Yuma approves Araby Road commercial rezoning after QuikTrip withdraws

Yuma City Council approved conditional commercial rezoning for land at the southeast corner of Araby Road and the 26th Street alignment on October 7, after QuikTrip withdrew its interest in developing the location.

The property owner continued the request, and Council adopted Ordinance O2026-025 in a 7–0 ordinances consent vote. The official action summary records adoption without a separate amendment to this item.

The decision allows the land to move from Agriculture zoning to General Commercial with an Aesthetic Overlay, subject to the ordinance’s conditions. It does not approve a new QuikTrip, identify a replacement business or authorize construction of the former truck-fueling concept.

The property and the acreage discrepancy

The site consists of two undeveloped parcels north of Interstate 8, east of Araby Road and south of the 26th Street alignment. The ordinance and location map identify assessor parcels 197-04-042 and 197-04-043 and describe approximately 24 acres, more or less.

The City’s parcel ownership records, compiled using County Assessor information, list Perricone Heritage Properties DE LLC as the owner of both parcels. The July planning report identifies Daniel Chambers of QuikTrip Corporation as the original applicant acting on behalf of Perricone Heritage Properties, LLC.

The planning report uses approximately 22.5 acres, while the Council documents and ordinance use approximately 24. The reviewed records do not explain that difference. The ordinance’s legal description and map identify the area covered by the approved change; neither approximate figure should be treated as an independently verified survey measurement.

Why the QuikTrip proposal changed

The original request envisioned a fueling center and convenience store on roughly 6.8 acres, with no development plans supplied for the remaining land. Earlier drawings included substantial commercial-truck fueling. The proposal was later reduced to six commercial diesel positions and no overnight truck parking.

That revision did not resolve the disagreement with City staff. At the July 27 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, Chambers said commercial diesel fueling was needed to make the project viable. Staff recommended excluding truck-stop diesel dispensers and commercial truck parking. The Commission recommended the conditioned rezoning 4–0.

By the September 16 Council meeting, City staff said QuikTrip had withdrawn its pursuit of the site. Staff linked that decision to the commercial diesel restriction, explaining that the company needed that component and Council was not going to approve it. This is the City’s account; a written company withdrawal notice and its exact date were not located.

At that meeting, staff also said the owner believed rezoning might enhance the property’s value and wanted time to assess the implications. That explains the stated reason for continuing the land-use request, rather than establishing that the land’s value will increase.

Council continued the ordinance September 16 to October 7 at the owner’s request, by a 5–0 voice vote. The later City Clerk note confirms that QuikTrip was no longer interested but the owner wanted to proceed. Council ultimately acted on the same rezoning case, ZONE-45328-2026.

The revised QuikTrip conceptual plan remains attached as part of the case history. Its presence is not evidence that the withdrawn project is still planned or approved. No replacement developer, tenant, updated development plan or construction timetable was identified in the records reviewed through October 8.

What commercial zoning permits

General Commercial, or B-2, supports a range of retail, service, restaurant, lodging and office uses, subject to the code and the conditions attached to this property. These are possible categories of use, not announced tenants.

Some proposals require additional permission. Retail motor-fuel sales and drive-through facilities are listed as conditional uses. The conditional-use process requires an application, plans and a Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The July staff report expressly said fuel sales would require that separate approval after rezoning.

The Aesthetic Overlay, or AO, adds design standards rather than changing the underlying list of commercial uses. Under the current overlay code, the Zoning Administrator must approve the project design before construction or development permits are issued. Landscaping, screening and exterior-design requirements continue to apply.

The parcel-specific restriction remains central: any development must exclude truck-stop diesel dispensers and commercial truck parking. That applies to future development of the property, not only to QuikTrip’s former concept.

Road and utility obligations remain

The ordinance assigns substantial infrastructure work to the owner or developer. It requires a traffic study directed by the City Traffic Engineer and construction of the improvements the study identifies. The City may eliminate an improvement if the study justifies doing so, with the reason documented.

It also requires a traffic signal at Araby Road and 26th Street, construction of 26th Street along the property frontage, sidewalks, stormwater retention and streetlights. The north-side sidewalk may be omitted under the stated condition. These are development obligations, not improvements verified as completed.

Right-of-way must be dedicated along the south half of the 26th Street frontage, with additional access or right-of-way obtained from the north property owner. Coordination with the Western Area Power Administration includes licensing the road over its easement, paying the license fees and addressing median landscaping. Any entrance or exit in ADOT right-of-way requires an ADOT encroachment permit.

Utility conditions call for extending a 10-inch water line and associated valves, plus a 15-inch sanitary sewer line and replacement or new manholes, along the 26th Street frontage from existing Araby Road infrastructure. A future developer still must obtain the applicable design and building approvals.

What neighbors raised, and what remains unknown

The planning report records approximately 26 neighbors at a June 9 meeting. Concerns included congestion, truck movements near schools, emergency access, noise and diesel fumes. At the July hearing, speakers opposed the truck component and raised broader traffic concerns, while others supported the project or commercial rezoning.

The additional written comments likewise show differing views. Those concerns and predictions are public testimony, not measured impacts of an approved replacement development. Staff said its truck-fueling restriction reflected public comments, existing traffic conditions and Araby Road north of Interstate 8 not being designated as a truck route in the General Plan.

The ordinance requires its conditions to be completed within two years of its effective date or before issuance of a building permit, certificate of occupancy or City business license, whichever comes first. It says an unmet timeframe makes the rezoning subject to Arizona’s zoning statute. An exact completion deadline could not be verified from the posted attachment because the final effective calendar date was not established.

A prior commercial rezoning approved in 2000 expired with unmet conditions, according to the planning report. That history helps explain why conditional rezoning and completed development are separate milestones; it does not establish that the current effort will fail.

For nearby residents, the verified change is permission for a broader range of commercial uses under specified restrictions. A new developer and site plan, completed traffic analysis, documented infrastructure arrangements, any required conditional-use approval and construction permits would show what is actually coming. None should be assumed from the rezoning vote alone.