City gives thumbs up to annexation
Developer donating property for new school
Over the objections of a neighbor, the Yuma City Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to annex property located at the southwest corner of Avenue 6E and 44th Street.
The property owner has plans to develop a single-family home subdivision and pledged a portion of the site for construction of an elementary school.
The annexation area, known as Driftwood Subdivision, consists of six properties and the adjacent Avenue 5½E and the “A” Canal right-of-way. The 113.9 acres are owned by Avenue 6E Land LLC and are currently used for agriculture.
A petition filed with the city was signed by the owners of more than one-half in value of the property and more than onehalf of the persons owning real property, as required by law. In this case, the signature of the developer was enough to satisfy the requirements.
When the ordinance was first introduced at the March 21 regular meeting, James Sheldahl, superintendent of Yuma Elementary School District 1, spoke in support of the annexation. In 2014, residents voted to allow District 1 to sell bonds and use the funds to construct the new Dorothy Hall Elementary School in the Driftwood Subdivision.
Sheldahl noted that this is where the growth in Yuma has been. In the eastern part of the city, the existing schools are at or near capacity.
Hundreds of housing units have been bought up for farm workers and are no longer available for families, which have moved either west to Somerton where housing is affordable or east to this area.
Consequently, the district has an “aggressive” timeline for building the school and will have a capacity of 600 students, Sheldahl said.
He encouraged the council to approve the annexation. “I believe the families that we serve need and deserve affordable housing in proximity to quality schools, and the Driftwood Subdivision will serve both of those purposes.”
However, a neighbor, William Ladd, expressed strong opposition to the annexation, citing concerns with crime, traffic, noise, light pollution and “general reduction of lifestyle.” He noted that residents in the area “chose a rural lifestyle. The developer is trying to choose a different lifestyle for us.”
He also objected that “the city is making a decision that will affect mostly country residents, and they’re not even represented by the city council and that’s kind of disappointing.”
He also alleged that the city did not give neighbors adequate notification of the annexations plans. “It’s a decision that will affect us and our lifestyle tremendously and yet there was hardly any notification to us and to what is going on.”
John Weil, representative for the developer, Hall’s General Contractors, pointed out that “Yuma is surrounded by the best agriculture land in the world, and a decision was made a long time ago not to allow growth there and to preserve that for the future and to push growth out to the east mesa area. That’s exactly where this is at.”
He also noted the developer had listened to the concerns of neighbors. He explained they initially planned to have an entrance and exit on Avenue 5½ East, but that was changed.
“We’re not going to touch 5½E, which is immediately next to their houses. We put in a 50-foot setback, which is unheard of. We put up a taller wall than ever been built, seven feet. Literally, the people in this subdivision won’t be able to see Mr. Ladd and his neighbors. Mr. Ladd and his neighbors won’t be able to see, smell or hear anything that is going on this subdivision,” Weil said, adding that the 113 acres won’t be developed at the same time.
Councilman Mike Shelton said he liked the idea of a new elementary school, but he had concerns with the “manner of communication between the city and Driftwood residents.” He added that he would like to see the notification process evaluated. “I really think it needs to be upgraded.”
City planner Jennifer Albers explained that staff had met the state’s standards for notification and for the public hearing sent out additional mailings to other people.
Shelton said he appreciated the efforts but believes “more can be done when you look at it from the residents’ point of view … They need to be directly spoken to. The more we can directly speak to them, direct mail, knocking on doors, the better that communication will be.”
During Wednesday’s regular meeting, Shelton reiterated that although he thinks the annexation is a good idea, he was still bothered that initially only the property owners were notified and feels that the neighbors should also have been told.
Albers noted this annexation ordinance only makes the properties subject to taxation by the city and doesn’t change the zoning or general plan nor does it allow more density. She added that staff will look to see what other municipalities do in these cases.