Planning commission recommends rezoning of 90-acre Pittsburgh Point site after debate over shoreline access and buffers

The Lake Havasu City Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 3 unanimously recommended that city council approve a major general-plan amendment and a planned development rezone for 1040 McCulloch Boulevard North, a roughly 90.5-acre parcel on Pittsburgh Point that the applicant proposes to redevelop as a mixed-use waterfront community anchored by a resort.

The developer, represented at the hearing by attorney John Berry and a Falcon Eye Ventures representative, told commissioners the revision would reclassify the site from Open Space/Park to a mix of Commercial Mixed Use, Resort Residential and Resort-Related Island. Berry said the plan would provide about 67,000 square feet of commercial space, more than 300 dwelling units (including approximately 90 multifamily units), and a resort area, and that the project is supported by a 99-page general development plan submitted to staff. “A 100% of the shoreline will be accessible to the public,” Berry said during the presentation, adding that shoreline access would be implemented through recorded public easements and plats reviewed by the city attorney.

Why it matters: the commission’s recommendation (both the major plan amendment and the zoning rezone passed 7–0) moves the project to the City Council for final action on Jan. 13, 2026. If council approves the rezoning and ordinance exhibits, the permit-level development and any substantial changes must return to public hearings. The proposal is the first major island parcel sold at state-land auction (September 2023) to seek this scale of redevelopment, and commissioners repeatedly raised that the decision will set a precedent for future island auctions.

Public reaction at the hearing was mixed. Emiliano Torres, an island resident, warned that recorded promises could be undone by private governing documents and called the project a “bright shiny object,” saying public access could be controlled by an HOA rather than the city. “There’s no meaningful changes to what they call public access,” Torres said, arguing for stronger guarantees. In response the applicant and staff emphasized that required public access points and a 15-foot shoreline preservation easement would be shown on plats and could be required as conditions in the development agreement and ordinance.

Nautical Estates condominium owners pressed a separate but related concern about buffering and a proposed screening wall on the property line that could affect views. Residents and representatives said they want either no tall wall or carefully negotiated, lower-profile screening and landscaping; the applicant said it would work with an authorized representative of the Nautical Estates HOA to agree on wall design and landscaping and that city code already requires a level-of-screening buffer between the zones. Jeff Tooneman, the city’s development services director, confirmed the code includes buffer/screening standards that typically set a minimum wall/landscape requirement.

Traffic, infrastructure and timing also drew attention. The applicant cited a city/ADOT second-bridge feasibility study and a traffic technical report reviewed by city transportation staff; the presentation said the two-bridge scenario would leave over 68% capacity for future traffic, and the developer noted a development agreement would address infrastructure responsibilities. Staff told commissioners that if the bridge were delayed, the development agreement and subsequent engineering reviews would identify what additional roadway improvements would be required.

Financial and program details presented by the applicant included an economic impact analysis estimating about 3,200 construction jobs, roughly 308 on-site jobs, an estimated one-time construction sales tax of about $9 million, and an estimated $2.8 million in new annual tax revenue for Lake Havasu City. The applicant characterized many programmatic numbers (unit counts, commercial square footage) as maximums that could be lower but not higher in the ordinance exhibits.

What was decided: The commission voted 7–0 to recommend the major general-plan amendment (ID 25-4967) and later, also 7–0, to recommend approval of the planned development rezone and general development plan (ID 25-4968) with the exceptions and staff conditions (including a required development agreement and that the property substantially match the submitted general development plan).

What’s next: Both items are scheduled for City Council consideration on Jan. 13, 2026. If the council approves the ordinance, the general development plan, permitted-use table and dimensional standards will become conditions of the zoning; any substantial changes later would return to the public hearing process. The city staff said recorded easements, plats and the development agreement will be the primary mechanisms to secure public access commitments and infrastructure obligations.

Quotes: “Trust but verify,” applicant counsel John Berry said as he described recorded easements and staff review; resident Emiliano Torres told commissioners the plan was a “bright shiny object” and urged that promises be backed by enforceable commitments. Planning staff and the applicant repeatedly stated that public access and easements would be recorded and enforced through the plat and development agreement if the project proceeds.

The hearing record and staff report will accompany the council packet; the council hearing date is Jan. 13, 2026.