By Roland Murphy for AZBEX
Even with several members expressing appreciation for the project, itself, concerns about height and location ultimately led the Lake Havasu City Planning and Zoning Commission to unanimously recommend against approving a proposed resort and condominium development in its July 17 meeting.
Architect and project planning firm Studio KDA presented the project in an informational session in June before reappearing to request action on a general plan amendment and rezoning request for the approximately 14.1-acre property on Bahama Avenue. The Bahama Ave Resort site lies southeast of Industrial Blvd. and Lake Havasu Avenue, the corner of which is occupied by an area zoned for commercial mixed-use currently occupied by storage uses.
According to the presentation and materials, developer Cole Cannon intends to build a resort community consisting of 221 condominium units, two restaurants, a deli-style marketplace, and water features that include a lagoon and wave pool. Construction would be in three phases, with Phase I consisting of the non-residential components and the first 45 units.
Cannon has a similar development—Cannon Beach—in Mesa, with three phases currently noted as under construction, one of which is too small to be included in the DATABEX project database.
A traffic study prepared last September and submitted with the proposal originally called for 211 units and a two-phase construction cycle, with Phase I planned for the initial units and non-residential components, and Phase II developing five residential buildings of 34 units each.
Plan Requirements and Concerns
The site is currently zoned for high-density residential development. The rezoning and plan amendments are necessary to open the water features, restaurants and commercial spaces for public use, which the development team says is an essential component of the planned community.
Up to 300 units would be allowed under the existing zoning, so the proposed development would still have roughly 75 fewer units than currently allowed.
In a community meeting in January, residents voiced concerns about traffic impacts. KDA Associate Principal Austin Springer explained in the June meeting that the project team had worked with City engineers and commissioned a traffic study to determine impacts of Phase I construction through buildout and for the subsequent 10 years. He said several areas around the site were examined, initial solutions were planned, and the team would continue to work with staff to address all the needed components.
Water use and supply sufficiency were also brought up, but representatives said they had met with City officials and confirmed a more than adequate supply, adding that the water recreation areas for the development would be more water-efficient than single-family homes with pools on a similarly sized subdivision.
The market model for the development has not been finalized. Springer said all the units will be built in an apartment style. While the final ownership structure would be determined “by funding sources and market research,” the likely plan would be to provide the Phase I units, situated closest to the amenities, as a resort and the subsequent units as a condominium-mapped short-term rental community.
Height and Location Present Problems
The proposed buildings are planned for five stories and approximately 65 feet. Even though the planning vision is “to cluster the density into fewer buildings and a smaller footprint to provide larger setbacks and landscape buffers, maximize parking, and provide room for the pool amenities,” the height was a primary concern voiced by Commission members and the public in the July 17 meeting.
The commercial buildings to the north are one- and two-stories. Properties to the southeast are low-density residential with either single-family homes or vacant parcels. Several commissioners and audience members said the height went against the standard zoning and development aesthetic philosophy of graduated increases and would create an abrupt and incongruous intrusion on the visual landscape.
In comments to the Commission in the July 17 meeting, Cannon appeared to ruffle some commissioners’ feathers when he said, “If Lake Havasu City is not open for business, if you don’t want to allow this project to go forward, then maybe we are better off doing low-income, affordable housing.”
Several commissioners and commenters had said the multifamily use for which the land is currently zoned would, in fact, be a better use for the property, particularly given the ongoing housing shortage in the community. Commissioner Joan Dzuro, who spent most of her career in corporate recruiting, said the resort component was worrisome in that she anticipated problems finding staff to fill the necessary service positions, given the lack of available housing options.
Nearly all the commissioners who commented on the presentations and the project said they thought it was a well-thought-out and attractive potential development that could fit well into the Lake Havasu community, but that the planned 65-foot height at the proposed location presented significant problems.
Several variations of, “It’s a great project, but not at this location,” were offered during the discussion period.
Planning staff had recommended approval of the project, but the Commission was ultimately unanimous in its decision to recommend denial of the plan amendments and rezoning.
City Council is scheduled to hear the proposal and issue a final decision in August. It is not known yet if the developers will continue to pursue the project as is or modify it to address the concerns raised in the two Planning and Zoning meetings. If the project design is modified, it will likely be withdrawn or continued from the August schedule and brought back at a later date.
