PUBLIC NOTICE & AGENDA

YUMA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGPUBLIC NOTICE & AGENDA

DATE: April 19, 2016

TIME: 1:00 P.M.

PLACE: Aldrich Auditorium, 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona

MEMBERS: Joe Harper, Chairman, Dist. 4 Ron Rice, Vice-Chairman, Dist. 1 Laurie Colvin, Dist. 2 Neil Tucker, Dist. 3 Tim Eisenmann, Dist. 5 STAFF: Maggie Castro, Planning Director Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner Marilu Garcia, Associate Planner Tricia Ramdass, Executive Assistant ADVISORS: Ed Feheley, Deputy County Attorney Diana Gomez, Director, Yuma County Public Health Services District

1. Call to Order and Roll Call.

2. Pledge of Allegiance.

3. Approval of the Board of Adjustment meeting minutes from March 22, 2016

4. Variance Case No. 16-02: Stacy Greene, agent for New Roots III AZ LLC, requests a variance from the Yuma CountyZoning Ordinance, Section 302.01—Transitional Buffer Yards and Screening, to allow a transitional buffer yard of nine feetalong the east side on a parcel one acre in size zoned Light Industrial (LI), within the 70dB noise zone, Assessor's ParcelNumber 723-08-067, located at 3948 East 41st Place, Yuma, Arizona.

5. Variance Case No. 16-06: Israel Galvez, agent for William and Susan Watt, requests a variance from the Yuma CountyZoning Ordinance, Section 609.07—Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow a lot coverage of 33 percent on a parcel 7,194 squarefeet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS), Assessor's Parcel Number 728-23-198, located at 13625 East45 th Lane, Yuma, Arizona.

6. Variance Case No. 16-07: Keith Fisher, agent for David L. Lara, requests a variance from the Yuma County ZoningOrdinance, Section 1115.05 (B)—Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, to allow a wirelesscommunication tower with a rear yard setback of 100 feet, a north side yard setback of 20 feet and a south side yardsetback of 90 feet on a parcel 40,510 square feet in size zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and Low Density Residential-6,000square feet minimum (R-1-6), within the vicinity of a military airport, Assessor's Parcel Number 664-05-053, located at 909South Avenue B, Yuma, Arizona.

7. Variance Case No. 16-08: Keith Fisher, agent for Bruce and Drucilla Jacobson, requests a variance from the Yuma CountyZoning Ordinance, Section 1115.05 (B) — Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, to allow afront yard setback of 45 feet on a parcel 17.46 acres in size zoned Rural Area-10 acre minimum (RA-10), within the vicinityof a military airport, Assessor's Parcel Number 693-24-001, located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and 28 th Street,Yuma, Arizona.

8. Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, agent for Seeds West Inc. Az Corporation, requests a variance from the Yuma

8. Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, agent for Seeds West Inc. Az Corporation, requests a variance from the YumaCounty Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to allow an agricultural exemption on a parcelapproximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned Rural Area -40 acre minimum (RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024,located at 49850 East County 1st Street, Roll, Arizona.

9. Adjourn.

Note: For further information about this public hearing/meeting, please contact Maggie Castro, Planning Director, phone number

(928) 817-5173; or e-mail [email protected] or TDD/TTY (Arizona Relay Service): call in 1-800-367-8939, callback 1-800-842-4681. Individuals with special accessibility needs should contact the individual indicated above before thehearing/meeting with special need requirements.

Note: The Board may vote to hold an Executive Session for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from the

Commission's attorney on any matter listed on the agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431(A)(3).

mailto:[email protected]

Yuma County Board of Adjustment

April 19, 2016

Item No. 3

YUMA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION: March 22, 2016 Page 1 of 7

The Yuma County Board of Adjustment met in a regular session on March 22, 2016. The meeting was held in Aldrich Auditorium at 2351 West 26th Street, Yuma, Arizona.

CALL TO ORDER: At 1:00 p.m. Chairman Joe Harper convened the Board of Adjustment meeting. Board Members present were: Joe Harper, Tim Eisenmann, and Neil Tucker. Board members absent were: Laurie Colvin and Ron Rice. Others present were: Planning Director Maggie Castro; Associate Planner Marilu Garcia; Chief Building Official Pat Headington; and Executive Assistant Tricia Ramdass.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Harper.

ITEM No. 3: Approval of the Board of Adjustment regular meeting minutes of February 17, 2016

MOTION (Eisenmann/Harper): Approve revised minutes as presented.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Harper – AYE; Eisenmann – AYE; Tucker – AYE. The motion carried 3-0.

ITEM No. 4: Variance Case No. 15-18: Barry Olsen, agent for Hyrum Dee and Bonnie Larsen, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 609.07—Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow a lot coverage of 39 percent on a parcel 6,560 square feet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS), Assessor's Parcel Number 728-37-147, located at 13278 East 49th Street, Yuma, Arizona. (This case was continued from the February 17, 2016 meeting)

Associate Planner Marilu Garcia presented the staff report recommending denial of Variance Case No. 15-18, based on the following findings:

1. Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to the property.

2. Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property.

3. Staff finds the conditions are self-imposed.

If the Board approves this Variance, Staff recommended the following conditions:

1. The variance is valid for the time limits outlined in Section 403.07 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance.

2. A range disclosure statement and a restricted airspace disclosure statement shall be recorded by the owner/agent within 60 days of approval by the Board of Adjustment.

3. Existing sheds shall meet setback requirements.

Chairman Harper opened the public hearing.

Barry Olsen, agent for Hyrum Dee and Bonnie Larsen, 101 East 2nd Street, Yuma, Arizona, explained why he thought the Board should grant the applicants’ variance request. He believed the intent of the lot coverage restrictions were to prevent environmental health issues related to septic systems. He maintained that there were


no potential health and safety issues because the outdoor structures did not stress the septic system. His research indicated that his clients purchased the property in 2009 and previous permits did not require variance for lot coverage. He added that the property owners had obtained a permit for the patio structure and followed the permitting process correctly. He maintained that the owners were not notified of lot coverage issues until the final inspection. He informed the Board that staff recommended removal of the two sheds that were on the property prior to 2009.

Chairman Harper asked Mr. Olsen what the property owner would need to do if the variance was not approved.

Mr. Olsen said the two sheds would need to be removed and the owners would need to reduce the area of the enclosed patio and awnings.

Planning Director Maggie Castro informed the Board that a permit had been approved based on an incorrect site plan that was submitted with the application. She explained that the inspector realized that the site plan did not match what was on the property during the final inspection. The property owners were then required to comply with the zoning ordinance by obtaining a variance. She referenced the presentation slide showing the incorrect site plan that was submitted.

Board members asked staff to clarify when construction of the structure had begun and when the permit was approved.

Chief Building Official Pat Headington informed the Board that the Building Safety Division had received a complaint regarding work without a permit. The property owners began construction on the patio before obtaining a permit. He stated that the 2014 permit for the patio had not been obtained until after a stop-work order had been issued. During the permitting process, the property owners had reached an agreement with staff on how the sheds would be handled. Mr. Headington informed the Board that once the permit was approved, the conditions were not followed.

Mr. Olson maintained that the issue was about lot coverage, not permitting. He asked why staff did not recognize the lot coverage issue when they were on the property prior to the permitting process.

Ms. Castro clarified that the staff report indicated a revised site plan was requested. In addition, the revised site plan that was submitted indicated the two sheds would be removed.

Chairman Harper asked if removal of the sheds would fix the lot coverage.

Ms. Castro reiterated that the first site plan submitted did not accurately reflect the construction on the property. The permit was approved based on the incorrect site plan. Staff requested a revised site plan which accurately depicted all the structures on the property. The lot coverage calculated from the revised site plan was thirty-nine percent which violated the zoning ordinance requirements for maximum lot coverage in that zoning district. As a result, a variance would be needed for a lot coverage that exceeded thirty percent.


The Board asked staff if the patio enclosure violated setback requirements.

Ms. Castro said the patio enclosure met all required setbacks. She informed the Board that regardless of the use, the maximum allowed lot coverage for that zoning district was thirty percent. The property owners were in violation of the zoning ordinance because the structures on the lot exceeded thirty percent.

Chairman Harper closed the public hearing.

MOTION (Eisenmann /Tucker): Deny Variance Case No. 15-18.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Tucker – AYE; Harper – AYE; Eisenmann – AYE. The motion carried 3-0.

ITEM No. 5: Variance Case No. 16-03: Mary S. Slebos requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1108.03—Fences, Walls and Hedges, to allow a fence six feet seven inches in height along the rear property line on a parcel 9,100 square feet in size zoned Low Density Residential- 6,000 square feet minimum (R-1-6), Assessor’s Parcel Number 701-26-044, located at 12343 East Calle Maria, Yuma, Arizona.







2. An avigation disclosure statement shall be recorded by the owner within 60 days of approval by the Board of Adjustment.


Board members asked why the case was required because the walls in the picture appeared to be the same height.

Ms. Garcia explained that the department had received a complaint regarding the wall height on the property. Subsequently, a notice of violation was issued which triggered the requirement for a variance. No complaints had been filed for the other properties.

Planning Director Maggie Castro informed the Board that the picture they had referenced was one property. She further clarified that many properties throughout the subdivision had walls exceeding the maximum allowed height for that zoning district, however no complaints have been received.


Chairman Harper asked if granting the variance would cause issues regarding fire department access as it pertains to wall height.

Ms. Castro told the Board that staff sends request for comments to emergency response agencies and no comments were received from Rural Metro.


Chris Slebos, property owner, 12343 East Calle Maria, Yuma, Arizona, spoke on behalf of his spouse Mary S. Slebos and asked the Board to approve the requested variance. He explained that the property abutted North Frontage Road and the lower wall height presented safety and security concerns for him and his wife. He added that several other properties within the subdivision had wall heights that exceeded the maximum allowance and no variances were on file for those properties. He said people could see into his back yard from the frontage road. There had been several thefts reported for neighboring properties and the addition of the wall height had not only improved the property, but had greatly alleviated their safety concerns. He believed that removal of the additional block row would adversely affect the improvement of the property. He did not believe there were any health or public safety issues at stake if the Board approved the variance.

Elizabeth Carpenter, real estate agent for the property owners, 10602 Camino Del Sol, Yuma, Arizona, said she believed the owners acted in good faith and did not intend to violate the zoning ordinance. She said that the property owners hired Felix Fencing for the wall addition and were told by the contractor that the addition of two rows of block would be within the required height limit. They believed that the company informed them correctly because several other property owners in the area had used the company to increase the height of their walls. Because the other owners had not been required to obtain a variance, her clients believed that there would not be any issues with the same improvement to their property. Ms. Carpenter also explained that the property owners had placed the property on the market because they were moving for health reasons. She said the additional wall height had improved the ability to sell the house by increasing privacy and reducing traffic noise.

Chairman Harper said he agreed that noise abatement was an issue for properties situated next to busy roads and highways. He would like to see the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate changes to the height requirements in those areas.


MOTION (Eisenmann/Tucker): Approved subject to staff recommendations.


ITEM No. 6: Variance Case No. 16-04: Chris Morris, agent for Douglas Larison, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 609.07—Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow a lot coverage of 43 percent on a parcel 6,560 square feet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS), Assessor's Parcel Number 728-37-282, located at 13280 East 49th Lane, Yuma, Arizona.








2. A range disclosure statement and restricted airspace disclosure statement shall be recorded by the owner within 60 days of approval by the Board of Adjustment.

3. Existing shed shall meet setback requirements.

Ms. Garcia stated that an incorrect site plan had been submitted by the applicant or agent during the permitting process. As a result, the permit was approved using a lot coverage calculated at a percentage which did not accurately reflect all the structures on the lot. She had received one comment in support of the variance and no opposition.

Board members asked if the structure that the property owner wanted to convert to livable space was currently in violation.

Ms. Garcia confirmed that the structure was in violation of the zoning ordinance because the lot coverage exceeded the amount allowed for that zoning district.

Planning Director Maggie Castro reiterated that the building permit for that structure was approved based on the incorrect site plan. The site plan submitted for plan review showed only the manufactured home and the structure and did not include the awnings on the east and west side of the home.

Chairman Harper asked when the awnings were installed.

Ms. Garcia said the awnings and manufactured home were installed at the time the manufactured home was installed and were included under that permit.

Board members received clarification on the site plan regarding the location of the structure.


Chris Morris, agent for Douglas Larison, Calculated Designs, 2615 East 24th Street, Yuma, Arizona, said that the purpose of the thirty percent lot coverage in the RVS zoning district was to avoid encroachment on the septic. The lot coverage would be fifty percent if the property were hooked up to sewer. He reasoned that none of the structures on the property were too close to the septic system as required by Environmental Health. He maintained that the conditions would not change by enclosing an area that was already concrete and covered. He said that all the structures were already exceeding the lot coverage. He said that the regular practice during permit


review is to check the parcel files. He added that the building inspectors did not mention the lot coverage issue during the inspections. He told the Board that if the variance was not granted, the enclosure would need to be removed. He said the property owner was not opposed to removing the shed that is not meeting the setback requirements.

Chairman Harper deduced that if the area were converted to living space, occupancy would increase which would increase the stress on the septic system.

Mr. Morris said that Environmental Health would review that issue during the plan review process.


MOTION (Tucker/Eisenmann): Deny Variance Case No. 16-04.


ITEM No. 7: Variance Case No. 16-05: Chris Morris, agent for Teresa Moore, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 609.05—Minimum Lot Width and Principal Buildings Setback Requirements, to allow a west side yard setback of three feet on a parcel 7,168 square feet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS), Assessor's Parcel Number 728-32-019, located at 13863 East 46th Street, Yuma, Arizona.


1. Granting this variance appears to confer a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the zoning district.

2. Staff finds there are no specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting a variance.




2. One-hour resistance construction required where exterior walls are less than five feet zero inches from a property line.

3. A range disclosure statement and restricted airspace disclosure statement shall be recorded by the owner/agent within 60 days of approval by the Board of Adjustment.

Ms. Garcia had received one comment in favor of the variance and no opposition.


Chris Morris, agent for Teresa Moore, Calculated Designs, 2615 East 24th Street, Yuma, Arizona, explained that the property owner wanted to convert the RV structure into


habitable space in order to have a site-built home on the property. The current location of the structure was previously allowed before the new zoning ordinance was adopted. He said the structure would need to be moved three feet forward to meet the current setback requirements for a site-built dwelling under the current Yuma County Zoning Ordinance.

Board members asked if the porch was in violation of the setback requirements and if the RV structure was permitted.

Staff explained that the porch was open so the current placement was allowed. The RV structure was permitted prior to the year 2000; however structures with plumbing after that date are required to have a seven-foot setback.

Mr. Morris informed the Board that the structure was already enclosed and the property owner wanted to change the use of the structure to living space. The space would need to meet insulation, electrical, and fire code requirements if the variance was approved.

The Board asked for clarification on which structures and areas on the site plan were enclosed, the size of the enclosed portion of the structure, and the location of plumbing.

Planning Director Maggie Castro explained which portions on the site plan were enclosed.

Mr. Morris confirmed that the structure was twelve feet deep and twenty-four feet wide. He also indicated where the plumbing was located and where the add-on to the structure would be placed.


MOTION (Tucker/Eisenmann): Deny Variance Case No. 16-05.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Tucker – AYE; Harper – NAY; Eisenmann – AYE. The motion carried 2-1.

ITEM No. 8: Discussion by the Board members and Planning Director of events attended, current events, and the schedule for future Board of Adjustment meetings.

There was no discussion by the Board members or the Planning Director.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.

Approved and accepted on this 19th day of April, 2016.

Joe Harper, Chairman ATTEST: Maggie Castro, Planning Director


April 19, 2016

Item No. 4

AIR-6896 4. BOA AgendaMeeting Date: 04/19/2016

Submitted By:Marilu GarciaDepartment: Planning & Zoning Division - DDS

Information1. REQUESTED ACTION:Variance Case No. 16-02: Stacy Greene, agent for New Roots III AZ LLC,requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section302.01—Transitional Buffer Yards and Screening, to allow a transitional bufferyard of nine feet along the east side on a parcel one acre in size zoned LightIndustrial (LI), within the 70dB noise zone, Assessor's Parcel Number 723-08-067,located at 3948 East 41st Place, Yuma, Arizona.

2. INTENT:To allow the following deviation from the Zoning Ordinance:

1. A transitional buffer yard of nine feet on the east side where tenfeet is required.

3. For detailed analysis see attached staff report4. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of Variance Case No. 16-02 based on:

Staff finds approval of this variance may not have an adverseeffect on public health, safety, and welfare.

1.

Staff finds approval of this variance does not appear to have anegative impact on the neighborhood.

2.

AttachmentsV16-02 Staff Report V16-02 Vicinity Map

V16-02 Site Plan V16-02 Applicant Correspondence V16-02 Comments

Page 1 of 5

STAFF REPORTYuma County Planning and Zoning Division

Prepared for the Hearing ofApril 19, 2016


CASE NUMBER: Variance Case No. 16-02

OWNER: New Roots III AZ, LLC

CASE PLANNER: Marilu Garcia, Associate Planner

DATE PREPARED: March 16, 2016

DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Stacy Greene, agent for New Roots III AZ LLC, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 302.01—Transitional Buffer Yards and Screening, to allow a transitional buffer yard of nine feet along the east side on a parcel one acre in size zoned Light Industrial (LI), Assessor's Parcel Number 723-08-067, located at 3948 East 41st Place, Yuma AZ, located within the 70dB noise zone.

THE APPLICANT’S REASON FOR REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE: During the permit processfor 3941 East 41st Place, Yuma AZ a buffer zone of 10 feet and a heavier concentration of screening was allowed. At final inspection with the County it was noted that the buffer zone to the east was actually 9 feet not the required 10 feet.

APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WOULD ALLOW:

The subject parcel with the following deviations from the Zoning Ordinance:

1. A transitional buffer yard of nine feet on the east side where ten feet is required.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located within Citrus Business Park subdivision. The subdivision was recorded onSeptember 14, 2006 and is zoned LI. The subdivision is composed of various commercial and industrial businesses. The subject property has the following permits one file: PRM15-0456 for a warehouse and office 8,000 square feet in size, PRM15-0866 for a commercial well, PRM15-1160 for an illuminated sign, EP15-0040 for a new commercial driveway, H15-0044 for septic and FC15-0003 for grading. During the

Page 2 of 5

permit review of PRM15-0456, a correction notice was provided to the applicant to revise the buffer and screening specifications. The final site plan submitted met the buffer and screening requirement and the permit was approved. However, at the time of construction, the site plan utilized was not the final site planand it did not address the buffer and screening requirement. The buffer zone is currentlynine feet instead of ten feet.

Section 302.01 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance states as follows: These regulations are intended to: 1. Preserve the value of buildings and protect their occupants’ privacy by requiring spacing and screening between different types of uses or intensities. 2. Utilize spacing and screening together to buffer uses of one intensity from aspects of uses of a higher intensity and reduce the adverse effects of traffic, noise, dust, or odor. 3. Tailor transitional buffer yard requirements to suit the intensity of the use and adjacent uses. The greater the difference in intensities, the deeper the transitional buffer yard; the less the difference in intensities, the shallower the transitional buffer yard. 4. Require adequate screening of commercial and industrial uses along streets both to preserve building values and to promote the scenic beauty along transportation corridors.

The subject property is adjacent to Rural Area-10 acre minimum (RA-10) zoning to the north and east. The area to the north is used for agricultural purposes and the area to the east is the location of a site-built residence and accessory structures and is used for the storage of agricultural related items. As such, TypeB screening and a buffer zone of 20 feet is required along the north and east sides of the subject property.The subject property meets the requirement for the north side. Zoning to the south and west is also LI, thus not subject to buffer and screening requirements. Type B screening is achieved by using the following vegetation: a. One canopy tree per 40 lineal feet of Buffer yard; b. One under story tree per 30 lineal feet of Buffer yard; c. One shrub per six lineal feet of Buffer yard; or d. Any combination of the above; e. Any other screening that meets or exceeds the degree of screening achieved by the above. f. The broken screen is intended to create the impression of spatial separation between uses without necessarily eliminating visual contact between the spaces.

The applicant was allowed to reduce the buffer yard requirement by 50 percent while increasing the screening density per section 302.01(K) which specifies as follows: Recognizing that a transitional Buffer yard is defined by both its depth and the density of screening within it, the Planning Director may allow a transitional Buffer yard’s depth to be reduced by up to fifty percent (50%) from that specified in Table I if the density of screening within the Buffer yard is increased to an equivalent degree, provided the Buffer yard remains deep enough to accommodate the healthy growth and protection of the proposed screen plantings. The property owner was required to maintain a10 foot buffer yard instead of 20 feet along the east while increasing the screening density. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow for the existing buffer yard of 9 feet to be sufficient for this property.

Page 3 of 5

STAFF ANALYSIS

Section 403.03 of the Zoning Ordinance:

A. Variances under section 403.02 shall be granted only when, because of peculiar conditions applicable to the property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the zoning district.

Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to the property. The lot is flat terrain and the topography is not unusual. The parcel is one acre in size.

B. Variances are available only in cases where there is a hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of a particular piece of land, not from personal considerations, personal convenience or financial hardships.

Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property. The variance emerged by a discrepancy that occurred during the development of theproject. The approved site plan for PRM15-0456 indicated angled parking spaces to accommodate a buffer zone of 10 feet along the east. However, straight parking spaces were developed in this area which limited the space available for the buffer yard.

C. Any motion to grant a Variance by the Board of Adjustment shall include specific peculiar conditions applicable to the property, which exist to cause granting of a Variance.

Staff finds there are no specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting of a variance. The property is not of unusual shape or topography. The need for a variance emerged by a discrepancy that occurred during construction of the parking and circulation area.

D. A variance shall not be granted which will have an adverse effect on public health, safety and welfare.

Staff finds approval of this variance may not have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare. The commercial office is approximately 60 feet away from the east property line. The residence on the adjacent property is approximately 30 feet from the east property line of the subject property. In addition to the vegetation, there is also a solid block wall along the east property line which protects the residential use to the east.

E. A variance shall not be granted if, in granting the variances a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district will be conferred, or have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Page 4 of 5

Granting this variance to decrease the buffer yard requirement appears to confer a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by other in the LI zoning district. However, the reduction of one foot of buffer yarddoes not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

F. The Board of Adjustment may require appropriate conditions or safeguards on any granted variances so that public health, safety and welfare are not compromised.

Staff is recommending that if approved, this variance include the attached conditions as a means of addressing concerns of public health, safety, and welfare.

G. Variances shall not be granted if the condition is self-imposed or if a reasonable use of the land can be made in an alternative development scheme without the variance.

Staff finds the condition is self-imposed. The buffer yard requirement was reduced by one foot during construction of the parking and circulation area. If a section of the driveway or parking is modified it would create issues with the parking space and/or driveway dimension requirements. The screening density has been increased by having a denser vegetative screening and a solid block fence on the eastside to create a barrier between the two properties.

H. The fact that there are non-conforming uses of neighborhood lands, structures or buildings, in the same zoning district shall not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.

Staff’s recommendation is not based on non-conforming uses of neighborhood lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Three similar variance cases have been requested since 1994. Variance Case No. 94-14 was requested to reduce the screening requirement on a parcel zoned LI. A solid wall or fence was required, but the applicant requested screening in the form of vegetation. Staff recommended approval and it was approved by the Board of Adjustment. Variance Case No. 07-07 was requested to eliminate the screening requirement and use a berm instead. Staff recommended approval and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment. Variance Case No. 09-07 was requested to eliminate the buffer and screening requirement on a parcel zoned C-2. The adjacent parcel was zoned RA-10 and was vacant. Staff recommended approval and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Page 5 of 5

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of Variance Case No. 16-02 based on:

1. Staff finds approval of this variance may not have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare.

2. Staff finds approval of this variance does not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

If the Board of Adjustment approves this Variance, staff suggests attaching the following conditions:

1. This variance is valid for the time limits outlined in Section 403.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(4

(1

(5

(3(2

(1

(88

(52

(22

(86

(69(68 (67

(11(12 (10

(8(7 (9

(39(89

µSCALE 1" =200'

FOR INFORMATION ONLY - NO LIABILITY ASSUMED

PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION2351 W. 26TH STREET

YUMA, AZ 85364

DEPARTMENT OFDEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

CASE NO:LOCATION:APN:

3948 East 41st Place

LegendSubject PropertyCase Planner: Marilu Garcia

Drawn: 01-15-16Reviewed: JLR 1-15-16

LI

CITYOF

YUMA

RA-10

300' NOTIFICATION AREAZoning District

V16-02

723-08-067

41st Place

67

C i t r u s C i t r u s B u s i n e s s B u s i n e s s

P a r kP a r k

Subdivision Boundary

RA-10

LI-1 LI-2

LIPD

40th Street/County 12th Street

C-2

C i t r u s C i t r u s B u s i n e s s B u s i n e s s

P a r k I IP a r k I I

County 12 1/4 Street

Aven

ue 4E

42nd Place

Tang

lo Av

enue

70dB

100108

Rectangle

100108

Typewritten Text

9' requested buffer yard


April 19, 2016

Item No. 5



Information1. REQUESTED ACTION:Variance Case No. 16-06: Israel Galvez, agent for William and Susan Watt,requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section609.07—Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow a lot coverage of 33 percent on aparcel 7,194 square feet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS),Assessor's Parcel Number 728-23-198, located at 13625 East 45th Lane, Yuma,Arizona.


1. A lot coverage of 33 percent where 30 percent is the maximumallowed for properties served by septic system.

3. For detailed analysis see attached staff report4. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends denial of Variance Case No. 16-06 based on:

Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to theproperty.

1.

Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions orcircumstances unique to the development of this property.

2.

Staff finds the condition is self-imposed.3.

AttachmentsV16-06 Staff Report

V16-06 Vicinity Map V16-06 Site Plan V16-06 Comments

Page 1 of 4





OWNER: William and Susan Watt



DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Israel Galvez, agent for William and Susan Watt, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 609.07—Maximum Lot Coverage, to allow a lot coverage of 33 percent on a parcel 7,194 square feet in size zoned Recreational Vehicle Subdivision (RVS), Assessor's Parcel Number 728-23-198, located at 13625 East 45th Lane, Yuma AZ.

THE APPLICANT’S REASON FOR REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE: Allow to exceed 30% lot coverage when septic system is present.


The following deviation from the Zoning Ordinance:

1. A lot coverage of 33 percent where 30 percent is the maximum allowed for properties served by septic system.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located within Foothills Mobile Estates No. 3 subdivision. The subdivision was recorded on January 10, 1980 and is zoned RVS. Section 609.07 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO) specifies that the maximum lot coverage for all principal and accessory buildings in the RVS zoning district is 50 percent. When lot coverage exceeds 30 percent, a central sewage system is required.The subject property is served by an individual septic system since there is no sewer in this area, thus limiting the maximum lot coverage to 30 percent.

Page 2 of 4

The applicants purchased the subject property on May 8, 2002. The subject property is currently the location of a manufactured home. The following permits are on file: I95-0197 for the placement of a manufactured home 16 feet by 66 feet in size; B95-0738 for an aluminum awning 10 feet by 66 feet in size;B98-0141 for a deck and B98-0417 for an attached aluminum awning 12 feet by 26 in size located above the deck. The property is also the location of a shed 12 feet by 28 feet in size that was placed without a permit.

The Zoning Enforcement Section received a complaint on June 25, 2015 regarding the placement of a shed without a permit on the subject property. An inspector conducted a site visit and confirmed the complaint.Violation Case No. NOV15-0263 is currently open. The property owners have applied for building permit number B15-0719 to bring this property into compliance. This permit is on hold since the addition of the shed increases the lot coverage above the maximum allowed. The applicant requests this variance to allow an increase to the maximum lot coverage to 33 percent to be able to keep the shed.

STAFF ANALYSIS



Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to the property. The lot is flat terrain and the topography is not unusual. The parcel is 7,194 square feet in size and is similar in size and shape as surrounding properties.


Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property. The subject property meets the minimum lot size requirement for the RVS zoning district. The variance request emerged by the Notice of Violation (NOV15-0263) currently open.


Staff finds there are no specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting of a variance. The property is not of unusual shape or topography.

D. A variance shall not be granted which will have an adverse effect on public health, safety and

Page 3 of 4

welfare.

Staff finds approval of this variance may not have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare. Maximum lot coverage standards help prevent lots from becoming overdeveloped, allow for accessibility, and to maintain aesthetics. Lots with septic systems within the RVS zoning district have a more restrictive lot coverage of 30 percent to accommodate for 100% expansion of the septic system in case of failure and separation requirements from structures. However, the shed is existing and meets setback requirements, but causes a three percent increase over the maximum lot coverage allowed.


Granting this variance to allow an increase to the maximum lot coverage will confer a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the RVS zoning district. Approval of this request may have a negative impact on the neighborhood if the septic system is unable to be expanded at a future date if the need arises.




Staff finds the condition is self-imposed. A permit was required for the placement of the shed. The property owners have the option to remove or to modify the shed to meet maximum lot coverage restrictions.



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Two similar variance requests have been approved within the RVS zoning district as follows:

Variance Case No. 08-16 was requested to allow a lot coverage of 53 percent on a property 7,150 square feet in size served by individual septic. The property owners purchased the property with a surplus in lot coverage and sewer was not available in that area. Staff recommended denial of the request, however the variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Page 4 of 4

Variance Case No. 16-01 was requested to allow a lot coverage of 43 percent on a property 10,711 square feet in size served by septic. Sewer was not available in the area. Staff recommended denial of the request, however the variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment.


Staff recommends denial of Variance Case No. 16-06 based on:



3. Staff finds the condition is self-imposed.



2. A range disclosure statement and restricted airspace disclosure statement shall be recorded by the owner/agent within 60 days of approval by the Board of Adjustment.

(5

(6

(7

(11

(336

(8

(9

(10

(198

(181(182

(242(243(244(245

(341

(152

(115(116(117(118(119(120(121

(148

(160(159

(193

(275(276

(149 (146

(25

(174(175(176(177

(272(273(274

(226

(239(240

(192

(144(145

(237(238

(203(202

(7 (355(264(265(266(277(278

(241

(338

(153

(24

(225(224(354

(246

(284(283(282

(155(156(157

(220

(185(114

(150(151(22

(134(133(132(131(130(129

(196(111

(136(135

(230(229 (232(231(13

(18

(83

(228(227(219

(85(86

(178(179

(40(41(42

(101(100

(6

(137

(214(215(216

(50(220(47

(281(5(280

(20

(217

(184(183(143(142(141(140(139(138

(29

(267(268(269(270(271

(103(102

(329(293

(109(108(107(106(105(104

(6(5

(345(344(290(289(288(287(286(285

(19

(110(99

(258(257

(179(173(172

(123(124(125(126(197

(147

(84(122

(163

(210(353(213

(253(252(251(9(250(249

(340(16

(158

(218

(154

(256(255(254

(201

(343

(339(15 (204(205

(171(170(162(161

(192(191(190(189

(219(180

(236

(342

(39

(23

(337

(21

(259

(167(166(165

(198

(352 (206(207

(328

(187(188

(10

(94(93(92(91(187(186

(28

(332

(181(182(186

(335(350

(334(234(235(247(248

(164

(261(333(263(262

(169(168

(279

(183(184(185

(351

(180

(197(196(195(194(17

(260

(8 (356

(14

(12

(13

(14(233

(15

(16

(17

(18

(19

(20

(21

(92

(91 (90

(85 (86

(83(84

(72(71

(70 (69

(53(52

(50

(22 (23

(51

µSCALE 1" =200'



YUMA, AZ 85364


SERVICES


13625 East 45th Lane


Drawn: 3-1-16Reviewed: 3-2-16 Juan L.R.

R-1-6

RVS


V16-06

728-23-198

F o o t h i l l s M o b i l e F o o t h i l l s M o b i l e E s t a t e s 3E s t a t e s 3

198

46th Drive

El C

amino

del D

iablo

Subdivision Boundary

46th Street

45th Lane

45th Drive

Colin

a Ave

nue

47th Street

45th Street

Ironw

ood D

rive

F o o t h i l l s M o b i l e F o o t h i l l s M o b i l e E s t a t e s 7E s t a t e s 7

A r r o y o d e A r r o y o d e F o r t u n aF o r t u n a


April 19, 2016

Item No. 6



Information1. REQUESTED ACTION:Variance Case No. 16-07: Keith Fisher, agent for David L. Lara, requests avariance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1115.05(B)—Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, toallow a wireless communication tower with a rear yard setback of 100 feet, anorth side yard setback of 20 feet and a south side yard setback of 90 feet on aparcel 40,510 square feet in size zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and Low DensityResidential-6,000 square feet minimum (R-1-6), within the vicinity of a militaryairport, Assessor's Parcel Number 664-05-053, located at 909 South Avenue B,Yuma, Arizona.

2. INTENT:To allow the following deviations from the Zoning Ordinance:

1. A rear yard setback of 100 feet where 125 feet is required;2. A north side yard setback of 20 feet where 120 feet is required; and3. A south side yard setback of 90 feet where 120 feet is required.


Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions orcircumstances unique to the development of this property

1.

Granting this variance would confer a special privilege notcommonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district.

2.


AttachmentsV16-07 Staff Report V16-07 Vicinity Map V16-07 Site Plan V16-07 Applicant Justification V16-07 Comments V16-07 Tower Information

Page 1 of 6





OWNER: David L. Lara



DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Keith Fisher, agent for David L. Lara, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1115.05 (B)—Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, to allow a wireless communication tower with a rear yard setback of 100 feet, a north side yard setback of 20 feet and a south side yard setback of 90 feet on a parcel 40,510 square feet in size zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and Low Density Residential-6,000 square feet minimum (R-1-6), Assessor's Parcel Number 664-05-053, located at 909 South Avenue B, Yuma, Arizona, located within the territory in the vicinity of a military airport.

THE APPLICANT’S REASON FOR REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE: "We believe that a setback variance is justified for the proposed wireless communication tower. The area in question is an approximately 2,500 square feet section located within a .916 acre C-1 zoned lot. The parcel is located within the C-1 zoning district, part of a commercial area which is surrounded by a much larger residential area, making it an ideal location for a communications site to serve this are of Yuma. Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted by right in the C-1 district per section 1115.04 of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance."


The following deviations from the Zoning Ordinance:

1) A rear yard setback of 100 feet where 125 feet is required2) A north side yard setback of 20 feet where 120 feet is required3) A south side yard setback of 90 feet where 120 feet is required

Page 2 of 6

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located within Marable subdivision. The subdivision was recorded on February 16, 1920. The property is zoned Local Commercial (C-1) and a portion is zoned Low Density Residential-6,000 square feet minimum (R-1-6). The agent, working for NTCH-CA in association with Flat Wireless dba Cleartalk, requests this variance to allow the placement of a monopole tower 150 feet in height on aportion of the subject property 2,500 square feet in size. The subject property is the location of two mobile food vendors and a storage building.

On April 4, 2005, Minor Amendment Case No. 2004-MA-32 was approved changing the subject property's Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Residential and Rezoning Case Number 04-49 (RZ04-49) was approved changing the zoning to C-2 (General Commercial). However, on January 4, 2012, the Yuma County Board of Supervisors reverted the zoning to its original zoning since the Schedule for Development for RZ04-49 was no met within the required timeframe. The property owner decided to apply for Special Use Permit Number 11-21 to allow for the placement of five mobile food vendors on the subject parcel and on the adjacent parcel to the north which Mr. Lara also owns.

Wireless communication facilities are allowed by right in the C-1 zoning district. Section 1115.05(B) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO) states as follows: No tower shall exceed a height of one hundred fifty (150) feet from grade and wireless communication facilities shall be setback from each lot line at least one (1) foot for each foot of additional height above the height limit otherwise permitted in the zoning district in which the structure is located. The additional one foot above the zoning district height maximum is in addition to the normal building setback of the zoning district in which the proposed WCF is to be located in.

The proposed wireless communication tower is intended to be 150 feet in height. The tower will be placed within the portion of the property zoned C-1 specifying a height limitation of 35 feet. This indicates an excess in height of 115 feet. The required setback is calculated by adding the excess height and the normal building setback requirements for the particular zoning district. Additionally, the property is adjacent to a section line road, Avenue B, which requires a setback of 50 feet from, and on both sides of, the centerline as specified in Section 1104.01(A)(2) of the YCZO. The distance between the front property line and the centerline is 33 feet. Thus an additional 17 feet setback is required along the front yard. The following table indicates the required setbacks for the subject property:

WCF Tower Height C-1 Height Limit Excess Height C-1Setback

Additional Setback for Section Line

Roads

Required Setback

Front Setback 150' 35' 115' 20 17' 152'Rear Setback 150' 35' 115' 10' 0 125'Side Setback 150' 35' 115' 5' 0 120'

Page 3 of 6

STAFF ANALYSIS



Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to the subject property. The lot is flat and the topography is not unusual. The property meets the minimum size and dimensions for the C-1 district. However, the proposed tower is 150 feet in height and requires additional setbacks as specified in the zoning ordinance.


Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property. However, the applicant indicated that there is a need to improve wireless communication services in this neighborhood. Alternative sites have been considered but are not large enough to accommodate setback requirements. A previous variance was requested in this neighborhood to allow a tower 190 feet in height with a front setback of 117 feet where 175 was required, an east side yard setback of 20 feet where 160 feet was required, a west side yard setback of 30 feet where 160 feet was required and a rear yard setback of 20 feet where 165 was required. The property was 9,000 square feet in size located at 2403 West 8th Place and approximately 190 feet northeast of the subject property. The Board of Adjustment denied the request.


Staff finds there are no specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting of a variance. This variance emerged by the need to improve wireless communication connectivity in this neighborhood. The applicant identified a hardship in finding a suitable location that meets carrier standards and zoning codes.


Staff finds that granting this variance may have an adverse effect on public health, safety and welfare. The subject property is located along commercial properties immediately north, west and south. The property to

Page 4 of 6

the north is also owned by Mr. Lara and is used for commercial activities as well. The zoning at this location allows for the placement of wireless communication facilities by right with a maximum height of150 feet. However, additional setbacks are required to protect the neighboring properties in case the tower collapses or in the event of a fire, but the site is not large enough to accommodate setback requirements.The proposed tower would be positioned approximately 120 feet from a Manufactured Home Park to theeast located within the City of Yuma, posing a safety concern if the tower collapses. Residential uses are established approximately 350 feet farther north. The applicant indicated that new towers are engineered to fall within a radius of 10 feet. The subject property is 40,510 square feet in size and the tower would be placed in a portion 2,500 square feet in size enclosed by a fence. The site plan indicates access to the toweralong Avenue B and a 15 foot easement leading to the facility. The nearest WCF is approximately 570 feet southwest of the subject property. It is specified as a monopole 55 feet in height for Verizon Wireless located at 1019 South Avenue B. The applicant indicated that the proposed tower would allow other carriers to co-locate as well.


Staff finds that granting this variance to allow a reduction to the required setbacks appears to confer a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district. The City of Yuma included the following comments: The proposed tower is beyond the type and height of tower permitted in the City of Yuma Zoning Ordinance. A great deal of the purpose of our height, type of tower, and distance requirements for personal wireless communication facilities is the appearance and aesthetics. This tower, at this height and location, would be plainly visible to residents in the surrounding subdivisions already within the City limits. The alternative would be more sites at lower heights to lessen their visual impact to residents. Also, since this tower is so close to the City limits, staff does not encourage creating more nonconforming uses at the edge of the City of Yuma that will likely be within the City soon and at odds with City Code.




Staff finds the condition is self-imposed. There are alternatives to the development scheme that can be accomplished if this variance is not granted. A tower with a lower height could be constructed to meet setbacks or the tower could be place on a different site. Additionally, it may be possible to combine the subject property with the property to the north since they are in common ownership in order to accommodate the required setbacks for a tower of this height.

Page 5 of 6



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The Board of Adjustments approved three similar cases relating to wireless communication facilities including:

Variance Case No. 08-03 was requested to allow a rear yard setback of 6 feet and a side yard setback of 13 feet for a 22 foot extension of an existing 60 foot tower in a 2,500 square feet lot zoned General Commercial (C-2). Staff recommended denial and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Variance Case No. 08-22 was requested to allow a 100 foot tower with a front and side yard setback of 25 on a 1.65 acre parcel zoned Rural Area-40 acre minimum (RA-40). Staff recommended denial and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Variance Case No. 15-10 was requested to allow a 150 foot tower with a rear yard setback of 20 feet on a 2.7 acre parcel zoned C-2. Staff recommended approval and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Paula Backs, MCAS Yuma submitted the following comments: MCAS Yuma’s Communications Department has reviewed this request and do not see any problems with the frequencies associated with this tower. Our Operations Department has reviewed this request concerning the height of the tower. We request that the applicant notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to evaluate the tower by completing FAA Forms 7460-1 and 7460-2 since this tower will be the most prominent obstruction in the area. It is also requested that the tower be lit according to FAA guidance.



1. Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property

2. Granting this variance would confer a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district.


Page 6 of 6


1. This Variance is valid for the time limits outlined in Section 403.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.

2. All Federal Administration (FAA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations must be complied with including marking, lighting, and notification requirements.

3. The approval of this Variance is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant. Any change from the site plan will require approval of a new variance by the Board of Adjustment.

(74(75 (76

(100

(1

(73(77 (96

(97 (98

(99

(86

(32

(76(28

(45 (81

(75

(3

(88

(89

(64

(85

(26

(30

(39

(82 (42

(83 (62(84

(65 (66 (77

(29

(71(10

(53

(8

(59 (58 (79 (80

(5

(78(54

(36 (37 (38

(27

(11

(27

(31

(354

(32(9(72

(73 (74

(68

(70

(69

(30

(32

(31

(357(355 (358

(27

(29

(35 (33

(34

µSCALE 1" =200'



YUMA, AZ 85364


SERVICES


909 South Avenue B


Drawn: 3-2-16Reviewed: 3-2-16 F.V.

CITYOF

YUMA


V16-07

664-05-053

RA-40

53

8th Street

Georg

e Bell

e Ave

nue

Aven

ue B

R-1-6

R-2

R-1-12

C-1

C-1

MHP8th Place

Claxton Street

10th Place

37

MHP

B-2

R-2B-1


April 19, 2016

Item No. 7



Information1. REQUESTED ACTION:Variance Case No. 16-08: Keith Fisher, agent for Bruce and Drucilla Jacobson,requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1115.05(B) — Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, toallow a front yard setback of 45 feet on a parcel 17.46 acres in size zoned RuralArea-10 acre minimum (RA-10), within the vicinity of a military airport, Assessor'sParcel Number 693-24-001, located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and28th Street, Yuma, Arizona.


1. A front yard (east) setback of 45 feet where 157 feet is required.


Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions orcircumstances unique to the development of this property

1.

Granting this variance would confer a special privilege notcommonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district.

2.


Attachments

V16-08 Staff Report V16-08 Vicinity Map V16-08 Site Plan V16-08 Applicant Justification V16-08 Comments V16-08 Tower Information

Page 1 of 5





OWNER: Bruce and Drucilla Jacobson



DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Keith Fisher, agent for Bruce and Drucilla Jacobson, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 1115.05 (B) — Wireless Communication Facilities Height and Setback Requirements, to allow a front yard setback of 45 feet on a parcel 17.46 acres in size zoned Rural Area-10 acre minimum (RA-10), Assessor's Parcel Number 693-24-001, located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and 28th Street, Yuma, Arizona, located within the territory in the vicinity of a military airport.

THE APPLICANT’S REASON FOR REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE: "We believe that a setback variance is justified for the proposed wireless communication tower. The property in question is a 2,500 square feet section located within a 17.46 acre Prime RA-10 (Agricultural) zoned field currently used to grow lettuce. The parcel is located within the Agricultural district with other agricultural plots to the north and east and is surrounded by a much larger residential area, making it an ideal location for a communications site to serve this area of Yuma County. Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted by Special Use in the RA-10 district."



1) A front yard (east) setback of 45 feet where 157 feet is required.

Page 2 of 5

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located within the Yuma Valley Planning Area and is zoned RA-10. The subject property is in agriculture. This area is considered prime agricultural farmland and is classified as Agricultural Real Property by the Assessor's office. The agent requests this variance to allow the placement of a wireless communication tower on a portion of the subject property 2,500 square feet in size located on the northeast portion of the subject property.

Wireless communication facilities are allowed in the RA-10 zoning district through the approval of a Special Use Permit. The applicant chose to initiate the process by applying for a variance to reduce the setback requirements. Section 1115.05(B) of the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance (YCZO) states as follows: No tower shall exceed a height of one hundred fifty (150) feet from grade and wireless communication facilities shall be setback from each lot line at least one (1) foot for each foot of additional height above the height limit otherwise permitted in the zoning district in which the structure is located. The additional one foot above the zoning district height maximum is in addition to the normal building setback of the zoning district in which the proposed wireless communication facility is to be located in.

The proposed wireless communication tower is intended to be 150 feet in height. The RA-10 zoning district has a height limitation of 60 feet which is an excess in height of 90 feet. The required setback is calculated by adding the excess height and the normal building setback requirements for the particular zoning district. The property is adjacent to a section line road, Avenue C, which requires a setback of 50 feet from, and on both sides of, the centerline as specified in Section 1104.01(A)(2) of the YCZO. The distance between the east property line and the centerline is 33 feet. An additional 17 feet setback is required along the east. Additionally, 28th Street (County 10½ Street) to the north is a mid-section line road which requires an additional 40 feet as specified in Section 1104.01(B). The wireless communication facility meets the setbacks in the side yards and rear yard. The following table indicates the required setbacks for the subject property:

WCF Tower Height RA-10 Height Limit Excess Height

RA-10 Setback

Additional Setback for

Section Line Roads

Required Setback

Front (east) Setback 150' 60' 90' 50' 17 157'

Side (North)Setback 150' 60' 90' 20' 40' 150'

Side (South) Setback 150' 60' 90' 20' 0 110'

Rear (west) Setback 150' 60' 90' 34' 0 124'

Page 3 of 5

STAFF ANALYSIS



Staff finds there are no peculiar conditions applicable to the subject property. The lot is flat and the topography is not unusual. The property is 17.46 acres in size which exceeds minimum size requirementsfor the RA-10 zoning district. The proposed tower is 150 feet in height and there is space to meet setback requirements. However, the parcel is located within prime farmland. Prime farmland is defined by the United States Department of Agriculture as follows: "Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed accordingly..." In order to meet setback requirements, additional farm land would need to be removed.


Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property. This variance emerged by the decision to construct the wireless communication facility on the subject property. The tower can be constructed in accordance with the development standards required by the YCZO.


Staff finds there are no specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting of thisvariance. This variance emerged by the decision to construct the wireless communications tower on the subject property and the need to improve wireless communication connectivity in this area.


Staff finds approval of this request may have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare. The subject property is located in a County island surrounded on all sides by the City of Yuma. The nearest home is approximately 330 feet to the northeast within the Parkway Place No. 1 subdivision and there are site-builthomes located approximately 750 feet south of the proposed tower location. The subject property is used for agricultural purposes and the land to the north and east is also in agriculture. The proposed tower may

Page 4 of 5

interfere with crop dusting activities in the area thereby causing safety concerns. If the tower collapses it would create a safety concern as well since Avenue C is located directly to the east. Additionally, areduction of the required front yard setback may conflict with future right-of-way for Avenue C. A water canal runs along the frontage but there is a 15 foot access easement beginning at El Dorado Road. The nearest wireless communication facility is approximately half a mile north of subject property located at 2312 South Avenue C, within the City of Yuma.


Staff finds granting this variance to allow a reduction of the front yard setback appears to confer a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district. The City of Yuma submitted the following comments: "The proposed tower is beyond the type and height of tower permitted in the City of Yuma Zoning Ordinance. A great deal of the purpose of our height, type of tower, and distance requirements for personal wireless communication facilities is the appearance and aesthetics. This tower, at this height and location, would be plainly visible to residents in the surrounding subdivisions already within the City limits. The alternative would be more sites at lower heights to lessen their visual impact to residents. Also, since this tower is so close to the City limits, staff does not encourage creating more nonconforming uses at the edge of the City of Yuma that will likely be within the City soon and at odds with City Code."




Staff finds the condition is self-imposed. There are alternatives development schemes that can be accomplished if this variance request is not granted. The tower could be placed farther west to meet the necessary setbacks, other sites can be considered, or a tower with a lower height can be constructed.




The Board of Adjustments has approved three similar cases relating to wireless communication facilitiesincluding:

Page 5 of 5

Variance Case No. 08-03 was requested to allow a rear yard setback of 6 feet and a side yard setback of 13 feet for a 22 foot extension of an existing 60 foot tower on a 2,500 square feet lot zoned General Commercial (C-2). Staff recommended denial and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Variance Case No. 08-22 was requested to allow a 100 foot tower with a front and side yard setback of 25 feet on a 1.65 acre parcel zoned Rural Area-40 acre minimum (RA-40). Staff recommended denial and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment. SUP14-02 was approved by the Board of Supervisors for the placement of a wireless communication facility.

Variance Case No. 15-10 was requested to allow a 150 foot tower with a rear yard setback of 20 feet on a 2.7 acre parcel zoned C-2. Staff recommended approval and the case was approved by the Board of Adjustment.

Paula Backs, MCAS Yuma submitted the following comments: MCAS Yuma’s Communications Department has reviewed this request and do not see any problems with the frequencies associated with this tower. Our Operations Department has reviewed this request concerning the height of the tower. We request that the applicant notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to evaluate the tower by completing FAA Forms 7460-1 and 7460-2 since this tower will be the most prominent obstruction in the area. It is also requested that the tower be lit in accordance with FAA guidelines.



1. Staff finds there is no hardship arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of this property

2. Granting this variance would confer a special privilege not commonly enjoyed by others in the zoning district.



1. This Variance is valid for the time limits outlined in Section 403.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.

2. If equipment shelters or structures are constructed or installed on this site, a minimum 20’ wide all-weather access and emergency vehicle turnaround per Appendix D of the 2003 International Fire Code shall be provided.

3. All Federal Administration (FAA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations must be complied with including marking, lighting, and notification requirements.

4. The approval of this variance is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant. Any change from the site plan will require approval of a new variance by the Board of Adjustment.

(131(132

(51(52(54(25(26

(98

(135(80

(79 (136

(7(8(9

(10

(19

(97

(63(17

(306

(53

(32(31

(82(92(91(90(89(88(5

(30(29 (96

(64(16

(61

(95

(260

(36(35(14

(4(3

(300

(904

(93(66

(900

(267(301

(22(21

(133

(305(318(317

(28(18 (62

(291

(27 (50

(302(321(320(319

(137(78(11

(2(1

(94(65(15

(292

(33(34

(304(303

(299(298(297(296(295(294

(24(23

(12

(99(20

(259(258(257(256(255(254

(44(43(42(41

(67(68(69(70(71

(83(84(85(86(87(6

(265(264(263(262(261

(13

(290

(49(48(47(46(45

(293 (268

(134(81

(77(76(75(74(73

(72(37(38(39(40

(59(58(57(56(55

(60(901

(1

(253

(289

(307(309(310(311(312(313(314 (308(315(316

(7

(6

(1

(3 (1

(1

(5

(13

(910

(2

(3

(8 (9

(4

(10 (11 (12 (14

(2

(2

(911

(2(1

(901

(1

(45

(46

(47

(48

(49

(50

(51

(1

(52(53(54(55

(111

(56(57(58 (61

(62

(63

(64

(65

(66

(67 (68(69(70(71(72(73(74 (77

(78

(79

(80

(81

(82

(83

(93

(94

(95

(96

(97

(98

(99

(100(101(102(103(104(105(106(107(108(109(110(4

(65

(66

(67

(68

(69 (70 (71 (72 (73 (74

(75(76(77(78(79(80(81(82(83

(84 (85 (86 (87 (88 (89 (90 (91 (92

(93

(94

(95

(96(97

(112(113(114(115(116(117

(118

(119(120(121(122(123(124(125(128

(129

(130

(131

(132

(133

(134

(135

(136

(137

(138(139(140(141(142(143(144

(9

(11(10

(12

(13

(14

(15

(16

(17(18(19(20(21(22(23(24(25(26

µSCALE 1" =500'



YUMA, AZ 85364


SERVICES


Southwest Corner of Ave. C and 28th St.


Drawn: 3-1-16Reviewed: 3-2-16 F.V.

CITYOF

YUMA


1

V16-08

693-24-001

(69315001)

28th Street

27th Place39th D

rive

Mesquite Elementary

School

Aven

ue C

RA-40

SSB-5

P a r k w a y P a r k w a y P l a c e 1P l a c e 1

27th Street

RA-10

R-1-40El Dorado Road

Aven

ue C

¼

2

3

4

1

R-1-6

R-1-20

1

3

5

6

7 8 910

11 12 13 14

RA-40

RA-10

(69323002)

(69323001)(69323003)

(69324002)

(19606001)

R-1-20

(69331002)37t

h Driv

e

27th Lane

RE-18

(69331001)

P a r k W e s tP a r k W e s tU n i t N o . 1U n i t N o . 1

P a r k W e s tP a r k W e s tU n i t N o . 2U n i t N o . 2


April 19, 2016

Item No. 8


Submitted For: Maggie Castro Submitted By: JuanLeal-Rubio

Department: Planning & Zoning Division - DDS

Information1. REQUESTED ACTION:Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, agent for Seeds West Inc. AzCorporation, requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance,Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to allow an agricultural exemption on aparcel approximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned Rural Area -40 acre minimum(RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024, located at 49850 East County1st Street, Roll, Arizona.


1. An agricultural exemption without the property being classified asagricultural by the Yuma County Assessor’s Office or the ArizonaDepartment of Revenue.

3. For detailed analysis see attached staff report4. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends approval of Variance Case No. 16-09 based on:1. Granting this variance does not appear to confer a special privilegenot enjoyed by others in the zoning district2. Staff finds there are specific peculiar conditions applicable to thisproperty which exist to cause granting of a variance.3. Approval of this variance will not have a negative impact on theneighborhood.

AttachmentsStaff Report Vicinity Map Site Plan Misc RFC Internal Agencies RFC External Agencies

STAFF REPORT

Yuma County Planning and Zoning Division

Prepared for the Hearing of

April 19, 2016



AGENT/OWNER: Fowler Malone, agent for Seeds West Inc. Az Corporation

CASE PLANNER: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner


DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Fowler Malone, agent for Seeds West Inc. Az Corporation, requests a

variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to allow

an agricultural exemption on a parcel approximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned Rural Area -40 acre

minimum (RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024, located at 49850 East County 1st Street, Roll,

Arizona.

The applicant’s reason for requesting this variance:

"We are asking for a variance ....to attain agricultural exemption to build a more suitable office for our

staff."



1) An agricultural exemption , which would exempt the subject property from the Yuma County

Zoning Ordinance, without the property being classified as agricultural by the Yuma County

Assessor’s Office or the Arizona Department of Revenue.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located in the Dome Valley/Wellton Planning Area of the 2020 Comprehensive

Plan. The parcel is zoned RA-40 and is 5.0 gross acres in size. The parcel is the location of Seeds West,

Inc. Az Corporation. According to the applicant, Seeds West started operations at the subject property in

1984 processing their own seed production and custom seed processing for other companies. Seeds West is

the world's largest bermudagrass seed company specializing in a variety of certified seeds for golf courses,

sports fields, parks and premium fields, as well as the marketing and selling of Ranchero Frio and Tierra

Verde brand bermudagrass pasture blends utilized to feed livestock. The company produces, conditions,

coats, and packages seed for turf and forage at the subject property. Seeds West currently operates on the

V16-09

Page 2 of 5

Page 2 of 5

subject property and on the adjoining 6.89 gross acre parcel (APN 174-15-025). In conversation with

Robert Vaughn, Operations Manager for Seeds West, the fact that Seeds West operates on two separate

parcels is just a technicality and would be supportive of both parcels being combined into one property.

Staff will recommend that both parcels are combined as a condition of approval of the variance.

Seeds West currently has 15 full time employees staffed at the subject property and are in need of a new

office to better accommodate the staff and administrative functions.

Staff found no record for the existing three warehouses located on the subject property and will recommend

that the applicant apply for the necessary permits prior to approving a building permit for the new office. If

this variance is not approved, compliance with the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance and Yuma County

Comprehensive Building Safety Code will be triggered for all existing and proposed structures. If this

variance is approved, agricultural exempt permits will be required for all three existing warehouses

including the proposed office. An agricultural exempt permit establishes a record for tax assessment

purposes and does not trigger compliance with the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance and Yuma County

Comprehensive Building Safety Code.

STAFF ANALYSIS


A. Variances under section 403.02 shall be granted only when, because of peculiar conditions

applicable to the property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such

property of privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the zoning district.

Staff finds there are peculiar conditions applicable to the property. Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 3-

111 defines agricultural operations as follows: All activities by the owner, lessee, agent, independent

contractor and supplier conducted on any facility for the production of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock

products or poultry products. Farmland is defined as follows: land devoted primarily to the production for

commercial purposes of livestock or agricultural commodities. Additionally, ARS §3-231 defines

agricultural seed as follows: The seeds of grass, forage, cereal, and fiber crops and any other kinds of seeds

commonly recognized within this state as agricultural seeds, lawn seeds and mixtures of such seeds, and

may include noxious-weed seeds when the department determines that such seed is being used as

agricultural seed. The Rural Area zoning district is supportive of the type of use(s) that has been being

taking place on the subject property since 1984. Although the subject property is not classified as

agricultural, the property is surrounded by farmland which is used for the production of seeds. The subject

property is being used for the processing of seeds produced on surrounding farmland. If the property were

under the same ownership as the surrounding farmland, the use would be classified as agricultural.

B. Variances are available only in cases where there is a hardship arising from conditions or

circumstances unique to the development of a particular piece of land, not from personal

considerations, personal convenience or financial hardships.

V16-09

Page 3 of 5

Page 3 of 5

Staff finds there are hardships arising from conditions or circumstances unique to the development of

this property. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03-Certificate of Exemption, the

following criteria is used for granting an agricultural exemption:

1. Property classified as Agricultural by the Yuma County Assessor’s Office or the Arizona

Department of Revenue is exempt from the zoning regulations and building code. According

to Joe Wehrle, Yuma County Assessor, "...The Assessor’s Office has classified this property as

an AG related business that is assessed as Class 1 Commercial Property. The Yuma County

Assessor’s Office has no objection to the issuance of a building permit for the office building to

be constructed on the subject property...".

2. The property is five (5) or more contiguous commercial acres in size. The property is 5.00

gross acres in size.

3. The property/parcel is used for an exempted (agricultural) use. Research reveals the property

is being used for seed processing, storing of agricultural equipment and supplies, farm office,

etc.

Although the subject property is not classified as agricultural by the Assessor's office or the Arizona

Department of Revenue, the property is surrounded by farmland and has actively been used for seed

processing, which is an agricultural activity, since 1984.

C. Any motion to grant a variance by the Board of Adjustment shall include specific peculiar

conditions applicable to the property, which exist to cause granting of a variance.

Staff finds there are specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property to warrant granting of a

variance. The Rural Area zoning district is supportive of the type of use(s) that has been being taking

place on the subject property since 1984. Although the subject property is not classified as agricultural,

if the property were under the same ownership as the surrounding farmland, the use would be classified

as agricultural.

D. A variance shall not be granted which will have an adverse effect on public health, safety and

welfare.

Staff finds approval of this variance will not have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare.

E. A variance shall not be granted if, in granting the variances a special privilege not commonly

enjoyed by others in the zoning district will be conferred, or have a negative impact on the

neighborhood.

Approval of this variance to grant an agricultural exemption will not confer a special privilege not

enjoyed by others in the zoning district nor will it have a negative impact on the neighborhood since the

area is characterized by active farmland and activities related to supporting agricultural resources (crop

production, farming, etc.).

V16-09

Page 4 of 5

Page 4 of 5

F. The Board of Adjustment may require appropriate conditions or safeguards on any granted

variances so that public health, safety and welfare are not compromised.

Staff is recommending that if approved, this variance include the attached conditions as a means of

addressing concerns of public health, safety, and welfare.

G. Variances shall not be granted if the condition is self-imposed or if a reasonable use of the land

can be made in an alternative development scheme without the variance.

Staff finds the condition is self-imposed. However, based on the existing layout and infrastructure of the

seed processing operation, it would be unreasonable to require an alternative development scheme for

construction of the new office.

H. The fact that there are non-conforming uses of neighborhood lands, structures or buildings, in

the same zoning district shall not be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.

Staff’s recommendation is not based on non-conforming uses of neighborhood lands, structures or

buildings in the same zoning district.


The Building Safety Division offered a no comment response.

The Environmental Programs Division offered a no comment response.

The Flood Control Division offered the following comments: "... the parcel is within the floodplain so a

Floodplain Use Permit and grading permit would be required for the proposed development..."; and,

"Parcel is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A. Development will require a floodplain use

permit even if exempt from zoning."

The Yuma County Assessor's office offered the following comment: "The Assessor’s Office does not

consider this property to be “Agricultural” under the definitions of A.R.S. §42-12151. The Assessor’s Office

has classified this property as an AG related business that is assessed as Class 1 Commercial Property. The

Yuma County Assessor’s Office has no objection to the issuance of a building permit for the office building to

be constructed on the subject property. The decision to waive permit fees is a decision of the Board of

Adjustment."

Paula Backs, representing the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma, offered the following comment: "This

property is located beneath Instrument Route (IR)-218. It is requested that an IR-218 disclosure statement

be recorded that recognizes the noise, interference, and vibrations that may be generated from aircraft using

IR-218...".

V16-09

Page 5 of 5

Page 5 of 5

Various other external agencies offered a no comment response and are on file.


Staff recommends approval of Variance Case No. 16-09 based on:

1. Granting this variance does not appear to confer a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the

zoning district.

2. Staff finds there are specific peculiar conditions applicable to this property which exist to cause

granting of a variance.

3. Approval of this variance will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

If the Board of Adjustment approves this variance, staff suggests attaching the following conditions:


2. All requirements of the Yuma County Flood Control District shall be met.

3. All requirements of the Environmental Health laws including, but not exclusively, Arizona

Revised Statutes Titles 36 and 49, and Arizona Administrative Code, Rule 9 and 18, shall be

met.

4. All proposed buildings and existing unpermitted warehouses will require agricultural exempt

permits issued by the Yuma County Department of Development Services.

5. The applicant shall combine the existing two parcels into one Yuma County Tax Assessor

parcel.

6. An IR-218 disclosure statement shall be recorded within 60 days of approval by the Board of

Adjustment.

!(3

!(17

!(7

!(6

!(25!(24!(22

!(20

!(8

!(18

!(23

!(14

!(5!(6

!(7

!(10

!(5

!(4

!(1

!(8

!(2

TEXAS HILL CANAL

µSCALE 1"=800'



YUMA, AZ 85364


SERVICES49850 E. County 1st Street

LegendSubject PropertyCase Planner: Juan Leal Rubio

Drawn: 3/8/16Reviewed by: M.G on 3/9/16

300' Radius Area

Zoning

V16-09

174-15-024

County 1st Street

RA-40

Aven

ue 50

E

CASE NO.LOCATION:APN:

RA-40

From: Michael MaisnerTo: Juan Leal RubioSubject: RE: Request for Comments V16-09Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7:57:16 AM

Hi Juan, Flood control has no comment regarding rezoning. However, the parcel is within the floodplain so a Floodplain Use Permit and grading permit would be required for the proposed development. Thank you and have a great day, Michael Maisner P.E. | Civil EngineerFlood Control Division2351 W. 26th St. Yuma AZ 85364Phone: 928-817-5129 | Fax: 928-817-5109Email: [email protected] From: Juan Leal Rubio Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:46 AMTo: Angelica Bharat ([email protected]); Anne Camacho ([email protected]); Antelope Union High School District #50 ([email protected]); Arizona Western College ([email protected]); Becky Hopkins ([email protected]); Bill Knowles ([email protected]); Bobbi McDermott ([email protected]); Bruce Fenske ([email protected]); Carmen Juarez ([email protected]); Charles Ruerup ([email protected]); Chuck Wullenjohn ([email protected]); Crane Elementary School Dist. #13 ([email protected]); Doug Bowman ([email protected]); Edmund Ramirez ([email protected]); Gadsden Elementary School Dist. #32 ([email protected]); Gerry Ramirez ([email protected]); Grosse ([email protected]); Hyder Elementary School Dist. #16 ([email protected]); Isabell Limon ([email protected]); James Garrison ([email protected]); Jeff Humphrey ([email protected]); Jeff Spohn ([email protected]); Jennifer Albers ([email protected]); Jerry Cabrera ([email protected]); Jerry Reiffenberger ([email protected]); Joaquin Campa ([email protected]); [email protected]; John Starkey - City of San Luis ([email protected]); Jon Heidrich ([email protected]); Judith Movilla ([email protected]); Laura Noel ([email protected]); Lucy Shipp ([email protected]); Mike Straub - Wellton Mohawk Irrigaton District ([email protected]); Mohawk Valley Elementary School Dist. #17 ([email protected]); Paula Backs ([email protected]); Placido Lopez ([email protected]); [email protected]; Blevins, Robert (Bob) - Principal Planner; Roxanne Molenar ([email protected]); Sherry Fajardo ([email protected]); Southwest Gas ([email protected]); Stephany Turner; tony lomboy ([email protected]); Unit B Irrigation District ([email protected]); Wellton Elementary School Dist. #24 ([email protected]); YMPO ([email protected]); YPG Public Affairs Office ([email protected]); Yum County Water Users Association ([email protected]); Tom Tyree; [email protected]; Yuma Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Mesa Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Union High School District ([email protected]); Pat Headington; Arturo Alvarez; John Savicky; Craig Sellers; Michael Maisner; Richard J. Stacks; George Amaya; Joe WehrleSubject: Request for Comments V16-09 It would be greatly appreciated if you review the attached proposal and provide any feedback/comments, if applicable.

mailto:/O=YCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MICHAEL MAISNER8F3



From: Craig SellersTo: Juan Leal RubioSubject: RE: Request for Comments V16-09Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:42:02 PM

Parcel is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A. Development will require a floodplain use permit even if exempt from zoning.

From: Juan Leal Rubio Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:46 AMTo: Angelica Bharat ([email protected]); Anne Camacho ([email protected]); Antelope Union High School District #50 ([email protected]); Arizona Western College ([email protected]); Becky Hopkins ([email protected]); Bill Knowles ([email protected]); Bobbi McDermott ([email protected]); Bruce Fenske ([email protected]); Carmen Juarez ([email protected]); Charles Ruerup ([email protected]); Chuck Wullenjohn ([email protected]); Crane Elementary School Dist. #13 ([email protected]); Doug Bowman ([email protected]); Edmund Ramirez ([email protected]); Gadsden Elementary School Dist. #32 ([email protected]); Gerry Ramirez ([email protected]); Grosse ([email protected]); Hyder Elementary School Dist. #16 ([email protected]); Isabell Limon ([email protected]); James Garrison ([email protected]); Jeff Humphrey ([email protected]); Jeff Spohn ([email protected]); Jennifer Albers ([email protected]); Jerry Cabrera ([email protected]); Jerry Reiffenberger ([email protected]); Joaquin Campa ([email protected]); [email protected]; John Starkey - City of San Luis ([email protected]); Jon Heidrich ([email protected]); Judith Movilla ([email protected]); Laura Noel ([email protected]); Lucy Shipp ([email protected]); Mike Straub - Wellton Mohawk Irrigaton District ([email protected]); Mohawk Valley Elementary School Dist. #17 ([email protected]); Paula Backs ([email protected]); Placido Lopez ([email protected]); [email protected]; Blevins, Robert (Bob) - Principal Planner; Roxanne Molenar ([email protected]); Sherry Fajardo ([email protected]); Southwest Gas ([email protected]); Stephany Turner; tony lomboy ([email protected]); Unit B Irrigation District ([email protected]); Wellton Elementary School Dist. #24 ([email protected]); YMPO ([email protected]); YPG Public Affairs Office ([email protected]); Yum County Water Users Association ([email protected]); Tom Tyree; [email protected]; Yuma Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Mesa Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Union High School District ([email protected]); Pat Headington; Arturo Alvarez; John Savicky; Craig Sellers; Michael Maisner; Richard J. Stacks; George Amaya; Joe WehrleSubject: Request for Comments V16-09 It would be greatly appreciated if you review the attached proposal and provide any feedback/comments, if applicable. Cordially, Juan Leal Rubio

Senior Planner

928-817-5176

If you believe I provided great service to you, it would be greatly appreciated if you please take a moment to fill out the Customer Service Survey in the link below:

mailto:/O=YCMAIL/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CRAIG SELLERS


March 14, 2016 CASE NUMBER: Variance Case No. 16-09 Attached for your consideration is a Variance. The Planning & Zoning staff would appreciate your review of this proposal and any comments you may have. Please check the applicable response below and return this form to me along with your comments (if applicable) by the deadline below. You may also provide your response and comments (if any) by e-mail. If you have no comment, please provide a “no comment” response. If you cannot respond by the deadline, please contact me.

CASE SUMMARY: Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, representing Seeds West Inc. Az Corp., requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to attain an Agricultural exempt status for a new office on a parcel approximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned Rural Area -40 Acre minimum (RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024, located at 49850 E. County 1st Street, Roll, Arizona, 85347. The applicant submitted the following intended use in the application: "...to attain Agricultural exemption to build a more suitable office for our staff...". PUBLIC HEARING: Tentatively scheduled for April 19, 2016 COMMENTS DUE: As soon as possible

____COMMENT X_NO COMMENT DATE:____3/15/2016__________ NAME:_____________________________________________________ Please return your response within 5 days to: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner, Department of Development Services, 2351 W. 26th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 or by E-mail – [email protected]. Thank you.

YUMA COUNTY

Planning & Zoning Division REQUEST FOR COMMENTS



March 14, 2016


Attached for your consideration is a Variance. The Planning & Zoning staff would appreciate your review of

this proposal and any comments you may have. Please check the applicable response below and return this form

to me along with your comments (if applicable) by the deadline below. You may also provide your response

and comments (if any) by e-mail. If you have no comment, please provide a “no comment” response. If you

cannot respond by the deadline, please contact me.

CASE SUMMARY: Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, representing Seeds West Inc. Az Corp.,

requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to

attain an Agricultural exempt status for a new office on a parcel approximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned

Rural Area -40 Acre minimum (RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024, located at 49850 E. County 1st

Street, Roll, Arizona, 85347.

The applicant submitted the following intended use in the application: "...to attain Agricultural exemption

to build a more suitable office for our staff...".

PUBLIC HEARING: Tentatively scheduled for April 19, 2016

COMMENTS DUE: As soon as possible

____COMMENT _XX___NO COMMENT

DATE: 03/14/2016 NAME: Rick Stacks, R.S.

Environmental Programs Manager Please return your response within 5 days to: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner, Department of Development Services, 2351 W. 26th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 or by E-mail – [email protected]. Thank you.

YUMA COUNTY

Planning & Zoning Division

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS



March 14, 2016
















_X___COMMENT ____NO COMMENT

The Assessor’s Office does not consider this property to be “Agricultural” under the definitions of ARS 42-

12151. The Assessor’s Office has classified this property as an AG related business that is assessed as Class 1

Commercial Property. The Yuma County Assessor’s Office has no objection to the issuance of a building

permit for the office building to be constructed on the subject property. The decision to waive permit fees is a

decision of the Board of Adjustment.

DATE:___March 11, 2016__ NAME:_Joe Wehrle, Yuma County Assessor______________

Please return your response within 5 days to: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner, Department of Development Services, 2351 W. 26th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 or by E-mail – [email protected]. Thank you.

YUMA COUNTY





March 14, 2016
















____COMMENT _X_NO COMMENT

DATE:______3/14/2016____NAME: Isabell Garcia ADOT Southwest (Yuma) District Office ______


YUMA COUNTY





March 14, 2016 CASE NUMBER: Variance Case No. 16-09 Attached for your consideration is a Variance. The Planning & Zoning staff would appreciate your review of this proposal and any comments you may have. Please check the applicable response below and return this form to me along with your comments (if applicable) by the deadline below. You may also provide your response and comments (if any) by e-mail. If you have no comment, please provide a “no comment” response. If you cannot respond by the deadline, please contact me.

CASE SUMMARY: Variance Case No. 16-09: Fowler Malone, representing Seeds West Inc. Az Corp., requests a variance from the Yuma County Zoning Ordinance, Section 306.03—Certificate of Exemption, to attain an Agricultural exempt status for a new office on a parcel approximately 5.0 gross acres in size zoned Rural Area -40 Acre minimum (RA-40), Assessor’s Parcel Number 174-15-024, located at 49850 E. County 1st Street, Roll, Arizona, 85347. The applicant submitted the following intended use in the application: "...to attain Agricultural exemption to build a more suitable office for our staff...". PUBLIC HEARING: Tentatively scheduled for April 19, 2016 COMMENTS DUE: As soon as possible

____COMMENT ____NO COMMENT DATE:_____________________ NAME:_____________________________________________________ Please return your response within 5 days to: Juan Leal Rubio, Senior Planner, Department of Development Services, 2351 W. 26th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 or by E-mail – [email protected]. Thank you.

YUMA COUNTY

Planning & Zoning Division REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

ggrosse

Typewritten Text

x

ggrosse

Typewritten Text

3-15-16

ggrosse

Typewritten Text

Gen Grosse, Yuma County Airport Authority

March 14, 2016
















__X__COMMENT ____NO COMMENT

This is not an APS Service Territory, there is a Cooperative that supplies this area with electric facilities. I did

drive to the site, and the plans and staking in the field for the proposed building is offset far enough from the

overhead power lines to safely maintain OSHA and National Electrical Safety Code.

DATE: 3/17/2016

NAME: Charles Hayes, APS Sr. Public Safety Consultant


YUMA COUNTY





From: Blevins, Robert (Bob) - Principal PlannerTo: Juan Leal RubioSubject: RE: Request for Comments V16-09Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:14:11 AM

Thanks for the opportunity to review.

No comment. Robert Blevins, Principal Planner

City of Yuma 928-373-5189 [email protected] I www.YumaAz.gov

From: Juan Leal Rubio [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:46 AMTo: Angelica Bharat ([email protected]); Anne Camacho ([email protected]); Antelope Union High School District #50 ([email protected]); Arizona Western College ([email protected]); Becky Hopkins ([email protected]); Bill Knowles ([email protected]); Bobbi McDermott ([email protected]); Bruce Fenske ([email protected]); Carmen Juarez ([email protected]); Charles Ruerup ([email protected]); Chuck Wullenjohn ([email protected]); Crane Elementary School Dist. #13 ([email protected]); Doug Bowman ([email protected]); Edmund Ramirez ([email protected]); Gadsden Elementary School Dist. #32 ([email protected]); AZ Dept of Transportation - Ramirez, Gerry; Grosse ([email protected]); Hyder Elementary School Dist. #16 ([email protected]); Isabell Limon ([email protected]); James Garrison ([email protected]); Jeff Humphrey ([email protected]); Jeff Spohn ([email protected]); Albers, Jennifer - Principal Planner; Jerry Cabrera ([email protected]); Jerry Reiffenberger ([email protected]); Joaquin Campa ([email protected]); [email protected]; John Starkey - City of San Luis ([email protected]); Jon Heidrich ([email protected]); Judith Movilla ([email protected]); Laura Noel ([email protected]); Lucy Shipp ([email protected]); Mike Straub - Wellton Mohawk Irrigaton District ([email protected]); Mohawk Valley Elementary School Dist. #17 ([email protected]); USMC CP&L - Backs, Paula; Placido Lopez ([email protected]); [email protected]; Blevins, Robert (Bob) - Principal Planner; Media - Roxanne Molenar-Yuma Sun; Sherry Fajardo ([email protected]); Southwest Gas ([email protected]); Stephany Turner; tony lomboy ([email protected]); Unit B Irrigation District ([email protected]); Wellton Elementary School Dist. #24 ([email protected]); YMPO ([email protected]); YPG Public Affairs Office ([email protected]); Yuma County Water Users Association - Davis, Tom; Tom Tyree; [email protected]; Yuma Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Mesa Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Union High School District ([email protected]); Yuma County Building Official - Headington, Pat; Arturo Alvarez; John Savicky; Craig Sellers; Michael Maisner; Richard J. Stacks; George Amaya; Yuma County - Wehrle, JoeSubject: Request for Comments V16-09 It would be greatly appreciated if you review the attached proposal and provide any feedback/comments, if applicable. Cordially, Juan Leal Rubio




http://www.yumaaz.gov/

March 14, 2016
















_X___COMMENT ____NO COMMENT

This property is located beneath Instrument Route (IR)-218. It is requested that an IR-218 disclosure statement

be recorded that recognizes the noise, interference, and vibrations that may be generated from aircraft using IR-

218. Please email a copy of the recorded disclosure statement to [email protected]. Thank you for the

opportunity to comment.

DATE:__3/22/2016_____________ NAME:__Paula L. Backs, MCAS YUMA AZ_________________


YUMA COUNTY






From: Pat MorganTo: Juan Leal RubioSubject: RE: Request for Comments V16-09Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:54:17 AM

YMIDD HAS NO COMMENTS ON V16-09

From: Juan Leal Rubio [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 14, 2016 11:46 AMTo: Angelica Bharat ([email protected]); Anne Camacho ([email protected]); Antelope Union High School District #50 ([email protected]); Arizona Western College ([email protected]); Becky Hopkins ([email protected]); Bill Knowles ([email protected]); Bobbi McDermott ([email protected]); Bruce Fenske ([email protected]); Carmen Juarez ([email protected]); Charles Ruerup ([email protected]); Chuck Wullenjohn ([email protected]); Crane Elementary School Dist. #13 ([email protected]); Doug Bowman ([email protected]); Edmund Ramirez ([email protected]); Gadsden Elementary School Dist. #32 ([email protected]); Gerry Ramirez ([email protected]); Grosse ([email protected]); Hyder Elementary School Dist. #16 ([email protected]); Isabell Limon ([email protected]); James Garrison ([email protected]); Jeff Humphrey ([email protected]); Jeff Spohn ([email protected]); Jennifer Albers ([email protected]); Jerry Cabrera ([email protected]); Jerry Reiffenberger ([email protected]); Joaquin Campa ([email protected]); [email protected]; John Starkey - City of San Luis ([email protected]); Jon Heidrich ([email protected]); Judith Movilla ([email protected]); Laura Noel ([email protected]); Lucy Shipp ([email protected]); Mike Straub - Wellton Mohawk Irrigaton District ([email protected]); Mohawk Valley Elementary School Dist. #17 ([email protected]); Paula Backs ([email protected]); Placido Lopez ([email protected]); [email protected]; Blevins, Robert (Bob) - Principal Planner; Roxanne Molenar ([email protected]); Sherry Fajardo ([email protected]); Southwest Gas ([email protected]); Stephany Turner; tony lomboy ([email protected]); Unit B Irrigation District ([email protected]); Wellton Elementary School Dist. #24 ([email protected]); YMPO ([email protected]); YPG Public Affairs Office ([email protected]); Yum County Water Users Association ([email protected]); Tom Tyree; [email protected]; Yuma Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Mesa Irrigation District ([email protected]); Yuma Union High School District ([email protected]); Pat Headington; Arturo Alvarez; John Savicky; Craig Sellers; Michael Maisner; Richard J. Stacks; George Amaya; Joe WehrleSubject: Request for Comments V16-09 It would be greatly appreciated if you review the attached proposal and provide any feedback/comments, if applicable. Cordially, Juan Leal Rubio

Senior Planner

928-817-5176

If you believe I provided great service to you, it would be greatly appreciated if you please take a moment to fill out the Customer Service Survey in the link below: http://yumacountyaz.gov/departments-services/development-services/customer-survey



http://yumacountyaz.gov/departments-services/development-services/customer-survey

From: Movilla, Judith E CIV (US)To: Juan Leal RubioCc: Steward, Daniel M CIV USARMY USAG (US)Subject: [BULK] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Request for Comments V16-09Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:59:58 AM

Good Morning Juan,No comments from Directorate of Public Works USAG YPG.I would like to recommend to updated your list: Mr. Charles Ruerup is no longer at YPG, Mr. Daniel Steward is acting Chief of Environmental Sciences Division at YPG. His email: [email protected] you!

Very respectfully,

Judith E. MovillaCommunity PlannerMaster Planning and Real Property DivisionU.S. Army Garrison Yuma

928-328-2853Fax: 928-328-3081

NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

-----Original Message-----From: Juan Leal Rubio [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:46 AMTo: >Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Request for Comments V16-09

All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.

________________________________

It would be greatly appreciated if you review the attached proposal and provide any feedback/comments, if applicable.

Cordially,





Documents

PUBLIC NOTICE & AGENDA