. A.4, located and designed to avoid undue noise, odor, traffic, or other nuisances and dangers to abutting property owners. This is really the crux of it, and it speaks to the requirements of the CUP. The helipad doesn't create additional vehicle traffic of any kind. It doesn't create odors. Any exhaust from the helicopter is over two football fields away. My smoker in my backyard is a bigger problem for my neighbor. where I live now, which is 60 feet away. Sound study demonstrates sound remains on the property. Eyewitnesses confirmed it on April 13th. No onsite fueling. It's a private non-commercial. FAA approval, no objection. Confirming compliance with federal safety standards. And what that means is it'll never fly over the neighborhood and it never has flown over the neighborhood. And I wish that we could get that same guarantee from every helicopter operator out there, but you're getting it from this one. I know they go back and forth through there all the time. So let's see. We saw slide six, I think. Yeah, you saw that in Nikesha's presentation. And let's look at slide seven. That is looking from the backyards of the two closest properties at the helicopter pad. And the point is you can't see it. That's my front yard. And it's in my backyard. So it'll never be seen. I'd like to add another point to the master plan compliance, something that is an addition. Not only is it the only one that can meet the requirements, and so it'll be the only one probably ever built, uh... the amendment was adopted with full awareness that it would enable when the amendment was adopted here and in city council it was done with the awareness that it would enable this low impact use at this location and prior to the approvals i personally conducted extensive community outreach which i shared in this this hall prior including multiple walking site tours six helicopter noise demonstration flights I'm happy to say that the results, they were far quieter than anybody ever thought they would be, which made me really happy. Personally, I visited every neighboring household except for one. Of those contacted, 81 expressed no objection. Can we put slide number eight up? This is the map, 81 expressed no objection and 62% of the neighbors initialed my neighborhood map confirming no objection. And those who didn't want to initial, they said I just don't want to get in between anybody, but no objection. So to wrap it up, it reminds me of a conversation I had with one of the neighbors about property rights. And he said, this gentleman said, I'm for property rights. And if you can do this and meet all the codes that protect each one of our property rights, then I have no problem with it. You should do it. I heard the same thing from many neighbors. And the question was just, look, am I going to hear it? I don't mean we'll ever hear a gentle rumble somewhere. I hear rumbles going down the highway at night. But is it going to be noisy and is it going to fly over my house? And I said, no, it's not noisy. It doesn't fly over your house. In fact, it doesn't even fly that often. I made the comment, if you've ever owned a boat, you don't run your boat every day. But when I explained it, they said, oh, it doesn't even concern me. I'm not worried about it. So in short, the neighborhood won't see or hear much of anything different from what we already experienced today. Honestly, most days the helicopter won't even be flying and it'll be quiet just like any other home. Actually, it'll probably be quieter because it's a long ways away from everybody. So based on the overwhelming ability of this project to comply with all the requirements for the master plan and support and comply with the conditional use permit requirements, I humbly ask the Planning Commission to once again vote unanimously for its approval. I'd love to answer any questions. Oh, one slide, could we throw number nine up? I just thought this was creative. That's 10, yeah. That's okay. Where the rubber meets the road, or should we say where the skids meet the pad, right? And that's it, we're talking about a 40 foot by 40 foot concrete slab that's hidden. Pretty simple.

Yeah, we could throw 10 up now, that'd be great. Any commission questions for the applicant?

Vice Chairman Scott, I just wanted to make a quick point, if that was okay, kind of circling back on Member Bonner's question in regards to the ownership language. So within Title 11, Chapter 30 for the conditional use permits, Subsection 5, there are provisions in regards to the transfer of conditional use permits. And as it applies to residential zones, a new conditional use permit application would be necessary relative to the change in the owner or operator of the use. So that protection is in there. If the property is sold, a new conditional use permit would have to come before the Planning Commission.

I should have remembered that, thank you.

No worries, thank you.

Thank you, Nikisha. Now is the time for public comment hearing on this item. Public comments are limited to this item only, and each person has up to three minutes to speak. The public may call 702-589-9629 to provide public comment.

Matt Reagan and Boulder City. I live at one zero eight Stone Canyon Road, which was Lot number 21 on the map But first I'd start off with I'll read my next-door neighbor's letter and it says my name is from Kevin's afford and I reside at 110 Canyon or Stone Canyon Road I fully support the applicants requests for the conditional use permit and have no objection to the proposed helicopter operations As a professional pilot with more than 50 years flying experience in both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and I attend the flight demonstration to evaluate the operation for both the technical and practical standpoint. During the demonstration, I personally observed the helicopter make multiple approaches to the proposed landing area and depart eastbound. Based on my observations of professional experience, the operation was conducted safely. and the helicopter produced remarkably little noise. The demonstration clearly showed the proposed operation did not present significant safety concerns and create an unreasonable noise impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Having observed the demonstration firsthand and evaluate from my perspective, Of an experienced pilot, I believe the applicant has demonstrated the helicopter operation at this location can be conducted responsibly and safely. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit. Additionally, I'm also a professional pilot and I was at the meeting and I also observed the identical where I would say on a scale of one to 10, it was maybe a two as far as the sound wise. So it was just a muffle. And if you could compare it to an airplane flying over 1,000 feet over Boulder City or 1,500 feet, you can hear it. It's there if you happen to look up and say, hey, there's an airplane. But that's about it. Very little impact and very little. So that's the reason why I see there's no objection to this. And it'll only be what I urge you to pass it. Thank you.

Barry, give us a minute. We've got a caller. Give us a minute. We have a caller.

Please mute your TV and state your name.

Okay. My name is Michael Stone. Barry, give us a minute. We've got a caller. Give us a minute. We have a caller. Okay, it's muted.

Okay, go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Dr. Michael Stone. My wife Deborah and I are neighbors of Mr. Craig at 116 Stone Canyon Road and we unconditionally support Mr. Craig's application for conditional use permit for the helipad. I was also there at at the observation of Mr. Craig when he flew in and we could barely hear his helicopter. I just wanted to let the board know that we urge them to approve this conditional use permit. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Vice Chairman Scott, distinguished members of the Planning Commission. I'm Barry Gold. I live at 103 Stone Canyon. I was also at the demonstration when Mr. Craig flew his helicopter. In fact, my wife and I hosted the 13 people that attended the gathering. And we watched, and we could see them because my house, we were on our observation deck. uh... which allowed us because the rest of his home is not built yet to look kind of up the ridge line behind so we could see him coming up the valley and we could see him hovering and we could barely hear him in fact one of the people in our gathering had a uh... meter that measured decibels and at no time did the decibel indicator indicate more than normal voice conversation so He demonstrated how unobtrusive his operation is going to be. And as both of them said before me, and pretty much covered everything else I was going to say, I'd like you... I do have one other comment. The measurement that he showed is to the property line. The property line is probably another 50 to 80 feet to the house. And so it's a lot further than just the 650 feet. And we're outside. When people are in their house, which they are most of the time, they're not going to even know this is happening. So I didn't fly helicopters. I flew fighters. And they make noise. This does not make noise. And I urge you to support. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Andrew Pittard at 114 Stone Canyon Road. I just wanted to give my support to this project and really because of the amount of due diligence that Mr. Craig's done in our neighborhood. He has spent time with every neighbor. He has gone through in every way, shape and form and hurdle he could go through to demonstrate how feasible this is for the neighborhood and for his property. Furthermore, I had a conversation with my own kids, and I just want to highlight one of the things that impressed me the most about this project. He spent the time to go through an idea, the ideation of Heliport in the back of his house, and then all the planning that went with that, and then the perseverance to go through all these council meetings, I sat through the last one and had to listen to the things that he and his wife endured and the things that people were saying. And it's what brought me here today because it was so appalling to me. And to go through that and to see it all the way through is What this city is all about is what this country should be all about. It's one of those examples that I said to them, you have an idea, you see it through, you push, you persevere, and you get it done. And this is a great example of that. And the last thing I'll say is it's not too long ago that everyone was talking about a community of homes they wanted to build back there. It wasn't one house, it was a development that they wanted to try to push through. And I think everyone forgets that that could just as well be back there. Instead we have a beautiful home, we have the kind of place with this heliport that when you're out at the lake and these visitors are coming and seeing Boulder City they look up and go, I wanna live there. That's amazing. Hey, Dad, look, there's a helicopter behind that house. It's one of those things that in Boulder City, this Planning Commission has done an incredible job of moments like this to improve the community. This is an improvement to the community. This is something great for the city, and it has minimal, if any, impact at all on our neighborhood. My wife made a comment when he did the demonstration. She goes, I could hear it, I was surprised. And she goes, we went outside and opened the door and realized it was our washing machine, it wasn't the helicopter. And our little three-year-old goes, oh wow, is there a helicopter over there? Didn't even know. The washing machine in the house was louder than what was going on outside. So just to share that with you, unconditionally approve, our entire family approves of this project and I think it's great for the neighborhood and I think it's great for the city, thank you.

Seeing and hearing no one else, we will close this public hearing. Bringing it back to the dais, do I have a motion?

I'm making a motion to approve.

I second that.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion is approved unanimously. Next is agenda item number five for possible action, a public hearing and consideration and application for a variance in the app airport overlay zone to permit an air traffic control tower with a height of 108 feet. Staff.

Good evening, again, Planning Commission. Nikisha Lyon for the record. Item number five is for consideration of a variance application to allow a new air traffic control tower at the Boulder City Municipal Airport with a height of 108 feet. As shown on the screen, the subject property is located on a portion of approximately 527.5 acres, located at 1201 Airport Road, zoned AP Airport Overlay Zone over the S Interim Study Zone. The city is requesting the variance to construct a new air traffic control tower, or ATCT, an associated support building to enhance aviation safety and improve the efficiency of aircraft operations at the airport. So you can see here the location for the building and air traffic control tower. In 2018, the city was formally accepted into the Federal Aviation Administration, or the FAA's Federal Contract Tower Program, with a benefit cost ratio of 1.07, which requires the city to construct the tower, while the FAA funds are available for the staffing of qualified air traffic controllers. The project has advanced through the FAA grant-funded phases, including tower siding selection, the environmental assessment and architectural and engineering design and is currently in the design phase with a construction manager at risk that has been selected to work with the architectural and engineering firm as of January. So under chapter 22 of the city code, structures in the AP zone are generally limited to 25 feet. but they may exceed this requirement subject to a conditional use permit which would allow up to 30 to 45 feet dependent on their location in relation to the airport runways that's located on the property. Chapter 22 of Title 11 also states that a property owner desiring to erect or increase the height of any structure may apply for a variance and the application for a variance shall be accompanied by a determination from the FAA as to the effect of the proposal on the operation of air navigation facilities and the safe efficient use of navigatable airspace so as a proposed air traffic control tower is 108 feet which exceeds the height limitations per city code and allowed per the conditional use permit process. A variance application must be considered and approved by the Planning Commission prior to review and approval of a building permit. So the justification, environmental assessment, which did make the package very long, findings of no significant impact, site plan and renderings, and the location map have been included in the agenda packet that starts on page 54 of the packet. And I'll also go through those renderings. So here you can see the cross section for the air traffic control tower, which will show the height of 108 feet at the top of the tower. And here's some renderings of what the control tower would look like. So this is from the northeast viewpoint. here from the southwest and then another view here from the northeast so city code sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted and findings must be provided for all five of the criteria for the variance to be approved as failure to meet any one of the criteria and is sufficient reason for denial of this request. So there's a detailed overview of the applicant's justification and then staff's analysis based on the criteria that's provided starting on page 48 of the agenda packet. So just to summarize, as it pertains to criterion A, the applicant states that the airport is a unique public use aviation facility that's subject to FAA operational and safety requirements that don't apply to other properties in the vicinity or zone and that a air traffic control tower Its function does require a height that's not typical for like a hangar or like an office building. From staff's analysis, the height provisions of Chapter 22 do apply generally to all AP zone properties, which includes the surrounding single family residence, mobile homes, the Boulder Creek Golf Course, and Veterans Memorial Park. The subject property's use as a public airport and the height needed for controllers, sight lines to the runways, is a site-specific condition not shared elsewhere in the zone. As it pertains to Criterion B, the applicant states that the variance is necessary to allow the property to accommodate their aeronautical activity, noting that the tower's height is based on a siding analysis that was completed back in May of 2022 to achieve unobstructed sight lines to each of the runways and then the airfield movement area. So from staff's analysis, the ability to have an air traffic control tower is not denied to the property outright. A tower could be built at 25 feet or 45 feet, which would have to go through the conditional use permit process, but this would significantly impair the sight lines that's based on the site analysis that found it necessary to have the air traffic control tower at this height. Within the analysis, staff notes that the requested height is comparable to control towers similar airports ranging from 60 feet at the North Las Vegas Airport and then up to 352 feet at Harry Reid International Airport. This variance request for a proposed air traffic control tower allows for a height comparable to those other air traffic control towers that were just mentioned. Without relief from the AP zone height restriction the city would essentially being unable to construct this air traffic control tower that would be capable of providing the controllers the line of sight that they need. This would effectively deny the subject property the ability to support a use that is otherwise permitted and in this case federally required. As it pertains to Criterion C, the applicant states and staff affirms that the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or the improvements in the vicinity and zone. An environmental assessment was completed that was done in August of 2024 and that resulted in a finding of no significant impact. The FAA did issue a final determination of no objection to the construction in July of 2024 that's subject to compliance with FAA requirements that govern operational safety for airports during construction. So this application was routed out for review and so our department, utilities, fire, public works, the building department as well, they've reviewed this request and they don't have any comments at this time. As it pertains to criteria D and E, the applicant states and staff does affirm that the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan and that the request is specific to the airport's unique federally driven operational needs and would not set a precedence for a general or recurrent regulation since the Boulder City Municipal Airport is the only property in the AP zone that would require this kind of need. Based on this information, in SAS review there are two options that are offered to the commission, conditional approval, finding that all five of the criteria are met, and then denial based on the finding that criteria B is not met. In regards to approving a variance, the commission does have the option to approve the variance in whole or in part, and may associate conditions or modifications to the request. If approved, staff recommends that the standard condition that the approval is based on the plans and the information that have been submitted and shown before you tonight and would not apply to deviations that expand the scope of the variance. The variance has been noticed in accordance with city code. We have not received any written public comments. So the request before the commission tonight is to conduct the public hearing and consider the variance and then make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny V-26-693 based on staff's findings. Staff is available for any questions the commission may have. Marissa Do is here and is our airport manager and she is representing this application on behalf of the city.

as the applicant she can answer any questions that the commission may have thank you any commission questions for staff does the air conditioning work in this room i do have one question for staff i know this is an approval for 108 feet but multiple letters in this packet state 125 feet

Yeah, so there was an adjustment in the height, and I think there were kind of higher heights previously proposed, but based on the finalized site analysis and then the actual construction, it was then finalized to be 108, so that would be what the approval would be for. Okay, thank you.

Do we have any views from where any homes might see this? Anything like that done?

No. I don't know if we can bring up the location map. Holly?

What's the closest neighborhood?

Buchanan and Georgia.

Yeah. I'm trying to think driving down there.

There's not very many. I'm good.

Thank you.

I'm good. Good evening, Marissa Adu, Airport Manager. As part of the environmental assessment, there was some property locations identified around the area, and we have pictures in the environmental assessment that view from those locations. I think the most visible location was the park, Veterans Memorial Park, where there's that, I don't know what the mound is there, over by the basketball courts. that was the most visible location. Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Now is the time for public hearing on this item. Public comments are limited to this item only and each person has up to three minutes to speak. The public may call in at 702-589-9629 to provide public comment. Casey Craig.

Just I fly out of the airport a lot and both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter and I would just share that it is time to get a tower. We have a flight school that started up not too long ago and we have a lot of very novice beginners doing their best to navigate how a pattern works and how traffic flows through the taxiways. And there's been some close calls, I hear about them. And I think we are the third busiest airport in the state now. I mean, by passenger stance, yeah. So maybe not by complete flights, but yeah, there's a lot of traffic and it would raise the bar on safety tremendously. I know Boulder City is a tough, tough place to get a variance passed, but I think this is a very unique situation where this is for the greater safety, health, and welfare of the whole community, not just pilots and not just people who work at the airport. But in addition to that, I think this will raise the bar in terms of the general perception of the Boulder City Airport and it will attract more commerce, more visitors, people who want to experience what we have to offer. It'll also maybe attract someone who would like to operate a full-time restaurant at the field. some courtesy cars and other amenities that most airports offer and I think we would see people coming to Boulder City because they feel safe with a tower and they just want to have lunch they just want to experience it and hang out and see what we have to offer and so I think it I think it brings a lot to the table as well as It doesn't have to be The whole price of it isn't put on to the Boulder City budget. This is a federally subsidized experience And we might as well take advantage of it. There's a lot of reasons why it should be there. Now, on the flip side, man, it's really nice to go in and out of a non-towered airport. But there comes a point where there's too many bees buzzing in the air. And those who aren't very used to it, they could run into each other. So I think it's a good move.

Seeing and hearing no one else, we will close this public hearing. Bringing it back to the dais, do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to conditionally approve V26693 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within this report.

I'll second that motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion is approved unanimously. Next is agenda item number six for possible action. AFDA-26-202, zoning review for an application for one residential allotment for construction year 2026-27.

Staff Thank You vice chairman Scott and Keisha Lyon for the record This is for a zoning review of an application for a single-family residential allotment for 848 Lime Rock Road As you can see on the screen, it's located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Red Rock Road and Lime Rock Road Holly sorry the location map, please The property is located in the Lake Mead View Estates subdivision and is zoned R110 single-family residential. The applicant is a developer, Contour Builders LLC. They purchased this vacant lot actually as of July 2nd. And this is in order to develop a residence on the subject property and then sell the developed lot to a home buyer. Per code, a maximum of 120 residential allotments can be awarded during one construction year. which is July 1 to June 30, and so for construction year 26-27, we have zero development allotments that have been issued, and then 30 reservations that have been previously approved for the Toll South LV LLC. No worries, and the location map is now on the screen. It's also in your packet. So zoning review has been completed and the proposed home does comply with the applicable provisions for the R-110 zoning district and chapter 11-41 for the controlled growth management plan. So I have the site plan, floor plan elevations and landscaping available on the screen if you would like to go through that. It's also included in the agenda packet. that starts on page 271. So if found in conformance with zoning tonight, the application will be reviewed by the allotment committee on August 3rd. The allotment committee is responsible for the evaluation Rating and then awarding of points to the project based on several factors that are outlined within our controlled growth management plan if the project received a score of 70% or more the allotment committee will recommend approval of the application to the City Council who will consider this for final approval on August 25th and So the request before the commission tonight is to determine if the request complies with the zoning requirements and to make a motion to forward this request to the allotment committee for their evaluation and review. There's motion language on page 270. Staff is available for any questions that the commission may have. And then Jeffrey Lesnik, who's the director of planning and acquisitions for Contour Homes, he is available if you all have any questions for him. Thank you.

Thank you, Nikesha. Any commission questions for staff? Now is the time for the public hearing on this item. Public comments are limited to one item.

Sorry, there's no public hearing on this item. Sorry if I put that in the script. Sorry. My apologies.

All right, strike that. Thank you. Bringing it back to the dais, do I have a motion? Do I have any questions for the applicant? No questions? Okay. Do I have a motion?

I move to find that the application AFDA 26202 is in compliance with the zoning requirements and to forward this request to the allotment committee for evaluation and rating.

All in favor say aye. I'll second that motion. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. The motion is approved unanimously. Agenda item number seven, monthly progress report on development allotments.

No report.

Any commission questions? now is the time for final public comment period for the evening public comment during this portion of the agenda may be on any subject each person has up to three minutes to speak on a specific agenda item the public may call 702-589-9629 to provide public comment Hearing and seeing no one, we will close the final public comment period.