Planning commission backs rezoning at Shops at Lake Havasu, limits some uses on vacant outparcels

Lake Havasu City planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 18 recommended that the City Council approve a major plan development amendment that would rezone part of the Shops at Lake Havasu from a planned development (PD) to the underlying C-2 General Commercial district and create a new C-2 PD for three vacant outparcels with specific use restrictions.

The change would remove Tract 2396 (APN 120-61-002), which includes PetSmart, Beals and Cactus RV, from PD 0500200008 to the C-2 district, and rezone Tract 2392, Block 1, Lots 5, 6 and 8 (APNs 120-54-005, -006 and -008) from the existing C-2 PD to a new C-2 PD that disallows storage units, warehousing and wholesale distribution, and outdoor storage uses on those three vacant lots. The staff report recommended the same prohibition on freestanding signs along Highway 95 that applies to the original PD remain in place. The commission voted 6-0 to forward the recommendation to the City Council.

The vote follows a staff presentation that concluded the application met the requirements of "14 0 5 0 4 L." Stuart Schmeling, planning staff, explained the requested rezoning and recommended conditions, including carrying forward the ordinance restriction on freestanding highway-facing signs. "The staff finds the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14 0 5 0 4 L," Schmeling said.

Commissioners and the applicant discussed several issues before the recommendation motion. Commissioners raised concerns that outdoor display and storage of recreational vehicles and boats was already taking up parking intended for shoppers, particularly in the alley and diagonal parking spaces near the storefronts. Schmeling said outdoor display of vehicles is a permitted use in the C-2 district, and the current building and lease configuration limits how much change is likely for the already‑developed parcel.

Rob Sampson, the applicant representing Selberg Associates, said the property owner seeks flexibility to attract new tenants amid national declines in big-box retail. "We just have to find new avenues to keep the building open and viable," Sampson said, adding that no specific new tenants were under contract for the vacant lots.

Commissioners debated whether to prohibit vehicle service or repair on the outparcels. Staff had suggested excluding vehicle service or repair, but commissioners determined the zoning code does not use a single "vehicle service" term and that specific definitions for light and heavy vehicle service, marine repair and related uses exist in the code. Commissioner Gordon moved to recommend approval with staff recommendations but removing the proposed prohibition on vehicle service or repair for the outparcels; Commissioner Doug Hardy seconded. The motion passed 6-0.

The final recommendation forwarded to the City Council therefore would: 1) rezone the existing building parcel to C-2; 2) create a new C-2 PD for Lots 5, 6 and 8 that allows all C-2 uses except storage units, warehousing and wholesale distribution, and outdoor storage uses; and 3) retain the existing ordinance restriction prohibiting freestanding highway-facing signs on those outparcels. The commission specifically removed a proposed blanket exclusion of vehicle service/repair so that any specific repair or service uses must be considered within the code’s defined categories and, where applicable, through conditional-use procedures.

Commissioners also discussed medical-marijuana uses in the C-2 district after Commissioner Nelson asked whether a medical marijuana dispensary or "infusion facility" could locate in the area. Schmeling confirmed that a medical marijuana dispensary is listed as a permitted use in the C-2 district in the zoning code; cultivation requires a conditional-use permit. Nancy Campbell, who spoke during discussion, described infusion facilities as locations that create edible or other infused medical-marijuana products and noted they are regulated and subject to state siting requirements. The applicant said such uses are highly regulated and no prospective marijuana-related tenants were in hand.

No members of the public provided formal testimony during the public hearing portion of the item. With the commission’s motion, the staff recommendation and the record of discussion will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.

The commission’s vote on Sept. 18 was a recommendation to the City Council; it does not itself change zoning. The City Council will consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation at a later meeting.