There are many different way to setup what you want to do.
Here's one of the ways:
With the scenario you've describe you have 3 controllers opperating in standby mode (of different types) which could be described as idle till a controller fails. I'd be tempted to utilise all of the local controllers and split the APs between them (perhaps) equally depending on your nework, then just leave the standby-master in standby mode.
HA-GRP 1
192.168.10.13 ->Role ->Dual
192.168.10.14 ->Role ->Dual
HA-GRP 2
192.168.10.15 ->Role ->Dual
192.168.10.16 ->Role ->Dual
4 AP GROUPS
Each ap-group with differet AP System profiles (different LMS/backup LMS)
ap-group1
- lms - 192.168.10.13
- backup lms - 192.168.10.14
ap-group2
- lms - 192.168.10.14
- backup lms - 192.168.10.13
ap-group3
- lms - 192.168.10.15
- backup lms - 192.168.10.16
ap-group4
- lms - 192.168.10.16
- backup lms - 192.168.10.15
Setting it up in this way would take advantage of the processing power and wired bandwidth available on all the local controllers whilst still providing fast failover.
HA Userguide page
Fast Failover
Active/Active Deployment Model
In this model, two controllers are deployed in dual mode. Controller one acts as standby for the APs served by controller two, and vice-versa. Each controller in this deployment model supports approximately 50% of its total AP capacity, so if one controller fails, all the APs served by that controller would fail over to the other controller , thereby providing high availability redundancy to all APs in the cluster.
Figure 1 Active-Active HA Deployment