City Council mulls changes to RV park plans

Photo courtesy of Boulder City Arial view of the proposed RV park near Boulder Creek Golf Club.

The process for approving development in Boulder City is long and the casual observer may be under the impression that what is simply an initial step is a final decision.

That seemed to be the case when the City Council originally considered the development of a high-end RV park near Boulder Creek Golf Course back in April. In fact, not even the council seemed totally clear on the vote.

What was supposed to be just a recommendation to city staff to either enter into lease negotiations with the developer or to send the proposed project out for competing proposals, turned in to an extended conversation about the pros and cons of everything from the location to even the desirability of the project moving forward at all.

In the end, after multiple stated desires for amendments to the proposed development, the council ended up kind of boxed in and had no real out except to vote down the entire proposal.

This week, the developers returned with amended plans but the same decision before the council.

A: A resolution to direct city staff to enter into negotiations

B: A resolution to direct staff to solicit other proposals

C: Direct staff to seek an appraisal of the land in order to set a lease rate should the project be eventually approved.

Staff recommended that the council do A and C.

Councilmember Steve Walton said prior to the vote, “It is worth noting that this is not an approval of a lease. It is strictly a discussion of if the economic exemption applies and therefore if we want to authorize appraisal.

“However, the expectation would be if this is approved that there would be further discussion in the not-too-distant future with Elite RV about continuing with that development. I think it is also worth noting that there have been a lot of very specific concerns expressed by both the public as well as city council members about the scope of the development as well as the impact.”

And the public is not completely sold on the project. Simon Whiteley sent a letter to the council that was read into the record.

“I continue to oppose this project, particularly now that a convention center has been added to the Elite RV Resort plan. Residing within earshot of Boulder Creek Golf Course, we already have to endure the noise and disturbances caused by events held in the architectural carbuncle we call the white bubble building. This additional convention center will only add this intrusion to the residents’ peace and quality of life.

The additional load on city infrastructure —water, electric, roads, and amenities with additional visitors will simply compound an already problematic situation. With only one grocery store in a town that seemingly barely copes with the existing population and visitor demand, the congestion will simply worsen. That a developer wishes to invest in Boulder City is commendable, but we must ask ourselves just what exactly will be the benefit to the residents of the city? Bottom line, the cons still far outweigh the pros for this project.”

Changes to the previous plan include additional setbacks, added walking trails and dog runs as well as an added a 300-person convention center including a wedding chapel, a car rental area and a catering facility.

Councilmember Sherri Jorgensen questioned how the proposed convention facility might impact the current Boulder Creek structure, noting that the golf course receives revenue from renting the exiting structure.

Councilmember Cokie Booth noted that an actual building instead of a large tent has the potential to actually cut down on noise associated with events. “I think we have been longing for a facility like this for a long time.”

Mayor Joe Hardy, as he had at the previous meeting, continued to support the idea for one pretty specific reason.

“We’ve come a long way, baby,” he said. “This is a step as opposed to a final lease agreement, but personally I’m thrilled that we could have a conference room with a bathroom.”

The council passed options A and C unanimously.

Exit mobile version