Weather Magnet
Subscribe
from archives: News
Printable Version | | Comment (4 comment(s)) | Rate | Text Size
City Council mulls Havasu development
OKs future residential land use on the Island


Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:33 PM MST

The Lake Havasu City Council had some tough decisions to make Tuesday night, concerning future development in the community.

With development figures down, the city Planning Department has been pushing for several amendments to the city’s General Plan, including changing the criteria of a major and minor amendment to the plan, allowing some residential development on the Island and designating the Channel Riverwalk area as Resort-Related Mainland for future land use development.

The City Council’s decision on any of the items was not an easy one. On one hand, they could approve residential development on a majority of the Island, excluding in this particular case the Channel Riverwalk area and making it a subject all in an of itself. On the other, approving residential development without some restriction could create a windfall of residential development on the Island, if some future specifications were not made to percentages.

Council voted Tuesday to approve the Island for some future residential land use designation as a major amendment to the General Plan. However, the council and the city Planning Department agreed to no specifics for the amendment and nothing would go ahead until stipulations for development could be determined by the Planning Division and go through the proper public hearing process with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in the future.

One thing the council and Planning Division did agree upon was the likelihood of no Single-Family Residential development on the Island, although nothing was determined for certain.

As both groups indicated Tuesday, the process for new residential development on the Island could take quite some time and be a long way off.

The Council also came to an agreement on the Channel Riverwalk area, designating it as Resort-Related Mainland, which would allow for future Mixed-Use development along the channel. This would include some percentage of residential development, mixed in with commercial business and resort hotels.

A proposal for changing the land use designation of Crazy Horse Campgrounds was tabled, however, as the council determined no action should be taken until further determination was made as to what residential element would be allowed on the Island, other than along the channel.

Council voted to approve a text amendment to the definition of major and minor amendments to Future Land Use as part of the General Plan. With this, developers with a Specific Plan outside the platted area could apply for a change to the land use designation of a property of 40 to 320 acres or more anytime during the year as a minor amendment.

Anything within the platted area that is five acres or more is a major amendment, as is any development of 40 to 320 acres or more without a Specific Plan outside the platted area.

With so many changes to the city’s General Plan, Vice Mayor Dennis Schilling said why not take the city’s General Plan back to the voters with all the requested amendments, instead of allowing the council to make decisions he feels would essentially change the document voters agreed on in 2002. Schilling said he is against any residential development on the island.

The City Council also approved to back Arizona Water Resources in its request for permission to build a diversion facility at the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge. The city will join Arizona Water Resources in its application to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is up to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine of the application and planned development is compatible with the goals of the refuge.

Arizona Water Resources presented its plan at the Sept. 9 meeting of the City Council.

The council tabled its discussion for further regulations on taxi and livery services in the city for a later date. No specific date was provided for future discussion, though.


Article Rating
Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of havasunews.com.

Reader Comments

suggestion wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Why not try to mimick other successful tourist towns. Palm springs doesn't have the attraction of a beautiful lake, yet it is very popular. The island should be a high-end resort site, not more private homes. How about time-share hotels? That said, the area around the island where the beaches are accessable by car, need to be protected from development. An idea for under the bridge--why not move the Lake Havasu Museum there. I am sure tourists would love to go there, we locals already know our towns history. Thanks for letting me share my ideas. Good luck. "

questions wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Has any consideration been given to setting aside areas for recreation?
Do we have enught water for commercial development?
Will resends from other parts of the city have access to the lake?
Is the London Bridge able to handle the additional traffice? "

Who Owns Island wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Does the City of Lake Havasu own the Island or the State or Private Parties?
What are the owners of CrazyHorse planning to do? Are they giving up the entire Campground for residential development?
Morgan is correct, the locals need lake access on the Island. We sure as heck cannot enjoy the Channel on summer weekends. So that leaves us with Windsor (not so nice), Body Beach (always full unless your up at 5 am) and a couple lighthouse spots at Island end. "

Morgan wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:46 AM:

" So houses on the island. Are there any regulations on the table that will allow more access to the lake by people that do not have a boat, and would like to have their vehicles there with them. Take a look at your access points to the lake and count how many places you can drive to the water. There must only be three, Body beach on the mainland, That beach and another beach by the light house. You wonder why your people are leaving, They cant get to your tourist attraction lake. You want people to come there to live then give them an opertunity to get to the water without a boat. I have watched these places disapear from the people God gave them to. Good luck keeping the few places open to vehicles once the development begins, that is if people can afford to buy houses there any more. "

Post A Comment

You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.

Registered users sign in here:

Become a Registered User

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
*Zip Code:
 

Comment Rules

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone and we reserve the right to withhold or remove any comment from publication.

Do not post:
    * Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
    * Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
    * Personal attacks, insults or threats.
    * The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
    * Comments unrelated to the story.


Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in havasunews.com's story comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of Today's News Herald. Today's News Herald provides an interactive computer service and does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Today's News Herald spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!


Stocks