Round 2 in battle over land use
Developer of apartment project rejected by voters returns with another plan for site
The stage is being set for a rematch between a local developer and nearby residents over the future of a 7-acre piece of land at the northeastern edge of Yuma, where apartments were once slated to be built.
About 30 residents from the areas south of 24th Street and east of Avenue 9E gathered on gym bleachers at Castle Dome Middle School Wednesday for a city-led neighborhood meeting to get public feedback about a zoning case going to the Planning and Zoning Commission Oct. 22, and after that to the City Council for approval.
The rezoning request was identical to one submitted two years ago that many of these same people circulated or signed petitions against.
It would have changed the zoning from agriculture to medium-density housing, and while it didn’t contain any detailed building plans, representatives of owner Saguaro Desert Land Inc. said the intent was to build about 85 apartments.
It was approved by the City Council over widespread objections from nearby residents who said the project would worsen traffic and school overcrowding along 24th Street east of Araby Road.
The opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to voters in a November 2016 ballot referendum, where 60 percent rejected it.
So they weren’t very happy about what they saw.
“The empirical question is, what has changed? Nothing has changed in the request from the applicant, and I have to assume nothing has changed also in our perception of what is going to happen,” said Luis Arroyo, one of the leaders of
the effort to put the question to voters.
“So without any information, it makes it difficult for us to try to accommodate the applicant,” he added.
Attorney William Katz, representing Saguaro Desert Land Inc., said there is one key difference between now and two years ago; the owners, brothers and developers Brian and Michael Hall, are not set on building apartments.
They are considering other types of housing, including condominiums or townhomes, their lawyer said.
“To clear up any and all confusion, it seems that there is some popular opinion, that my client has settled on apartments. That is incorrect. I am here to tell you that my client intends to consider all options under the R-2 request for medium density,” Katz said.
Medium-density development can have about five to 13 residences per acre under the city code, while low-density areas, including the areas near the lot in question, must have fewer.
The landowner has consistently said that building low-density housing on the property would not be financially feasible due to the steep topography of parts of it.
Townhouse and condo development were things that some opponents said they might be more open to seeing on the property last time, but none were willing to make any commitments on Wednesday, despite Katz’s repeated efforts to question them.
Donna White, a Realtor and president of the political action committee that collected the petitions against the previous apartment project, was the first resident to speak to Katz.
“I’m assuming that since you’re in the real estate business you represent buyers and sellers as well as developers,” Katz said. “And that one thing you’re probably a firm believer in is individual property rights, and the ability to fully and finally develop and get full use of one’s property.”
She said “Yes, but not to the sacrificing of the others around it.”
“What would you like to see as far as medium-density, R-2?” Katz continued.
White answered, “I’d have to search all that entails, all the different possibilities, because I was not prepared for that. But low-density or put a park there.”
Katz said, “Those aren’t the options before you.”
“Then I don’t have anything else to say,” White said.
The property is already slated for medium-density housing under the city’s General Plan for land use, after residents collected petitions to overturn that council decision, but were rejected in court for a technical issue.
Resident Brad Edmondson said to Katz, “We went through this last time through another attorney. If Brian Hall was to walk down here and say, ‘As a small community, can we get together and figure
out what to do with this plot of land, I think we can get a lot farther, instead of speaking though somebody.”
Katz said he would pass that on to the developer, who never appeared at any public hearings during the previous events.