Falcon Eye Ventures asked the Lake Havasu City Planning Commission at a public hearing to amend the Lake Havasu City general plan for an 87.9-acre parcel at 1040 McCulloch Boulevard North, seeking to change the designation from open space and park to commercial mixed use, resort residential and resort-related island to allow a resort-anchored mixed-use development. The planning staff opened the hearing and said no action would be taken today; a second required hearing and the associated planned-development rezoning are scheduled for Nov. 5, 2025.

The proposed plan calls for commercial uses at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to McCulloch and Beachcomber boulevards with roughly 62,000 square feet of retail, a central residential area with “over 300” dwelling units (the applicant specifically cited 103 multifamily units) and a resort area on the more visible eastern shoreline featuring a resort facility and bungalow units. The applicant also said it will preserve a 15-foot public shoreline access easement across the entire frontage as required by the island-body beach zoning district.

The parcel was formerly operated as a golf course on leased state land, the city staff report said; after abandonment the Arizona State Land Department auctioned the tract in September 2023 and the current applicant purchased it. Staff told commissioners that under Arizona law and the Lake Havasu City general plan, amendments affecting property larger than 40 acres and located outside the city’s original platted area must be processed as a major amendment, which triggers a more extensive public-review process and two hearings. Staff said the proposed amendment is in conformance with many general-plan goals and objectives and that no outside reviewing agencies had submitted comments to date.

Applicant representatives described design and mitigation measures they say respond to community feedback gathered over more than 24 months of outreach. Among the project features the applicant identified: an increase in open space (they said the project provides roughly 37 percent of the site as open space and claimed that equals an 87 percent increase above minimum ordinance requirements), a parking supply they said is roughly 57 percent above ordinance minimums, increased landscape buffers (a 40-foot buffer increase and building setbacks to Nautical Estates up to 125 feet, with some setbacks as large as 260 feet), pedestrian connections, two enhanced crossings at Beachcomber Boulevard, retention of two existing lighthouses with access for the local lighthouse association, dark-sky full-cutoff lighting, and replacement of an existing surface pond with an underground reclaimed-water system. The applicant said it will upsized a water main from 8 inches to 12 inches to improve water pressure and fire flow and that attenuators will be installed for any boat-dock locations.

On housing and uses, the applicant said the residential mix will include single-family lots, townhomes (the applicant indicated 36 townhomes), multifamily (a maximum of 103 units was cited), and shoreline homes. Applicant counsel and the developer said townhomes would be for sale and they presently anticipate the multifamily units would be rental units, but price ranges and final tenure were not specified and remain subject to future design and market decisions. The applicant declined to commit at this hearing to short-term-rental restrictions, saying that decision will appear in later project documents if it is important to the community.

Several residents and stakeholders spoke during public comment. Concerns included public access to shoreline and parking (several commenters warned that shoreline access through private property can be effectively limited), the effect of a major-plan amendment on future island and shoreline development, potential impacts to traffic and coordination with the city’s proposed second bridge, infrastructure capacity questions (notably sewer and electric), project phasing and enforceability of promised amenities, and disability-access details beyond minimum ADA requirements.

City staff and other presenters provided clarifications in the hearing record. Tim Kelly, deputy director of public works, said the city’s wastewater system was not at capacity: current average usage is about 52 percent of capacity and long-range projections to 2040 were roughly 63 percent, so the comment that sewage is “at max” was contradicted by staff. Staff and the applicant agreed the city does not control electric utility operations; the applicant pledged infrastructure upgrades (water main upgrade and other improvements) and said many issues had been raised during outreach and would be addressed during design. Fire Chief Pete Palapas told commissioners that, at this preliminary stage, current fire operations and the existing bridge provide adequate service for the development as proposed.

Several commissioners pressed the applicant on enforceability and sequencing. Applicant counsel and staff said the November hearing will include the planned-development rezoning and that, if approved, the city’s ordinance, a development agreement and restrictive covenants (deed restrictions) are typical mechanisms to lock in commitments; city staff said major aspects of an approved planned development are enforced through the ordinance and the development agreement but that private deed restrictions may also be used as a “second belt and suspenders” approach. The applicant said its preferred phasing would build the resort first, then housing, and retail last, but cautioned phasing can change.

No vote or recommendation was taken at the hearing. Staff reiterated this was the first of two required hearings for a major general-plan amendment; the commission and public will receive the rezoning / planned-development materials and a second formal hearing and vote on Nov. 5, 2025. Commissioners and several public speakers asked staff to ensure legal public-access easements and clear enforcement mechanisms are included in any approval package.

Why it matters: the request would change the city’s land-use framework for a large, highly visible island parcel and would permit a large private development that proponents say will replace a vacant, deteriorated golf-course site with tourist-serving amenities, new housing and public shoreline access. Opponents and some residents caution that a general-plan amendment sets a precedent for state-trust land uses on the island and that binding guarantees on public access, infrastructure upgrades and deed restrictions should be explicit before any rezoning or construction approvals occur. The commission took public testimony and asked questions; it will consider a formal recommendation when the amendment and associated planned-development rezoning return in November.