Citing Ave B traffic, P&Z denies rezoning request

Neighbors, business owner fear apartments would create more congestion

The Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request for a rezoning recommendation that could open the way for multi-family housing due to traffic concerns on Avenue B.

Dahl, Robins and Associates, on behalf of South Avenue B LLC, asked for property located at 1421 S. Avenue B be rezoned from the current Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development District, with 1.4 acres to medium density residential and 4.5 acres to high density residential. The rezoning would be in accordance with the general plan land use designation.

A tire shop is on a portion of the property, with the rest undeveloped. The owner intends to market the property as a future apartment complex. The potential development could contain between 65 and 99 residential units based on the density limitation outlined in the general plan.

Some commissioners were frustrated with the lack of site plans and details of potential development, which city rules don’t require until the development phase.

The assistant city attorney, city staff and the applicant’s agent repeatedly explained that this case only focused on the rezoning request, not on the details of what could potentially be developed on the properties. The applicant’s agent, Kevin Dahl, offered to submit a site plan, however, he noted that it would not be binding.

Commissioner Lori Arney expressed frustration with not knowing what would go on the property. “We don’t know, really, what’s going on. We don’t know if there’s going to be 65 units or 99 units. We have no idea how many are being built.”

Noting that she drove by the property on Avenue B, Arney added, “I have some issues with the traffic.” She asked about a traffic study.

Andrew McGarvie, the city’s engineering manager, explained that the potential traffic increase did not trigger a study requirement. A traffic study kicks in at about 120 apartments. Based on a maximum of 99 units that could potentially go on this property, the city would not ask for a traffic study.

“Ninety-nine apartments, or 99 cars, in the big scheme of things on Avenue B, for what an arterial street can handle, is nothing. It’s half a percent of the traffic volume at best, less than that,” he said.

Pointing to an adjacent property that is already being developed into an apartment complex, Commissioner Barbara Beam asked, “So if that person builds 99, this person builds 99, we’re not going to get a traffic study for either?”

“Correct. The way the city standards work, they apply to each development individually and not as a whole,” McGarvie said.

Arney asked about the ingress and egress and fire and police department access. “We look at it when they turn in development plans, then all departments jump in and look at that. Until we have some concept plan to look at, it’s hard to address,” McGarvie said. “It all depends on the future buyer. We’re just looking at zoning tonight. Until someone decides to develop

it, we won’t know what’s going on there.”

Dahl noted that the owner of the adjacent property currently under development as an apartment complex may purchase this property for a second phase, and that is where the main access would come from.

Right now, Dahl added, plans call for the adjacent development to have two driveways, one a right turn in and right turn out only.

Neighbors John and Mary Yashkus expressed opposition to the rezoning request. “We’re totally against this,” John Yashkus said. “The traffic is a five- to seven-minute wait for me to get out of my property.”

Mary Yashkus noted that even right-turns would create problems. “Most of the traffic that goes out of there will need to turn around in order to go south, and there’s no accommodation for that at all.”

Craig Hieber, owner of Westwoods Furnishings, located directly across the street, said his main concern is traffic as well. “I’ll tell you where everyone turns around, it’s my parking lot,” he said.

“To me, this does kind of sound like a runabout way of getting away from a traffic study, which concerns me. Being broken up into two properties like this, trying to adjust the zoning this way,” Hieber added.

He stressed that he’s not against the development, only increased traffic. “It would be their property and they can do what they want with it, but I think we need to look out for the safety of the public and the property surrounding it.”

Chairman Chris Hamel noted that he would like to see something go on this property, but he agreed with the traffic concerns. “I’m almost heartbroken because I want to see something go in here, I just don’t know the best way to do it.”

Commissioner Barbara

Beam, a real estate agent, suggested that the city needs to figure out a better system because right now the city “blindly” approves land uses and rezoning without knowing the future impact.

“It’s so hard, especially in the real estate community, to say no for more housing when we need it so desperately,” Beam said.

Arney clarified that she’s not against multi-family housing. “We know that the city of Yuma really needs it. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have enough information. We need more information. We need a site and elevation plan. We need a traffic study. It seems they’re trying to get away from not doing one by the way they split the properties, and I’m not for that.”

Commissioner Brandon Freeman asked if they can approve the zoning with the condition that a traffic study be required for a future development. Assistant City Attorney Scott McCoy said the commission could make a traffic study a condition of approval, but Hamel had concerns with “opening up a Pandora’s box” and causing problems for future cases.

“My recommendation at this point, for the council, is that we approve or disapprove based on the information we have here,” he noted, adding that the council will review the case and make the final decision.

Arney made a motion to deny a recommendation for rezoning. Commissioner Greg Counts seconded the motion.

Dahl then noted that the commission and council approved the land use for the property a couple of years ago and the applicant now wants to apply the zoning that goes with the approved land use.

“The landowner has the right for the highest and best use of his property. This could have been commercial. Commercial is five to six times the traffic than an apartment complex,” Dahl said. “The city approved the general plan. We’re following through with the general plan. If that’s not going to be allowed, then why did you approve the general plan?”

Beam said it’s not just about the traffic but the lighting, the trash cans, what the development would look like, etc. Dahl again pointed out that they have no control over those details at this point, but that city staff would have to make sure that those plans followed city guidelines.

Hamel reiterated that “that’s the stuff that comes in the next level, when they look at the site plan.”

“Once this gets approved, there is no next level,” Beam said.

“We as a commission can’t make assumptions on what may or may not go on the lot at this point. It’s unfair to the developer and it’s unfair to the case that’s been brought before us. We need to address what the case is saying, not where we think is going to go.”

“I respectfully, absolutely disagree with you wholeheartedly,” Beam said, adding that it’s their responsibility to direct where the city is going and protect neighboring businesses and residents.

Freeman echoed that it would be “unfair for us to deny the rezoning of this property when they don’t even know the plans for this property. It could very well be sold to the property owner to the south, and when that goes to develop, again it would be approved by city staff.”

The commission voted 3-2 to deny a recommendation for rezoning, with Hamel and Freeman voting against the denial, with two absent.