Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] So, three [Music] call the official August 20th, 2025 Planning Commission regular meeting to order. Uh confirmation of posting and roll call.

Thank you. This meeting was posted in accordance to Nevada open meeting law and all members are present. Thank you. Please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At this time, we'll go ahead and open up the initial public comment. Anyone wishing to be heard uh on any of the agenda items may make themselves known. They may also call in at 702589-9629. hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the initial public comment period. Moving on to agenda item number one for possible action, approval of the minutes of the July 16th, 2025 regular meeting. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. I've got a motion. I'll second and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I.

All oppose say nay. Motion carries. Agenda item number two for possible action. Matters pertaining to Boulder 350, a proposed future single family residential subdivision, 122 lots in the R17, R110 and R115 single family residential zone located on approximately 44.98 acres of land commonly known as track 350 1401 Adams Boulevard. Nikisha.

Um, thank you Chair McDonald and members of the commission. Nikesha Lions, city planner with the community development department. So item number two before you tonight is a variance request to reduce the minimum required lot widths that are applicable to two R110 zoned lots within a proposed 122 lot single family subdivision um known as Boulder 350 or uh proposed subdivision number um 115 for Boulder City. Uh, this proposed subdivision is located along the Boulder Creek Golf Course and it's approximately 44.98 acres is southwest of the intersection of Adams Boulevard and Brisl Cone Drive as you can see on the screen uh outlined in blue. Uh there is further background information regarding the proposed project um and some history in regards to the sale of the land um and the process that's detailed starting on page 15 of the agenda packet uh to enable development of this track. the applicant has begun their initial land entitlement process. So that includes a submitt of parcel maps, attenative maps, subdivision um exceptions, development uh aotments as well as variances. So as you may recall at the June meeting, Toll Brothers, uh who's the applicant requested a variance for reductions in the minimum front setback requirements that are applicable to the lots, which this commission did deny. Um so the developer has redesigned the housing plans accordingly to conform to the required uh 20 foot front setback requirement. So at this time the applicant is seeking a variance uh specific to lots 101 and 116. So as you can see on the screen highlighted in red uh lot 101. This is a corner lot and it requires a minimum lot width of 85 ft. Um and as designed it has a width of 70.82 82 ft. Uh the applicant states that reconfiguration of

lot 101 would impact lots 99 and lots 100 uh which are both zoned R115 and they require minimum 100 foot uh or 100 ft for their lot width. Um so if adjusted uh lot 99 would have an undesirable narrow lot shape along the rear um which you can see in uh this um diagram. Um so the yellow lines would indicate um the uh reconfiguration of 101 to meet the requirement and the yellow lines is representing lot 100. Um, and then you can see uh lot 99 there with that narrow uh strip um along that rear side. Uh for lot 116, uh this is an interior lot and it requires a minimum of 80 ft for the lot width and as designed this lot has a width of 70 ft and you can see that on the screen um outlined in red. Uh lot 116, the applicant states that uh lot 115 uh which is adjacent to the left hand side uh must meet the R115 spacing requirements which it just nearly meets. And then uh lot 117 to the right that's zoned R 110 um and it's in on the corner. So it does have a minimum lot with requirement of 80 uh 85 ft which again it just exactly meets. So the applicant states that the current design and applicable spacing requirements uh for these lots ultimately are restricting lot 116. Um so based on these circumstances since these two lots um as designed they don't meet the minimum lot with requirement of variance application uh must be submitted and considered uh by this commission and approved variance is required prior to the review and approval of the subdivision tenative map as well as the development aotment applications because it does have to

comply with zoning. Um so a detailed overview of the applicant's justification and staff's analysis uh is provided in the agenda packet that starts on page 16. Uh so city code sets forth the criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted. It is necessary that findings be provided for all five of the criteria for the variance to be approved and failure to meet any one of the criterion is sufficient reason for denial of a variance. Uh just to summarize the applicant's justification for the criteria. They state that the subject property has an overall irregular shape and narrow width inclusive of a nonlinear property line along most of the adjacent golf course. Uh this results in non-uniform shapes of many of the proposed lots. Uh the applicant states that most areas within track 350 um are only wide enough to accommodate two rows of homes with the central street. And the overall width of the subject property constrains the site layout, limiting variation in site planning that would otherwise allow for different street layouts, lot widths, and depths. Due to the site constraints, the reduction of the minimum uh required width for two of the lots would allow the subdivision to compare more equitably with other residential subdivisions that are governed by title 11 uh which are usually divided by straight lines that allow for more uniform quadrilateral lot shapes, which is not necessarily the case with the proposed subdivision before you. Uh the applicant also states that a similar variance was granted for Boulder City subdivision number 113. That's Boulder Hills Estates. that's across the street from this uh due to lot irregularities caused by uh curve linear streets in which the city approved um that some of the R17 corner lot widths could be as low as 72 ft uh whereas 75 ft is required for those lots. Um however, Boulder 350 has even more regular lots and curve linear street configurations in comparison to that subdivision, thus requiring a greater variance um from

this requirement and making this subdivision even more of a candidate for that variance. Uh the applicant justification also states that due to the nonlinear, non-uniform, and narrow shape of the overall property, the site is uh substantially more difficult to plan. Therefore, it requires some variation in lot design accommodating uh this which is only two lots. Um and this will not have a noticeable uh streetscape difference. Um since many of the irregular shaped lots already have varying front lot widths. Uh the applicant also states that the variation in lot widths is beneficial in providing more options to potential home buyers and provides an added benefit to the surrounding properties by offering more value to the homes being constructed which will help benefit surrounding uh property values. Um the variance will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurous uh to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone and there are no adverse effects or um it's not contrary to the comprehensive plan which is not sight specific. uh their justification uh states that the variance request will not create a pattern or constitute a change of code due to the subject property's unique characteristics and does not you know uh make the formation of a general regulation um of these conditions that would be available to other developments uh or circumstances. So the justification and the applicable drawings that they've submitted uh that is included in the agenda packet that starts on page 22 of the packet. So based on this information, staff offers two options for the commission regarding the requested variance. Uh that's detailed out starting on page 18 of the agenda packet. So the first consideration is for conditional approval of the variance as the request does meet all the criteria with consideration to the overall irregular shape, narrow overall widths and varying spacing requirements um for the three single family residential zoning districts that apply to track 350, which

creates uh site constraints and limitations that are not necessarily applicable to other residential subdivisions that again have more quadrilateral shapes uh or maybe just have one applicable zoning district. Um, as the ability to design a subdivision uh with a standard lot dimensions and layouts that are commonly found in other residential areas within Boulder City um is limited. A more uh curve linear street layout is necessary uh which results in numerous irregular shaped lots therefore hindering the developer's ability to meet the minimum lot width requirement for just two of the proposed 122 lots. Uh the requested variance uh for the lot width for these two R110 zone lots uh is intended to allow for appropriate flexibility in lot size and configuration and allows a subject property to be developed in a way that is more equitable uh to surrounding subdivisions. Uh the allowance of this does not significantly impact the overall streetscape aesthetics and supports the needs of potential home buyers that are seeking new architecture as well as greater design variety um to meet market demands. Additionally, the city has considered similar variances um as this which is discussed on page 20 of the agenda packet. So if conditionally approved, the standard condition that the variance is based on the plans and the information submitted for this request and shall not apply to deviations to the plans of the scope of the variance is expanded beyond what is shown uh would be associated with their approval. The second consideration is for denial of the variance as criteria A and B are not met. So for criterion A, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or its intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone. Uh while the property does have some irregularities in regards to the shape and the width, these

characteristics are not necessarily uncommon in Boulder City uh where natural topography, golf courses or co uh curved roadway networks are um often result in non-uniform lot shapes. uh curve linear street layouts and variation in parcel dimensions uh occur throughout uh other residential subdivisions in the city where the developer was able to comply with the base zoning standards without the need for a lot with v uh variance or with a limited reduction in the requirement. Uh the challenges cited by the applicant appear to be more design driven and anticipated at the time of subdivision planning rather than resulting from unforeseen or unavoidable constraints. For criteria B, the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. Um, so the ability to have a single family residential subdivision is not denied to the subject property itself regardless of the irregular um narrow shape of the overall tract and then the multiple applicable zoning districts. Um, the applicant's proposed lock in configuration is a preference rather than a necessity for achieving a reasonable use of the land. The request to allow for reduced lot width for two lots does not constitute um a denial of a property right, but rather reflects the desire for design flexibility that is not guaranteed by zoning and the applicant can reconfigure the proposed lots to meet the provisions um of title 11 chapter 3. Uh the variance has been noticed in accordance with city code. We have not received any written public comments. Uh so in regards to approving the variance, the commission has the option to approve the request in whole or in part and they may associate uh conditions or modifications to the request. So this includes approving a lesser variance and the applicant has requested approving a variance for a specific lot, modifying the findings or requiring additional conditions. So if those circumstances do

arise, we would request separate motions um as necessary for each of those decisions. And um the motion language just needs to be clear to identify what components are being approved or what is being denied. So the request before the commission tonight is to conduct the public hearing and to consider the variance and make a motion to either conditionally approve or deny the request based on staff's findings. Uh staff is available for any questions that the commission may have and the applicant. Uh they are here tonight and they can answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Nikisha. Um, we'll open it up. Do we have any questions of staff before we invite the applicant up? No applicants of staff at this time. We'll invite the applicant up if they've got anything to add or if there's any questions from the deis. Uh, thank you, commission, and thank you to staff for the presentation. I'm a little under the weather, so I'll I'll keep this brief. Um, so the we've we've whittleled the site down quite a bit. Starting with Can you just state your name for

Oh, sorry. Isaac Summers representing Hill Brothers. Um we we started with the intent of the site plan which was to follow the existing zoning. Uh once we achieved that we started whittling away at the various lot widths and lot sizes trying to stay as compliant as possible to that. And unfortunately we're left over with these two lots that are very difficult to move things without then creating other considerations. You know kind of you got a full box, you pop something in, something else pops out. That's kind of where we're at here. Uh so we're asking for your consideration on this uh this variance on these two lots for for the width and and they do to add also I I think Nika may have mentioned they they still meet the minimum lot size requirement overall. So we're just talking about a width variance on this.

Thank you. And I'll ask uh start us off with one question. Is this for this phase? Is this for the entire track? It it would apply. This is just two lots for the entire subdivision. the entire tract. Fantastic. Yeah. Question. Uh, do you guys already have a home, excuse me, that's going to fit on there with Yes. Yeah. That that won't be an issue at all. So, at at 70 ft, we'll have the 20 foot combined side setbacks, which leaves a 50ft home, which is still significant. Um, and and we have I think almost all except for two or three of our plans will accommodate that size. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

We'll now conduct the uh public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter, make themselves known. They may also call in at 702589-9629 hearing. And seeing none, we'll go ahead and close this public hearing. Uh we'll bring it around to the deis for discussion or a motion. I'll move to conditionally approve variance 25-685 based on staff's findings. I'll second it.

I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. All opposed. Motion carries. Moving on to agenda item number three, monthly progress report.

Hello, I do have a report. Um, so an owner builder single family aotment has been issued for 373 Crystal Court. Um, and the allotment committee did score the single family aotment application for 375 Crystal Court that was recently before the commission. So that's going to be considered by the city council on August 26. And so if that's approved, we will have um uh approved a total of six allotments for construction year 2526. Thank you. Slow down.

Uh thank you. Moving on to the final public comment. Anyone wishing to be heard may also call in at 702589-9629. Hearing and seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the final public comment. Meeting adjourned.