Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends Hilltop Church rezone with limits on future building heights
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended rezoning Hilltop Church property to an R1 PD and approved a height exception allowing Building A to reach 30 feet from the established maximum grade while limiting future buildings B, C and D to 15 feet from their pad elevations.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lake Havasu City Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 7 recommended approval of a planned-development (PD) rezoning for Hilltop Church that would allow a 30-foot building height for the immediate expansion (Building A) and place 15-foot height limits on three future building pads unless those pads are later designated with specific pad elevations.
Staff told the commission the church property sits on about 6.1 acres east of McCulloch Boulevard and has varied topography, with roughly a 33-foot drop from the highest to the lowest points on the site. Because many older church sites lack a recorded maximum grade, staff said it established a maximum grade of elevation 115.5 feet for the property and explained how building heights translate from that benchmark. Under the applicant’s request, a 30-foot structure above that grade would reach about elevation 1185 (staff gave the vertical translation during the presentation).
Staff recommended a compromise: allow Building A to be no taller than 30 feet from the established maximum grade at the top of the site but limit future buildings (labeled B, C and D on the concept plan) to 15 feet measured from their proposed pad elevations, to reduce potential impacts on adjacent homes. Staff noted that approving a blanket 30-foot height across the whole site could allow taller buildings at lower pads and have significant effects on nearby property owners.
Rick Boucher of RB Design represented the church and asked the commission to allow 30-foot heights for future buildings as well, saying future phases could occur 10–15 years or longer after the initial construction and that when Building A is replaced in a later phase the property will drop in elevation and allow taller buildings without adverse effects. He told commissioners the congregation had held a neighborhood meeting; three neighbors attended and raised concerns only about traffic flow.
A nearby resident, Ron Austin, told the commission he lives directly across from the church and said his primary concern is driveway alignment and safety on the slope; he said additional buildings near the street could complicate circulation and asked that the commission consider protective measures if exit patterns change in the future. Staff and the applicant clarified that parking, grading and specific circulation details must be addressed during civil-plan and building-permit review processes.
Commissioners discussed options including setting specific pad elevations now (so a 30-foot measurement would come from a defined pad elevation) or approving only the immediate Building A’s 30-foot height and requiring future buildings to return for review. Several commissioners and staff expressed concern that overly prescriptive PD conditions for buildings that may not be developed for many years can be difficult to interpret later and can hinder future applicants. Staff noted that future development proposals will require neighborhood notice and design-review submissions.
After discussion, Commissioner Nelson moved to recommend approval of Land Use Action ID 19-2097 — rezoning Tract 123, Block 8, Lot 1 and Tract 125 Parcel H from R1 to R1 PD — with two conditions: (1) Building A shall be no taller than 30 feet from the maximum grade established for the property; and (2) future buildings B, C and D shall be no taller than 15 feet from their proposed pad elevations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hardy and the commission approved the recommendation. The action will be forwarded to City Council for final consideration.
Staff recommended the PD with the stated conditions; if the applicant later pursues different elevations or higher buildings for future pads, the applicant would need to return for amendments and additional neighborhood notice as required by the city code.

