Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Foothills rezoning cases after neighbors press for buffers, traffic and sanitation protections
Summary
The board approved a minor amendment (Case 2509) and rezoning (Case 2522) in the Foothills area and several other rezoning items March 2, despite resident concerns about traffic, screening and trash placement; staff said buffering and screening are set at permit review.
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors voted March 2 to approve Minor Amendment Case No. 2509 and Rezoning Case No. 2522 for properties near Foothills Boulevard, and later approved additional rezoning items (Cases 2520 and 2521).
A local resident, Kathy Sellers, told the board she opposes the rezoning and urged enforceable protections for neighbors if the board approves commercial zoning for the vacant parcel at or near 12348 South Foothills Boulevard. "If you decide to approve it, I respectfully ask that you do so with clear enforceable protections for the neighbors who have lived there for years," Sellers said, asking specifically for a 6–8-foot brick wall at the developer's expense, and for traffic, security and sanitation conditions.
The applicant, identified in the public hearing as Aaron Celia, told the board that local commercial zoning is intended to serve neighborhood needs but that requiring a 20-foot buffer between local commercial and adjacent residential lots can make small Foothills parcels effectively undevelopable. He asked the county to consider performance standards and transitional areas rather than forcing individual variance requests.
County planning staff explained that buffering and screening requirements are normally determined at the building-permit stage, and that any deviation from standard development requirements would be considered by the Board of Adjustment. That procedural explanation framed the board's response: members said they heard neighbor concerns and would direct staff to consider them, but several supervisors noted that specific design and buffering details are typically set during permitting, not at the zoning approval stage.
After discussion, the board approved the minor amendment (2509) and rezoning (2522) on voice votes. The board then approved Minor Amendment 2508/Rezoning 2520 and Rezoning 2521, with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations and the conditions referenced in staff presentations. Item 6 on the agenda was withdrawn and not acted on.
What happens next: planning staff will apply the standard development and buffering requirements at permit review and return to the Board of Adjustment if applicants seek deviations; neighbors who requested conditions were told staff would be informed of their concerns.
