Lake Havasu City Council on Tuesday approved a major amendment to the city’s general plan and a planned‑development rezoning that clear the way for a proposed 90‑acre mixed‑use community on Pittsburgh Point.

The council voted 5‑2 to amend the general plan and then approved the rezoning and development agreement by the same margin after an evening of presentations, neighborhood comment and council questions about shoreline access, infrastructure and the timing of a planned second bridge.

Developer representatives said the plan, led by Falcon Eye Ventures, converts a long‑vacant former golf course into a hospitality‑first master plan that includes a resort, village‑scale commercial space, more than 300 residential units in the central area and a resort‑related island designation along the southern shoreline. The team said it has redesigned the proposal in response to community and planning commission input, removing proposed gates, shrinking commercial intensity, increasing open space and expanding shoreline easements.

"100% of the shoreline will have public access," counsel John Berry said in the presentation, adding the applicant proposes an average 100‑foot shoreline preservation easement (not less than 15 feet in places) and that those easements would be recorded on plats and reviewed by city staff and the city attorney.

The applicant also cited economic projections prepared for the development: more than 3,200 construction‑period jobs, roughly 300 permanent on‑site jobs, and an estimated annual tax benefit to Lake Havasu City of about $2.8 million, with total annual tax receipts across jurisdictions near $10 million, the presentation said.

Residents and stakeholders were split. Opponents worried the entitlements would allow future owners to restrict access or change the plan. "I'm worried this will become private and gated," resident Linda Bell said, citing beach access and the site's history. Several speakers pressed the council for stronger guarantees that shoreline access would be permanent and that the city would not be left with infrastructure costs.

Supporters — including the Planning & Zoning Commission chair, the Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce and several longtime residents — said the property is blighted and the project provides an opportunity for shoreline access, jobs and services on the island. "This project brings amenities island residents have asked for," the chamber CEO said.

Council members questioned whether approval of the general plan amendment should be conditioned on the rezoning or on construction of the proposed second bridge. City staff and the city attorney advised that recorded easements, the PD standards and the development agreement, together with the city's statutory tools (including motions to reconsider if zoning does not follow) provide mechanisms to protect public access and require the developer to meet conditions set in the ordinance.

Council member Nancy Campbell, who moved the general plan amendment, said the applicant had made substantial, binding concessions and that the city's approval would require recorded easements and a development agreement before construction could proceed. "These are good, positive growth opportunities for our community," Campbell said during debate.

The developer offered to restrict occupancy of vertical buildings until construction on the city‑led second bridge begins and to allow horizontal infrastructure (water, sewer, utilities and roads) to proceed — language that staff said could be incorporated in the development agreement if the council directs it.

What passed: a resolution approving the major general‑plan amendment changing the property from ‘‘open space and park’’ to a mix of commercial mixed use, resort residential and resort‑related island uses; and an ordinance rezoning the parcel to Island Body Beach Planned Development with a detailed general development plan and a development agreement that includes infrastructure contributions and recorded easements.

Next steps: the rezoning approval allows the developer to proceed to the planned‑development implementation steps in the ordinance and to file plats and development‑agreement terms required by code. Any substantial deviations from the approved PD or general development plan would require additional public hearings before planning and zoning and the city council.