Yuma P&Z approves next step in subdivision plan

Neighbors oppose rezoning to low density residential

A rezoning request from a contractor who has been trying to develop land along Avenue 6E since 2005 received approval Monday, in spite of longtime opposition from neighbors.

In the latest action involving Avenue 6E Land LLC, the Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to approve recommendation of a rezoning request for 89.82 acres located at the southwest corner of South Avenue 6E and East 44th Street. Dahl, Robins and Associates, on behalf of the developer, requested that the property be rezoned from the Agriculture District to the Low Density Residential (R-1-12) and Low Density Residential (R-1-8) Districts, for the properties.

The commission’s recommendation will now go to the council for final determination.

The proposed Driftwood Subdivision consists of 228 single-family lots and a site for a future elementary school. The school district hopes to complete the construction in time for the fall 2019 school year.

The property is bounded by large residential lots to the south and west and the Low Density Residential (R-1-6) Ocotillo Subdivision to the east.

In 2005, the developer petitioned to have the property annexed for development. During a council meeting, neighbors expressed opposition, citing concerns with traffic, impact to the rural lifestyle, a potential decrease in property values and removal of agriculture lands that served as a buffer.

The council tabled the annexation indefinitely. Almost immediately, the housing market took a downward turn. In late 2013, when the housing market began to show signs of recovery, the developer submitted a request to change the land use designation of the property from rural density residential to low density residential.

At the time of this land use designation request, the proposed development area was still located in Yuma County. During this process, the city received comments from neighbors concerned with the potential increase in density. Nevertheless, in February 2014, the council approved the developer’s request for a change in land use from rural density to low density.

The city and the developer then began negotiating a pre-annexation development agreement. It was finalized on Jan. 22. The agreement called for an increased rear/side yard setback of 50 feet for properties which were to be rezoned R-1-12, increasing the buffer with neighbors.

The developer then revived the petition to annex the property into the city. A public hearing was held on Feb. 21, in which several neighbors again voiced concern about the potential impacts of the proposed development.

A number of neighbors attended a March 1 neighborhood meeting and a majority of the concerns focused on the potential for increased traffic and the anticipated number of residences to be built.

The annexation request was adopted on April 4.

During Monday’s meeting, in response to commissioners’ questions regarding access into the subdivision, John Weil, attorney for Hall’s General Contractor, said the initial design did have access through Avenue 5½ East but it was removed in the pre-annexation development agreement. Instead, the nine-foot wall will be built along the road.

Weil noted that Hall’s has made considerable efforts to address the neighbors’ concerns. He also pointed out that the developer would be donating land for an elementary school with a value of more than $2 million.

At this meeting, only one neighbor spoke out against the rezoning. Emily McGrath said she was representing other neighbors who couldn’t be at the hearing. She lives less than 100 yards from the proposed development and would be directly impacted. When she bought the property about 14 years ago, she had hoped it would remain rural.

He concerns centered on traffic, noting that once 44th Street is paved, traffic would increase substantially with 228 new houses, two cars each, and more school buses.

She noted that she now sits in her backyard watching rabbits, and all is quiet unless someone is mowing. The proposed subdivision will change that and a ninefoot wall won’t stop it, she said.