Avenue B rezoning fails to get panel’s backing
The Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to recommend rejection of a rezoning request for property on Avenue B, following strong neighborhood opposition and a letter from the city administrator outlining concerns with having side-by-side high-density projects in that area.
The action took place during the commission’s Monday meeting. The recommendation will now be
forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
In an unusual move, City Administrator Greg Wilkinson submitted a letter asking the commission to consider the transportation and infrastructure factor in the case.
Barry Olsen, the property owner’s representative, seemed blindsided by Wilkinson’s letter and said he had never seen a city administrator give his opinion in a P&Z case. He added he did not know of the letter until that moment and had not been given a chance to read it nor discuss it with his client.
Olsen, on behalf of South Avenue B LLC, requested a General Plan amendment that would change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for 5.9 acres located at 1421 S. Avenue B.
Jennifer Albers, a principal planner for the city, said the owner intends to market the property to an apartment complex developer.
The property is located between Burger King and the vacant El Pappagallo Mexican Restaurant. A tire shop is currently on the site. This is the second of two hearings for this case. The first was held Jan. 22.
Planning staff recommended approval of the request. However, Wilkinson pointed out that staff generally recommends rezoning if the proposed zoning complies with the land use matrix of the General Plan and if some future project could meet the zoning code requirements.
But without having more information, such as platting and building plans, “it is often difficult to foresee whether a proposed project would fit the required parameters. This is especially difficult when the scope of the project is completely unknown, speculative, and in this case, cumulative because of the zoning on the adjacent (4.8-acre) parcel,” Wilkinson explained.
The City Council unanimously approved a rezoning request in February for adjacent property on Avenue B.
The council voted to rezone the 4.8 acres located at 1451 S. Avenue B, from Agriculture to High Density Residential.
Olsen, also the representative for this property owner, Ghiotto Family Properties, has said they do not currently have plans to develop the property but believe that the new zoning might attract an apartment complex developer. However, Olsen said the two property owners are not connected.
Neighbors also opposed this request, citing the same concerns, including traffic impact and the density that a potential apartment complex would bring.
In his letter dated March 12, Wilkinson said one of the “most concerning” factors is the traffic impact and the logistics of accommodating the highest density with two similar projects in adjacent properties.
“Traffic issues and city infrastructure that would need to be replaced have caused City Administration to reconsider the timing of two separate high density residential projects in the same area and the burden it would place on existing infrastructure and/or taxpayers,” Wilkinson said.
Tyrone Jones was the most vocal among the commissioners, explaining that he would be voting against the request for several reasons. “Comments from the community need to be considered,” he said.
“I’m a little surprised,” Olsen told Jones, pointing out that the commissioner previously voted to approve the same request for the adjacent property. At that time, Jones said he was a firm believer in people’s property rights and although he didn’t believe this was the best place for apartments, he would vote for it because it’s “what’s right by the letter,” even if it wasn’t his personal preference.
Jones explained that he had not been able to deeply research the Ghiotto case, which he has done with this case, and that if he could, he would go back and vote against the first request.
“I didn’t know what was coming down the road,” Jones said, noting that there were “too many challenges not yet clearly defined” and that the neighborhood opposition went beyond the “not in my backyard” mentality. He said his decision had nothing to do with property rights.
Steve Shadle, who lives in the area, has repeatedly spoken against the proposed zoning changes to the Avenue B properties. On Monday, he reiterated many of his concerns, which have included traffic congestion and the impact of more high-density housing on schools, sewer and public safety.
He said neighbors initially didn’t protest the Ghiotto case because they did not know about it. Another citizen said that they are circulating a referendum petition on the Ghiotto case, which would place the decision in the hands of voters.
“It doesn’t need to be a yes right now,” Jones told the Yuma Sun after the meeting.
“It may come back to us again, we may have to look at it again, but considering everything that is now involved that I think would be a challenge, I thought it was best to vote no.”