Development plan splits P&Z panel
Hamel, Ott: Respect existing rural lifestyle
A proposed development that has received significant opposition split the Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing Monday.
In connection to a request that would increase the residential density from rural to low in a proposed development, two commissioners voted against it, noting that they believe the city needs to respect existing residents who moved to the area for the rural lifestyle.
Ultimately, the commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the request to change the land use designation from rural density to low density for 15.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Avenue 5½ East and 48th Street.
Chairman Chris Hamel and Commissioner Tiffany Ott opposed the request. Staff had recommended approval of the request.
The project is an expansion of the Driftwood Subdivision. Dahl, Robins & Associates, on behalf of Avenue 6E Land LLC, made the request with the intent to develop a single-family residential subdivision. This was the second of two required hearings.
Jennifer Albers, a city principal planner, noted that the property is currently being used for agriculture. The change would allow 68 single-family homes, but because of development requirements the applicant has proposed 37 homes.
The property is located next to rural residential development with one, two and five-acre parcels and agricultural land. Yuma Elementary School District will construct the Dorothy Hall Elementary School north of the site within the Driftwood Subdivision.
The existing rural designation allows one home per five acres to one home per two acres, or three to seven homes on the entire 15.4 acres. The low density designation would allow from 15 to 75 homes.
After the hearing, Hamel said he voted against the request be-
cause he believes both the city and Yuma County are not leaving enough rural properties for those who prefer them. “I have seen too often where we’re trying to push the maximum amount of housing and we’re not really giving a fair advantage to people who want bigger properties in these areas,” he said.
Ott said she opposed single-family low density housing going in next to suburban ranch housing, which “are generally an acre to two acres, and I think they’ve moved out there for the way of life, and there’s plenty of room in other places where they can put those kinds of homes.”
Ott also expressed concern with developing agricultural fields when there is already a lot of land not being used for agriculture.
During the hearing, Sandy Jones said her family moved next to the proposed project at the end of December because of the location. If her family had known about the proposed development, they wouldn’t have moved there, she said, noting that they have an autistic son and she’s “concerned with his ability to walk and not be in danger.” She proposed allowing twoacre parcels in the subject property.
In an email sent to city staff, Dr. Amalia V. Garzon said that her family has enjoyed a “peaceful rural life for the last 14 years” in the area. “It would be a shame that this ambiance be disturbed by low density dwellings. We do not object to the construction of large houses with a price above $250,000,” she said.
Garzon also expressed concerns that the proposed development would bring crime and traffic to the area and lower property values. “If this proposal is passed, please make sure that only large houses be built in parcels of at least half-acres so the neighborhood prices and peaceful atmosphere are not dragged down,” she added.
Patty Potts, in a phone call recorded by staff, said she was not in support of the request and noted that “this area was supposed to be rural with similar homes to what is already there.”
A neighborhood meeting held July 26 also drew neighbors opposed to the proposed project. Some attendees voiced concerns about receiving complaints over their agricultural activities and children from the new development accessing the A Canal and being hurt. Attendees said they were frustrated that the project keeps moving forward although they have spoken to the City Council and commission multiple times.
In another case, the commission unanimously approved a request by Thomas J. Pancrazi, on behalf of Vista Farms, to change the land use designation from commercial mixed use and medium density residential to low density residential for 69.25 acres located at the southwest corner of Araby Road and 32nd Street.
Vista Farms wants to develop a single-family residential subdivision. Pancrazi previously noted that the uses permitted in mixed use zoning did not make economic sense and that there was a demand for low density residential development.
The current commercial mixed use designation would allow from 167 to 335 homes to be constructed on 33.5 acres. The current medium density residential designation would allow from seven to 19 homes. Combined, both areas would allow 174 to 354 homes.
The new low density residential designation on the entire 69.25 acres would allow 69 to 339 homes.
A third request, this one by Colvin Engineering, on behalf of Elliott Construction, was continued to the next meeting. Elliott Construction wants to change the land use designation from commercial to low density residential for 4.87 acres located at the southeast corner of South Araby Road and East 32nd Street.
In other action, the commission unanimously approved a request by Scott Audsley, on behalf of McDonald’s Real Estate Company, to rezone 28,336 square feet located at 1195 E. 16th St. from agriculture to general commercial in an Aesthetic Overlay District.
The property is the site of a McDonald’s restaurant and located at the southwest corner of East 16th Street and Interstate 8.
The recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council, which makes the final decisions on these requests.