|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☒ Safe & Prosperous |
☐ Motion |
|
Community Development |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☒ Resolution |
|
|
☐ Respected & Responsible |
☐ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☐ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Community Planning |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☒ Public Hearing |
TITLE:
title
Minor General Plan Amendment: Southwest Corner of 17th Street and Madison Avenue
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Summary Recommendation
Following a public hearing, approve the request to amend the City of Yuma General Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential. (Community Development/Community Planning) (Alyssa Linville)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
This General Plan amendment furthers the City Council’s strategic outcome of Safe and Prosperous by providing an adequate mixture and balance of land uses.
REPORT:
This is a Minor General Plan Amendment request by Jose Salazar, on behalf of Nextgen Properties, LLC, to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential for approximately .48 acres, for the property located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Madison Avenue, Yuma, AZ.
The existing Mixed Use land use designation supports the following types of zoning: Low Density Single-Family Residential (R-1-5 and R-1-6), Medium Density Residential (R-2 and R-2-5), Residence-Manufactured Housing (R-MH), Manufactured Housing Subdivision (MHS), Transitional (TR), Limited Commercial (B-1), and Industrial Park (I-P) districts.
The proposed High Density Residential land use designation supports the following types of zoning: High Density Residential (R-3), Residence-Manufactured Housing (R-MH), Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS) and Manufactured Housing Park (MHP) districts.
The applicant’s intent in changing the land use designation is to pursue a rezoning of the site to High Density Residential (R-3) to allow the development of multi-family units.
Staff received a total of 16 emails and phone calls in opposition of the request. These comments are attached to the final report.
This is a Minor General Plan Amendment request by Jose Salazar, on behalf of Nextgen Properties, LLC, to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential for approximately .48 acres, for the property located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Madison Avenue, Yuma, AZ.
The existing Mixed Use land use designation supports the following types of zoning: Low Density Single-Family Residential (R-1-5 and R-1-6), Medium Density Residential (R-2 and R-2-5), Residence-Manufactured Housing (R-MH), Manufactured Housing Subdivision (MHS), Transitional (TR), Limited Commercial (B-1), and Industrial Park (I-P) districts.
The proposed High Density Residential land use designation supports the following types of zoning: High Density Residential (R-3), Residence-Manufactured Housing (R-MH), Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS) and Manufactured Housing Park (MHP) districts.
The applicant’s intent in changing the land use designation is to pursue a rezoning of the site to High Density Residential (R-3) to allow the development of multi-family units.
Staff received a total of 16 emails and phone calls in opposition of the request. These comments are attached to the final report.
On October 13, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend DENIAL (5-0) of the General Plan amendment request to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential.
Public Comments - Excerpt from Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (10/13/25):
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
NONE
APPLICANT/APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE
“Jose Salazar, 3378 W. 17th Place, Yuma, AZ, stated that the proposed minor amendment would allow a 12-unit multi-family development, updating the outdated light industrial zoning to better align with the city’s goals for affordable housing within the infill overlay district. Salazar went on to say that the project would act as a transitional buffer between nearby homes and commercial uses, with minimal traffic during peak hours. All on-site parking requirements will be met. Salazar then added that the development would generate city fees, support local businesses, and that all tenants undergo background and credit checks prior to approval.
“Lorraine Arney, Planning and Zoning Commissioner asked if the apartments would be at market rate or would they be Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D) subsidized.
“Salazar replied he is not set on market rates.
“Arney clarified that background and credit checks would be done on potential tenants and that applicant has standards of occupancy according to fair housing.
“Salazar replied yes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
“Chris Hamel, Planning and Zoning Commissioner noted that there will be a five minute time limit for all public comments.
“Tom Pancrazi, 350 W. 16th Street Suite # 332, Yuma, AZ stated that he was one of the owners of the adjoining property to the west, and expressed opposition to the proposed 12-unit development, he then noted that light industrial zoning requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for uses within 600 feet of residential properties, and the project would place residential units directly next to existing industrial businesses. Pancrazi then expressed concerns that future industrial uses on nearby properties could face operational restrictions due to the new residential units and acknowledges the community’s push for affordable housing but stated that this location is not appropriate for the project.
“Pat Hodges Jr., 350 W. 16th Street Suite # 332, Yuma, AZ, stated he was also in opposition of the proposed project and then expressed concern that the noise from the surrounding businesses could negatively impact the residents of the proposed apartment complex. Hodges then noted that the proposed project may not provide sufficient space for the required parking and landscaping to adequately support a 12-unit development.
“Amanda Delara, 6277 E. 47th Place, Yuma, AZ, was also opposed to the proposed project, and stated that she was in agreement that the noise from the surrounding businesses could negatively impact the residents of the proposed apartment complex.
“Maribel Acosta, 3736 W. 25th Place, Yuma, AZ, stated that was the owner of AAMCO and was in opposition, and expressed concern about existing noise levels and heavy traffic in the area related to nearby businesses, noting potential safety hazards that could affect families residing in the proposed apartment complex.
“Keith Dennis, 3885 S. Bella Vista Drive, Yuma, AZ, stated that he was the owner of the property to the north of the proposed project and that he also was in opposition, then expressed concerns about increased traffic in the area in particular truck traffic, potential safety issues for the public, and a possible decline in surrounding property values. Dennis then added that the proposed development is not a good fit for the area.
“Lauren Tyler, 4598 W. 27th Lane, Yuma, AZ, was in opposition of the proposed project due to the location and expressed concern for the safety of the public due to the increased traffic. Tyler then acknowledged the city’s need for affordable housing but stated that this particular site is not an appropriate location for such a development.
“Kathy Spongross, expressed concern about the traffic and safety of the public in the proposed project area with the existing businesses and school taking up all the street parking.
“Vice Chairman John Mahon, asked for clarification on what the General Plan designation Mixed Use Density currently supports.
“Erika Peterson, Senior Planner replied that it currently permits Low Density Single Family Residential (R-1-5 and R-1-6), Medium Density Residential (R-2 and R-2-5), Residence Manufactured Housing (RMH), Manufactured Housing Subdivision (MHS), Transitional (TR), Limited Commercial (B-1), and Industrial Park (IP).
“John Mahon, Planning and Zoning Commissioner asked would a CUP be required for a new use on one of the industrial properties if it lies within 300 feet of any residential properties.
“Peterson stated that any property that is zoned light industrial and they are within 600 feet of a residential zoning they would need to apply for a CUP.
“Mahon then asked if the properties that currently exist near the project area were zoned Light Industrial.
“Peterson replied that the homes are not zoned R-1-6 that they are zoned Light Industrial and that she believes that there are four homes that have the R-1-6 designation.
“Chelsea Malouff-Craig, Planning and Zoning Commissioner asked if the land use designation is approved would all of the existing businesses that are within 600 feet will need to apply for a CUP to continue operating.
“Peterson replied that it would only apply to new light industrial uses.
“Jennifer Albers, Assistant Director of Planning stated that the existing gym and mortuary had already gone through the CUP process to establish their uses on their industrial sites.
“Hamel asked for a motion or a discussion that would lead to a motion.
“Mahon commented that this case is challenging due to limited areas available for high-density zoning and the effect that this decision may have on the existing and future light industrial uses.
“Hamel agreed with Vice Chairman Mahon and stated that the intent of the policy change is to encourage infill development and promote the use of underutilized properties within the city.
“Hamel then noted that multiple businesses would be affected by this proposal and then stated that the proposed project does not fit within this area.
“Hamel asked for a motion or a discussion that would lead to a motion.
“Mahon asked if one of these properties were located within that 300 foot notification area was changing its use would that business need a new CUP.
“Peterson replied only new Industrial business.
“Mahon then asked were some of the existing uses are grandfathered in.
“Peterson replied correct.
“Peterson then clarified that if the applicant’s request was approved the tenants would not receive a notification only the owner of the parcel would.
“Hamel commented that in another case the owner of the property had received a notification and that it would be up to the owner to notify the tenants of any upcoming request.
“Peterson answered correct.
“Mahon then stated that the applicant could reapply and request R-2 zoning.
“Peterson said yes but the request would still need to go through the hearing process for approval.
“Peterson then stated that if the commission could not come to a decision to approve the current request, the commission could consider a less intense land use designation of Medium Density Residential.
“Mahon asked could all the homes in the area change the zoning designation.
“Peterson replied that there was an attempt to change the zoning, but the homeowners were against the rezoning at the time. Individual homeowners are now requesting rezoning.
“Gonzalez asked since the area is still categorized as mixed use the applicant would be able to build 3 to 5 dwelling units.
“Peterson replied yes.
“Mahon commented that the request does support that, but the applicant would still need to apply for a rezone request.
“Peterson replied if the commission intends to suggest changing the request to medium density land use designation the maximum density would be 6 units.
“Andrew McGarvie, Engineering Manager, commented that the Commission could add a condition regarding noise exposure to address potential concerns from future tenants about existing noise levels in the area.
“Albers stated these types of conditions are not normally added to the General Plan conditions, they are usually added to rezone conditions.
“Chairman Hamel asked for clarification on whether a noise condition could be added to inform future tenants about the potential for elevated noise levels in the area.
“Albers replied yes.
“Hamel asked for a motion or a discussion that would lead to a motion.
“Albers commented that if no motion for action is made, the request would fail and result in a recommendation of denial to the City Council.
“Hamel addressed the Commission and asked if a motion would be made.
“Mahon commented that the request is not compatible with the area but noted that the plan could support rezoning in another district, which may present similar issues.
“Hamel asked for clarification on whether the Commission could approve or deny the request with the recommendation that it be considered as medium-density development.
“Albers replied yes, the commission could approve or disapprove or consider a less intense designation.
“Hamel stated that the Commission’s decision is only a recommendation, and that if the case were disapproved, it would still proceed to the City Council for a final decision.
“Motion Mahon, second by Mallouff-Craig to DENY GP-44277-2025 as presented.
“Motion carried unanimously, (5-0) with one absent and one vacancy.’
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:
NONE
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: |
|
Jennifer Reichelt for John D. Simonton |
10/27/2025 |
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
10/26/2025 |