|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☒ Safe & Prosperous |
☐ Motion |
|
Planning & Neighborhood Svc |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☐ Resolution |
|
|
☒ Respected & Responsible |
☐ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☒ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Community Planning |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☐ Public Hearing |
TITLE: t
Rezoning of Property: Northwest Corner of 34th Street and DeVane Drive
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Summary Recommendation
Rezone approximately 9.74 acres from the General Commercial/Aesthetic Overlay (B-2/AO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development (R-2/PUD) District, for the property located at the northwest corner of 34th Street and DeVane Drive. (Planning and Neighborhood Services/Community Planning) (Alyssa Linville)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
Approval of this rezone supports residential development in the City that will be responsibly constructed, meeting all codes and requirements. This rezone assists in furthering the City Council’s strategic outcomes of Safe and Prosperous and Respected and Responsible.
REPORT:
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of 34th Street and DeVane Drive as depicted in Exhibit A of the ordinance. The parcel is approximately 9.74 acres. The requested rezone was recently part of a Minor General Plan Amendment approved on June 17, 2024, changing the land use designation from Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
With this request, the applicant seeks to rezone the 9.74 acres to the Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development (R-2/PUD) District, with the intent to develop the property with a 60-unit townhome residential development. The site is currently undeveloped, and the development will be built in one single phase.
Density
The Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) District states, “the average lot area per dwelling unit, including common area, but excluding area occupied by public or private streets, shall not be less than that required by the zoning district regulations otherwise applicable to the site (Yuma City Code § 154-14.07 (C)(4)).” The R-2 District requires a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet for small lot single-family subdivisions with a maximum of 72 small lots within each one quarter section of land. The proposed development encompasses 9.74 acres for the entire development, including streets. By excluding the streets, the common area and individual lots total approximately 306,214 square feet. Taking 306,214 square feet and dividing that by the proposed 60 lots, as shown on the site plan (Attachment B), yields an average lot area of 5,104 square feet. Therefore, the proposed development meets the required minimum average lot area of 4,500 square feet per dwelling unit, as required by the R-2 District.
Development Standards
“Planned Unit Developments are intended to permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design for the development of residential areas than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. (Yuma City Code § 154-14.07 (A)).”
The proposed development with the PUD overlay would allow the following dimensional variations:
• A decrease in the minimum lot size from 4,500 square feet to 3,674 square feet
• A decrease in minimum lot width from 50 feet to 32 feet.
• A reduction from 5 feet on each side yard setback to zero feet.
• An increase in maximum lot coverage from 55% to 70%
• A reduction in minimum local street widths from 58 feet to 48 feet.
Amenities
“PUDs are further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices, a higher level of urban amenities and preservation of natural scenic qualities of open spaces (Yuma City Code § 154-14.07 (A)).”
The applicant has agreed to the following amenities for the proposed PUD:
1. A landscaped retention basin.
2. A midblock 5-foot walking path running North/South allowing access to the centrally located amenity area.
3. A landscaped amenity area with a ramada, barbeque grill, playground equipment and athletic court.
4. Each residential lot will feature irrigation, artificial grass, a 15-gallon tree, and 4 shrubs located in the front yard.
Dwelling Unit Design and Massing Plan
The applicant proposes three different floor plans, a single story 2-bedroom, a single story 3-bedroom, and a 2-story 4-bedroom, each with a 2-car attached garage. The units will include a combination of flat and tile roofing. The elevations for these floor plans are available in Attachment C to the Planning and Zoning Report. The proposed development will feature attached townhomes, clustered in groups of four to ten units, ranging in size from 1,290 square feet to 1,924 square feet. Each lot will have a 6-foot-tall block wall on each of the rear and side property lines and there will be a 6-foot-tall perimeter subdivision wall around the entire development constructed of earth tone colored CMU block.
The massing plan illustrates the arrangement of the units with 20-foot setbacks, the retention basin, and midblock walking path (Tract C) connecting to the amenity area (Tract B). The massing plan is provided in Attachment D to the Planning and Zoning Report.
The proposed Planned Unit Development Overlay (PUD) District permits an increase in density flexibility in development standards far beyond what would be allowed with the underlying zoning district. The increase in density and flexibility in development standards is financially beneficial to the developer. The tradeoff for the increased density and flexibility in development standards is that the applicant provides a higher level of urban amenities and preservation of natural scenic qualities of open spaces for the benefit of the residents of the PUD. The proposed amenities for this development meet the intent of a Planned Unit Development as outlined in the Yuma City Code.
The request to rezone the property from the General Commercial/Aesthetic Overlay (B-2/AO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development (R-2/PUD) District is in conformance with the General Plan.
On December 9, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the rezoning from General Commercial/Aesthetic Overlay (B-2/AO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Planned Unit Development (R-2/PUD) District, subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditions listed below are in addition to City codes, rules, fees and regulations that are applicable to this action.
2. The Owner’s signature on the application for this land use action shall constitute a waiver of any claims for diminution in value pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1134.
3. If rolled curb is used within the development, Owner/Developer shall put together an entity to maintain the private streets, as the local streets within the development does not meet current City standards. This condition will be considered null and void if the City adopts a new local street standard with rolled curbs, and that the subdivision has the same matching street construction standard and right-of-way width prior to the plat recordation.
4. Owner/Developer shall grant a full street width utility easement to the City of Yuma on the final plat if the streets remain private as noted above.
5. Owner/Developer shall provide a 6-foot-tall solid subdivision wall around the perimeter of the development per City of Yuma construction standard 1-010, or similar design as sealed by a registered civil or structural engineer certifying that it will stand up to current code wind and seismic loads.
6. At the time the preliminary subdivision plat is submitted, the Owner/developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Statement providing the peak hour traffic count based on the Trip Generation Manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, sealed by an Arizona Engineer with traffic experience. Development conditions per A.R.S. § 9-462.01.
7. The common area/retention basin shall be designed to include the following amenities:
a. Landscaping in a cohesive manner throughout retention basin (Tract A), amenity area (Tract B), midblock walking path (Tract C), and Tract D.
b. Landscaping in retention basin, amenity area (Tract B), midblock walking path (Tract C), and Tract D to be installed prior to the closing of the first residence.
c. 5-foot walking path in Tract C connecting to amenity area (Tract B).
8. Front yard irrigation, artificial grass, a 15-gallon tree, and four shrubs for each unit shall be installed as a phased installation project, not to exceed 10 completed units.
9. Each of the conditions listed above shall be completed within two (2) years of the effective date of the rezoning ordinance or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Certificate of Occupancy or City of Yuma Business License for this site, whichever occurs first. If the conditions of approval are not completed within the above timeframe, then the rezone shall be subject to A.R.S. § 9-462.01.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- EXCERPTS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING COMISSION MEETING MINUTES:
“Erika Peterson - Senior Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended APPROVAL.
“Chris Hamel - Planning and Zoning Commissioner and Loraine Arney - Planning and Zoning Commissioner both questioned why the applicant was opposed to condition #6 which required the applicant to submit a traffic impact statement for the proposed project.
“Andrew McGarvie - Engineering Manager, stated that the requested condition #6 is to assess the traffic that would be generated by the subdivision. McGarvie stated that the request of this condition was supported by state law under Section 9-462.01, subsection C.1.(b), which addresses the level of traffic generation associated with each zoning type.
APPLICANT/APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE
“Christopher Robins, 1560 S. 5th Ave, Yuma AZ stated that he was opposed to condition #6 and stated that traffic implications were typically not addressed during the rezoning process, as there was usually no site plan available at this stage.
“Robins noted that rezonings typically did not involve detailed traffic impact studies because the specific use was often unknown. Robins also said he could provide a traffic impact statement showing 60 peak hour trips, which was below the threshold that would normally trigger a traffic study in the City of Yuma. Robins noted he was against condition #6 to avoid setting a precedent, where traffic impact statements were required at the rezoning stage.
“Chelsea Malouff - Planning and Zoning Commissioner asked if there were any other proposed stop signs or lights in the surrounding area.
“McGarvie said there were future plans for a light to be placed to the south on 36th street. Malouff asked for a timeline.
“McGarvie said he would know more within 6-8 months.
“John Mahon - Planning and Zoning Commissioner asked McGarvie about the purpose of conducting a traffic impact study at the rezoning stage.
“McGarvie said that asking for a traffic impact study at the preliminary stage would verify that the City’s current standards require a full traffic study for developments generating 100 peak hour trips.
“Arney said that if the applicant wasn’t in agreement with condition #6, she wasn’t comfortable approving the request.
“Motion by Arney to Deny ZONE-43328-2024.
“Motion withdrawn by Arney.
“Motion by Malouff, second by Arney to APPROVE ZONE-43328-2024 as presented. Motion carried unanimously, (5-0) with one absent and one vacancy.’
Planning and Zoning Staff Report - Attached
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
CITY FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
BUDGETED: |
$ 0.00 |
|
STATE FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER: |
$ 0.00 |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
IN CONTINGENCY: |
$ 0.00 |
|
OTHER SOURCES: |
$ 0.00 |
FUNDING: ACCOUNT/FUND #/CIP |
TOTAL $ 0.00
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
NOT APPLICABLE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
NONE
IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?
☐ Department
☒ City Clerk’s Office
☐ Document to be recorded
☐ Document to be codified
|
Acting City Administrator: |
Date: |
|
John D. Simonton |
12/26/2024 |
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
12/19/2024 |