Lake Havasu City Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Summary – December 3, 2025

The Planning and Zoning Commission met Wednesday, December 3, 2025, from 9:01 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. in Council Chambers at 92 Acoma Boulevard South, Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Chair Jim Harris presided. Eight members were present (Ballard, Lehr, Wilson, Stevenson, Harris, Thornton, and Annett); Joan Dzuro and Gabriele Medley were absent. With two vacancies, alternates Annett and Stevenson were seated. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval to the City Council of both a Major General Plan Amendment and a Planned Development Rezone for the 90.5-acre Waterfront property at 1040 McCulloch Boulevard North, and took related administrative actions. A City Council hearing for both items is set for Tuesday, January 13, 2026.

Consent Calendar

• Planning Division Manager Chris Gilbert announced that the Come Together Apartments at The Shops Planned Development/Rezone was approved by City Council on November 25, 2025.
• Minutes of the November 19, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved 7-0 on a motion by Vice Chair Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Thornton.

Public Comments & Testimony

First public hearing – General Plan Amendment (ID 25-4967)

• Emiliano Torres, resident and member of the General Plan update steering committee, expressed opposition and skepticism, saying the General Plan should not be changed so easily, the proposal was a 'bright shiny object,' public access could be controlled by an HOA, and traffic would increase before the second bridge is built.
• Mark Monson, island resident and Nautical Beach Resort member, supported the project, describing the current property as a dust patch with boarded-up buildings and saying the owner behind Falcon Eye Ventures is a billionaire who would not cut corners and would bring economic benefits.
• John Parrott, 50-year resident and commercial real estate professional with no financial involvement, supported the project. He said the Island shoreline has never been owned by the public or the City; it was BLM then ASLD land, and the property is currently dangerous and ugly.
• Andrea Heller, CEO of the Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce and longtime resident, spoke for the Chamber and building industry in support, citing long-term investment, job creation, tax revenue, school district benefits, and the developer's responsiveness.
• Sandra Blare, resident, expressed concerns about water infrastructure and construction traffic before the second bridge is complete, asked whether local contractors would be used, and urged the Commission to hold the developer to promised plans.
• Steve Greeley, resident and General Plan update committee member, opposed the amendment. He noted the City Council recently passed a shoreline protection resolution and said a new General Plan will be voted on in November 2026, so an amendment now is unwise; he urged a 'no' vote.
• James Gray, Partnership for Economic Development, supported the project, saying the proposal affects only 90 acres of the 3,300-acre Island and would revitalize a failed golf course.
• Danielle Brodeaur, resident since 1983, said she was torn: she supports resort/commercial growth but not 300+ residential units, and noted the City lacks true resort amenities such as a day spa.
• Brian Springberg, resident since 1973, supported the project, asking 'if not this, then what?' and arguing the land is undeveloped and not generating revenue; he said housing affordability is a separate private-sector issue.
• Bonny Toy, resident, asked whether the City would have input on the crosswalk and whether beaches would charge fees.

Second public hearing – Planned Development Rezone (ID 25-4968)

• Emiliano Torres said he is not against development but opposed the vagueness: no guarantee of uses, phasing, or construction timeline, and no commitment tied to the bridge schedule.
• Bonny Toy urged that the City require accessibility above minimum ADA standards and defended apartment and Section 8 residents against demeaning social-media comments.
• Jarrett Portz, local developer and owner of The Shops, supported the project, praised the applicant team, said City staff hold developers accountable, and predicted permanent jobs could be double or triple the applicant's estimate.
• Steve Greeley opposed the rezone. He had urged Council to bid the minimum on the property before the auction; he said there is no obligation to rezone, and approval would set a precedent for future Island and Body Beach development. If anything, he said, consider resort/retail but reject residential.
• Shawn Buckley, CEO of Go Lake Havasu, supported the project in professional and resident capacities, noting travelers with incomes of $150,000 or more are traveling now, and the project activates an underutilized space; Go Lake Havasu supports the development.
• Jeanette Clayton, owner/broker of Lake Havasu Vacation Rentals & Sales, representing Nautical Estates Condo Association, acknowledged the developer's cooperation and changes but said some owners do not like the apartments; she raised questions about enforcement of the proposed wall/mutual-agreement stipulation.
• Tom Gerhartz, Nautical Estates resident, said the wall design is the number-one issue; some residents understood there would be no wall, only low landscaping, and want to preserve views.
• John Parrott supported the rezone, noting Planned Development requires major changes to return for approval, the developer cooperated with Nautical Estates, and the beach easement is a strong commitment.

Discussion Items

ID 25-4967 – Major General Plan Amendment for 1040 McCulloch Boulevard North

• Chris Gilbert reviewed the GPA process, explaining the General Plan is a long-range guide that does not grant entitlements; the 90.5-acre golf course property was auctioned by the Arizona State Land Department in September 2023; current Open Space and Park (OSP) and Golf Course (GC) designations do not support the proposed development.
• The request would change the Future Land Use Map to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) in the northwest, Resort Residential (RE-RES) in the central portion, and Resort Related Island (RE-ISL) in the southeast. No outside agency objections were received.
• David Megdal, representative for Falcon Eye Ventures, said the team spent 26 months planning and listening; changes included more open space than required, reduced commercial intensity, relocated access, improved buffers, and 100% shoreline accessibility.
• John Berry, zoning attorney for the applicant, said the General Plan is flexible and the ASLD auction was an 'unforeseen opportunity.' He highlighted compliance with General Plan policies, including shoreline access (15-foot recorded public access easement, 5.5 acres of public beach/shoreline), open space of 33.3 acres (36.8%, compared to the 20%/18-acre minimum), 18.13 acres of publicly accessible open space, 3.2 miles of ungated paths/trails, and use of the Second Bridge Feasibility Study for traffic modeling.
• Berry reported the project is estimated to create 3,203 construction jobs and 807 permanent jobs, generate $8.9 million in one-time construction sales tax, and produce annual sales tax of $2.8 million for the City, $4.6 million for the State, $1.3 million for the County, $1.1 million for the School District, and $644,800 for special districts; total annual economic impact is estimated at $91.2 million.
• Berry also listed changes made for Nautical Estates, including removal of the gas station, reduced retail from 89,400 to 67,100 sq ft (a 21% decrease), 110-260-foot landscape buffers, reduced multifamily units from 103 to 90, reduced building heights from three stories to two, and removal of an effluent pond.
• Staff clarified that most General Development Plan details will be enforced through CC&Rs; conditions and the Development Agreement will address infrastructure; the GPA is separate from the 2026 General Plan Update; and the GPA boundaries were unchanged from the October 1 hearing.
• In response to public questions, Berry said beach, trail, bike, and pedestrian access will be free, while marina boat launch and trailer parking will have fees.
• Commissioner Wilson asked about accountability; Berry and Staff explained that substantial changes to the approved General Development Plan must return for public review, and the permitted-use table can be revised before Council to remove uses like gas stations and shooting ranges.
• Commissioner Annett asked whether approval could be conditioned on the second bridge. City Attorney Kelly Garry advised against conditioning the GPA, citing legal liability; Development Services Director Jeff Thuneman said the second bridge is expected to begin construction in early 2027 and take about 18 months, and a Development Agreement is being drafted to address infrastructure/traffic if the bridge is not completed.
• Commission discussion also addressed HOA/CC&R enforcement, open-space composition, and use-table specificity before a 7-0 vote to recommend approval.

ID 25-4968 – Planned Development Rezone and General Development Plan

• Staff presented the request to rezone the 90.5 acres from Golf Course (GC) to Island Body Beach/Planned Development (I-B/PD), including a mix of resort, marina, commercial, and residential uses: approximately 67,000 sq ft of commercial, over 300 dwelling units (including 90 multifamily), resort/bungalows, a marina, and a 15-foot shoreline access/preservation easement.
• The applicant requested Development Code exceptions: project-specific land-use and dimensional tables; maximum fence/wall height of 8 feet excluding retaining walls; no operating-entry-door requirement; resort-only lighting exemption up to 1,600 lumens when mounted below 8 feet, with all other lighting fully shielded; and up to 10 off-premise directional signs, one up to 12 sq ft.
• Berry said the taller-wall exception is intended for screening equipment and dumpsters, not perimeter walls, and the applicant is willing to work with Nautical Estates on wall and landscape design; the project represents approximately $398 million of new investment.
• Commissioner questions covered buffers, mass grading/view corridors, the inclusion of 90 market-rate apartments, rental vs. sale, ownership retention, and phasing. Berry said the resort would likely be first, residential second, and retail last, and the owner tends to retain legacy ownership.
• Staff listed recommended conditions: the property must substantially match the General Development Plan; off-premise signs require sign permits; the applicant must enter into a Development Agreement addressing infrastructure installation and maintenance; and building permits/design review are required before construction.
• Commissioner Wilson asked for more concrete commitment to the site plan; Commissioner Lehr responded that the General Development Plan presented is part of the approval and deviations require review. Commissioner Stevenson noted that many early emails opposing the project were from September/October and that most concerns had since been addressed.
• The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval to City Council, including conditions for code compliance.

Key Outcomes

• Minutes approved 7-0.
• ID 25-4967 (Major General Plan Amendment) recommended for City Council approval by a 7-0 vote.
• ID 25-4968 (Planned Development Rezone and General Development Plan) recommended for City Council approval by a 7-0 vote.
• Both items will go to City Council on Tuesday, January 13, 2026; the Development Agreement and any revised use-table or wall-stipulation language will be addressed before that hearing.
• The regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for December 17, 2025, is cancelled; the next regular meeting is January 7, 2026.
• Call to Public had no speakers.