Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 meeting of the Lake Havasu City Planning and Zoning Commission. If you'd please rise and join me for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

All right, Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

Vice Chair DeZero.

Here.

Commissioner Lair.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson. Chair Harris.

Here.

Commissioner Medley. Commissioner Costa. Commissioner Thornton.

Here.

Commissioner Annette. Commissioner Stevenson?

Here.

Commissioner Patel?

Okay, seeing that we have a couple of vacancies up here with Ms. Patel and Ms. Costa, please join us as alternates. Correspondence and announcements. Mr. Gilbert.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing was approved by Council of substance in their last meeting was just a number of abandonments and the election pamphlet should be going out soon with the general plan info to all the the households in town to review the ballot language coming up for the November election that's all I have today all right thank you let me

start by saying that this is a public hearing and there's a structured order to the proceeding city staff will present each item there will then be time for the commission to ask questions of the staff and then the applicant will have the opportunity to present their case to the commission that being done we will then open the proceedings to the public for their questions and input i would ask that any one of the public wishes to speak limit their trips to the podium and microphone to one only keep all comments to less than three minutes and to stay on point and not discuss subject matter that is not pertinent to the decision being considered here today. After public testimony is taken, I will then close the public hearing and bring the motion back to the table for city staff's exceptions and conditions of approval. The first item on today's, oh, I have not done the minutes.

I was gonna let you know, but we got there.

Let's start with the approval of the minutes. Are there any, and that item is ID 265367. Are there any additions? modifications, deletions to the minutes of the last meeting by commissioners. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair.

Ms. Zero.

I make a motion to accept the minutes as presented.

We have a motion by Ms. Zero, a second by Mr. Thornton to approve the minutes as written. Any further discussion? Hearing none, let's go ahead and place our votes.

The motion to approve the minutes passes 7-0.

Okay. The first motion on today's agenda is ID 26-5347. This is a request to rezone a portion of 2650 Paseo Dorado, track 2316, block 6, lot 1A, approximately 3,544 square feet from golf course zoning to residential estate district. Mr. Kearns, your presentation, please.

Thank you, Chairman. The subject property was combined with a piece of golf course property in 2019. It measures 0.27 acres and is developed with a single family home. It is located on the eastern corner of Paseo Dorado and Via Naranja. The surrounding residential properties in the area are zoned residential estates and developed with single family homes. This request is to rezone the old golf course portion of the property from golf course to residential estates so it will match the balance of the residential law. This will permit the property owner to use the added golf course land for residential uses and accessory structures that would not be permitted in the current zoning. The rezone will allow the property owner to apply residential estates building setbacks and uses to the entire combined property. The general plan is currently low density residential. This rezone request is in conformance with the general plan. A citizens meeting was held on July 17th, 2026. The applicant stated that no neighbors attended the meeting in person, but one neighbor called in to support the rezone request. The rezone request complies with the required findings of the development code. This item is scheduled to be heard by the city council at its October 13th, 2026 meeting. I'll be happy to answer any questions. The applicant is not present today, but they are on Zoom, currently on Zoom, or Teams. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners?

Nope. Okay, you've indicated the applicant is not here. So it's kind of tough for the applicant to make a presentation. Does the applicant have anything to say on Zoom?

I think they're just here listening for the meeting, unless they wanna say something.

Hi, my name is Brianna Montgomery. I'm not sure if you can see me. I can't see you all. Okay, perfect. My name is Brianna Montgomery. I'm the property owner along with my husband. I'm representing him today. And I just wanted to say thank you for hearing this, our request. And I'm really, I think Doug covered all of it or whomever was speaking just now. I'm sorry, it was hard to see. Covered all of it, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have as well, in addition.

Any questions of the applicant by commissioners? Nope, it's pretty straightforward. Thank you. Great, thank you so much. Appreciate you. This is a public hearing, so I will open it up to the public. If there's anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this item, pro or con, now's the time. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the table for staff's recommendations.

The rezone request complies with the required findings of the development code. It'll need to meet all normal residential estates development code requirements.

All right, commissioners, we are at the table for discussion and or a motion. Anybody? Mr. Thornton? I'm sorry.

No, go ahead.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Thornton. Do we have a second?

And Mr. Stevenson seconds it.

All right, is there any further discussion on the issue? We have a motion by Mr. Thornton, a second by Mr. Stevenson to approve ID 265347 as stated. Any further discussion? Hearing none, let's go ahead and place our votes.

The motion to approve or to recommend approval of the rezone passes seven to zero.

Congratulations and good luck. All right, the next item on today's agenda is ID 265353. This is a request to adopt resolution number 26-07 amending track 2182 parking in common master plan for 2430 Kiowa Boulevard North track 2182 block seven lot three. TO INCREASE THE PARKING IN COMMON AREA FROM A 75-FOOT SETBACK TO 125-FOOT SETBACK AND DECREASE THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK FROM 75 FEET TO 25 FEET IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. MR. GILBERT, YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT DID COME IN AS THE MEETING WAS STARTING, AND THIS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. And also good morning members of the Planning Commission and the viewing public. The subject property is 2430 Kiowa Boulevard North. The applicant plans to construct a new building on the lot which is presently being used as a storage lot. The building on the property to the east was constructed at the back end of the property with a 125 foot setback and the applicant desires to build their new structure right next to it on the left or the west side at the same setback and share the front parking area between the two lots. This setback is 50 feet further back than the approved pick plan shows. The property to the west of the subject parcel has a building on it that is right up on the front property line, does not have room to provide for parking in common in the front of the property to connect to. The zoning map subject property is located in the limited commercial North Kiowa overlay district and surrounded by the same zoning on all sides except on the rear where single family zoning exists across the alley. The applicant wants to push the building back to match the neighboring building to the east and re-stripe the entire shared parking area in front of both buildings, which would then differ from the approved PIC plan that shows a specific parking design just off and parallel to Kiowa within the front 75 feet of the lot. But this plan also provides more parking than the original PIC plan. And I want to afford to that briefly. There's the original parking and common plan. And in the southwest corner of this drawing, the third lot from the left is the one that, I should have marked that, I apologize, that is the subject parcel and the neighbors to the east of it. And there's roughly 18 spaces represented with parking islands on the original plan. So the current plan, they would have more traffic circulation through the site with maintaining the single entrance that's already there on the neighbor to the east. And the common lots would just be completely restriped to match what you see on here. Extending in the future to the east, which would be to the top of the pick site plan, the room that's there would allow for the current pick plan to be followed going to the east. So this is just to fill in kind of a gap where the building to the west was right up front on the street. blocking the parking in common and the two lots over the building is I'm sorry building is way far back and if this building was placed at the setback line that the district requires to accommodate the parking in common you would have a three-step frontage for all three lots and staff believes that this plan is the best way to fix that difficult situation and to kind of congeal all the parking in common into one efficiently usable square parking area. Instead of having one with no parking in front, one with complying with the plan, then the next one having extra long, deep parking. So it was just an unwieldy situation. So basically there's not much else that can be done to facilitate proper parking provision without some form of amendment. Mr. Chair, that's all I have on this. I'll answer any questions you may have. I know it's confusing, but we believe staff is the best solution to a vexing problem on these three particular lots in a row here, and they happen to have the middle of the three.

Let's go back to your colored slides in the beginning, just for clarification. In that slide, you can see that the building to the, What you're calling the west on the left-hand side.

That would be 2420.

2420. That building is all the way out to the front.

Correct.

Okay. The building on the right-hand side, 2440. How far back is that one from the street?

That one's at the 125 setback, which is what the in-between lot's asking to match.

Okay. Okay. And they're looking to match the 125?

Correct. And this plan right here that was presented, the lot that's to the east, they're going to work with that owner to re-stripe both of them to where you have a parking lot with 21 spaces and circulation throughout the lot.

All right. Thanks for the clarification. Any questions of staff by commissioners? Mr. Thornton, just a quick one.

So it's nothing with lot two, right? The second lot, I think it's 2420. Can you go back to that? Right, 2420 is the target property. That's the one to the left, right? Or can you go back to the color slide? Yeah, 2420, that's the...

Sorry, 2430 is target property. 2420 is the property to the west.

2440 to the east. 2420 is not being affected at all, right? I think there's a... Unisource has an easement back there, so they wouldn't be able to do anything with that. I don't know if that's a... I don't think it should affect it, but I was just making sure that we're not doing anything with... It's not affecting 2420. No. That's all.

Mr. Stevenson. So how did we get from 2420 with a building all the way to the front with no common parking in common to 2440 that's 125 feet back with a different parking plan, parking in common plan that's showing buildings at 75 feet. So I assume something was done 24-40 to approve that to be set back like it is?

Yes. The permits would have been required to be issued for its construction.

Okay.

And it's a relatively new site as well.

And obviously there's a lot of undeveloped properties to the east. So are we going to have this on every lot then moving forward? Are they under the existing 75-foot setback off of Kiowa?

Going to the east, if you look at 2440, there's a storage lot next to it, which is actually part of the 2440 property. That storage lot goes out to the edge of the parking in common. So the properties that develop going east are going to be matching the parking in common as they come in for development. We're going to be requiring that.

The parking in common that we are adjusting to or the parking in common map that we have that shows 75-foot setback.

This plan right here. It will be matching the approved plan from Planning Commission. The only reason this is an issue is because it's in between one that's too far forward and one that's too far back.

And I might submit that the parking in common plan might have been put into place after those structures were there.

It might be legal nonconforming. Yeah, the two buildings on 2420 and 2410 have been almost 30 plus years that they've been there. I guess I'm just trying to process, so where are we going to be? Are we going to have this then for every lot that wants to be developed moving forward up Kiowa?

No. I would suggest that everybody has the ability to ask. But whether or not it's acceptable would be determined at that time.

Staff believes this is an adequate solution to the problem that's presented with this particular lot. If it had been a lot further east, we would have asked that they follow the parking in common plan.

Mr. Tuneman. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commission. I would just like to add, Chris, if you could go to the proposed parking in common plan. It's just important to note that You are correct, it was somewhere in the 90s where this parking in common plan took place, so those buildings were built prior to this plan. It is important to note, if you could go to the proposed parking in common, it is important to note that when you come in on the east side of the property, the entrance to the property, the first two rows of parking, those will be able to continue with that master parking in common plan. So if you can see on that plan, there's a 75 foot setback line on the proposed lot. those two rows of parking would continue up the block to the east and match the master parking and common plan that makes sense chris if you could point that out on there yeah i'm running the arrow there there's there's the 75 foot setback so potentially those buildings moving to the east could be set back there but you could see how those first two rows of parking would continue up the block. So this is actually adding some additional parking for these two properties, but it won't affect it moving to the east. Thank you. Hopefully that clarifies.

Okay. Any questions of Mr. Tooman?

And if you look at the area map, the storage area for 2440 is already set with a front boundary next to the parking and common line. So as it extends east, it's going to go across the front of that and head on down the street. And we're not going to allow anything intentionally be pushed back unless it comes to you guys for approval.

2524 has the same situation.

I'm sorry?

It said 25-24 is the same as 24-40.

That's already developed.

Right, with the storage lot, yes.

Okay, so we're just doing 24-30 to match 24-40, but anything... Yeah, we're not affecting any of the other parking in common.

We're not changing the plan.

No, no.

Any other questions? All right, does that conclude your presentation?

And yes, I'm done, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Okay, is the applicant present? Would you like to make a presentation? You need to come to the microphone to state your name for the record, please.

My name is Colby, good morning.

I'm sorry, your name again?

Colby. Colby, okay. So I just have a couple of questions for you guys. Sorry, I have to look at my notes. Are there any modifications that you guys would like to see shown on the submitted or revised site plan named option four?

We don't have anything to do with the design of the project.

Okay, I was just told to ask these questions because this is all way above my head, so I apologize.

This is not a design review hearing.

Okay. Well, then I guess that is it because the other one is also a design review question. Thank you.

All right, I'll now open it up to the public. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Anybody at all? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion and bring it back to the table for staff's recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For co-compliance, we have three requirements. The development shall substantially match the submitted parking and common site plan. Also attaches exhibit A to the resolution. Design review approval to ensure compliance with all applicable city codes, including driveway locations and parking, is required prior to development of the properties. And finally, any private deed restrictions that need to be amended for this parking change are required to be recorded with Mojave County.

Okay, any questions of staff by commissioners? All right, we are at the table for discussion and or a motion on this item. Commissioners, Ms. Zero.

Make a motion. All right. On ID 26-5353, make a motion to accept the request to adopt resolution number 26-07, amending track 2182, parking and common master plan, For 2430 Kiowa Avenue North, track 2182, block 7, lot 3, to increase the parking in common area from a 75-foot setback to a 125-foot setback and decrease the rear building setback from 75 feet to 25 feet in the limited commercial district, North Kiowa overlay, C-1, NKO. Thank you.

Okay, do we have a second? A second. We have a motion by Ms. Zero and a second by Mr. Thornton to approve item number ID26-5353 as stated. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and call for the question.

The motion to approve the resolution passes seven to zero.

Good luck. The next item on today's agenda is the call to the public. If there's anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to the commission on any subject whatsoever, now is the time. Seeing none, I'll close the call to the public portion and future meetings, Mr. Gilbert.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 9-16, September 16th meeting is canceled. We don't have anything for you guys, so get a holiday. The next meeting that items could be presented would be October 7th. October 7th.

So that's it. Okay. Thank you, everybody. We stand adjourned.