Yuma approves commercial rezoning after QuikTrip abandons Araby Road project

The company wanted commercial diesel fueling. City officials opposed it. Now the property has a new zoning designation, but no developer, approved project or construction schedule.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

QuikTrip is no longer planning to build at Araby Road and 26th Street, but the land it wanted to develop is getting rezoned anyway.

Yuma City Council voted 7–0 on October 7 to approve commercial rezoning for approximately 24 acres at the southeast corner of Araby Road and the 26th Street alignment, north of Interstate 8. The decision came after the convenience-store chain withdrew its interest in the property following a disagreement with City officials over commercial truck fueling.

The property owner wanted the rezoning to proceed, even without QuikTrip.

Under Ordinance O2026-025, the two undeveloped parcels can move from Agriculture zoning to General Commercial with an Aesthetic Overlay, subject to conditions intended to address traffic, infrastructure and the appearance of future development.

What the vote does not provide is a new business ready to move in.

No replacement developer, tenant, updated site plan or construction timetable had been identified in the public records reviewed through October 8. And one restriction that helped derail QuikTrip's proposal remains firmly attached to the property: no truck-stop diesel dispensers or commercial truck parking.

For residents who followed the controversy, that distinction matters. Council approved a change in how the land may be used, not the gas station and truck-fueling project that originally brought the property before the City.

How a QuikTrip proposal became a rezoning without QuikTrip

The original proposal involved a QuikTrip convenience store and fueling center on approximately 6.8 acres, leaving the remainder of the property without a specific development plan.

Earlier concepts included substantial commercial-truck fueling facilities. As the proposal moved through the planning process, QuikTrip scaled back that portion to six commercial diesel fueling positions and eliminated overnight truck parking.

The changes were not enough for City staff.

Officials wanted a condition prohibiting truck-stop diesel dispensers and commercial truck parking entirely. Their concerns included the existing traffic situation, comments from nearby residents and the fact that Araby Road north of Interstate 8 is not designated as a truck route in the City's General Plan.

The disagreement came into focus during the July 27 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.

Daniel Chambers, representing QuikTrip, told commissioners the commercial diesel component was necessary to make the project financially viable. The company accepted the other recommended conditions but objected to the restriction on truck fueling.

The Commission nevertheless voted 4–0 to recommend approval with the restriction intact.

By the September 16 City Council meeting, the project had taken another turn.

According to statements by City staff during the recorded Council meeting, QuikTrip had withdrawn its pursuit of the property because the commercial diesel component was not going to be approved.

That is the City's explanation for the company's departure. A written withdrawal notice from QuikTrip establishing its precise reasons and withdrawal date was not located.

The property owner, meanwhile, still saw a reason to continue.

Staff told Council the owner believed commercial zoning could make the property more valuable and wanted additional time to consider the implications. That was the owner's stated expectation, not a finding that the property's value would necessarily increase.

Council postponed the decision from September 16 to October 7 at the owner's request. The September action summary records a 5–0 vote to continue the ordinance.

On October 7, Council adopted it as part of the ordinances consent agenda. The official action summary records the 7–0 adoption without a separate amendment to the item.

The City Clerk's note confirms the unusual sequence: QuikTrip was no longer interested, but the property owner wanted the rezoning approved.

What can be built there now?

The new General Commercial designation, known as B-2, allows a considerably broader range of commercial activity than the property's previous agricultural classification.

Under Yuma's zoning code, potential uses include retail stores, restaurants, offices, service businesses, lodging and certain recreational facilities.

Those possibilities should not be confused with announcements. No such businesses have been identified for the property.

The zoning rules also distinguish between uses that are generally permitted and those requiring another layer of approval.

For example, convenience markets without motor-fuel sales or drive-through facilities are listed as permitted uses. Retail fuel sales and drive-through facilities require conditional-use approval. The code also separately lists convenience markets among conditional uses, making the details of a particular proposal important.

The conditional-use process involves another application, supporting plans and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

In other words, commercial zoning does not automatically give someone permission to build a gas station.

The Aesthetic Overlay adds another requirement. Before development or construction permits can be issued, the proposed design must receive approval under the City's overlay standards, which address matters such as landscaping, screening and exterior appearance.

And regardless of who eventually develops the land, the ordinance prohibits truck-stop diesel dispensers and commercial truck parking.

That restriction is not limited to QuikTrip's abandoned plans.

The revised QuikTrip site plan remains attached to the City's case file because it was part of the original application. Its continued presence in the public record does not mean the project is moving forward.

Roads, traffic signals and utilities come with the approval

Commercial development along Araby Road would also bring substantial infrastructure obligations.

The ordinance requires the owner or future developer to arrange a traffic study under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer and construct the improvements identified as necessary.

Some work is specifically required regardless of what business eventually occupies the property.

That includes a traffic signal at Araby Road and 26th Street, construction of 26th Street along the property frontage, sidewalks, stormwater retention facilities and streetlights. The ordinance allows an exception for the sidewalk along the north side of 26th Street.

The developer must also provide required right-of-way, address access involving the property to the north and coordinate with the Western Area Power Administration over the road crossing its easement and associated landscaping.

Entrances or exits within Arizona Department of Transportation right-of-way would require an ADOT encroachment permit.

Water and sewer extensions are also part of the approval. The ordinance calls for a 10-inch water line and a 15-inch sanitary sewer line along the 26th Street frontage, connecting with existing infrastructure at Araby Road.

These are obligations imposed on development, not evidence that the work has started.

The City can waive particular traffic improvements if the study supports doing so and the justification is documented. Other design reviews, permits and approvals would still be required before a future project could be built.

Neighbors raised concerns long before the final vote

Traffic was already a major issue when QuikTrip's proposal first reached nearby homeowners.

According to the City's planning report, approximately 26 neighbors attended a June 9 neighborhood meeting.

Residents questioned what additional vehicles, particularly commercial trucks, would mean for roads near homes and schools. Other concerns included emergency access, noise and diesel exhaust.

At the July Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, speakers raised concerns about truck traffic and congestion. A resident presented a petition opposing the truck-stop component, while others expressed support for the proposed development or commercial rezoning.

The written public comments reflect those differing positions.

City staff cited the public response, existing traffic conditions and the road's designation in the General Plan when explaining the recommended truck-fueling prohibition.

The eventual restriction addressed one of the most controversial features of QuikTrip's proposal. It did not settle every concern about future traffic.

A restaurant, retail center or another commercial development could create a different traffic pattern. Without a new development proposal and completed traffic analysis, there is no reliable basis for determining what those effects would be.

That question remains for a future applicant and the City's review process.

Even the property's acreage is not entirely consistent

The property consists of two undeveloped parcels, identified as assessor parcel numbers 197-04-042 and 197-04-043.

The City's parcel records, drawn from County Assessor information, list Perricone Heritage Properties DE LLC as the owner of both.

The planning report identifies Daniel Chambers of QuikTrip as the original applicant acting on behalf of Perricone Heritage Properties, LLC.

There is a minor but unresolved discrepancy in how the land's size is described.

The July planning report refers to approximately 22.5 acres. The later Council documents and ordinance map use approximately 24 acres.

The reviewed records do not explain the difference.

For determining what land Council rezoned, the ordinance's legal description and accompanying map are more important than either rounded acreage figure. Neither estimate should be mistaken for a separately verified survey measurement.

Approval comes with a deadline, but construction remains uncertain

The ordinance requires its conditions to be completed within two years of the rezoning's effective date or before a building permit, certificate of occupancy or City business license is issued, whichever comes first.

Failure to satisfy those conditions within the required period subjects the rezoning to the applicable Arizona zoning statute.

The exact calendar deadline was not established from the posted ordinance materials because the final effective date could not be confirmed.

There is also some history worth remembering.

According to the planning report, the property received commercial rezoning approval in 2000, but that approval later expired because its conditions were not completed.

That does not mean the latest approval will meet the same fate. It does demonstrate that Council approval and an actual commercial development are two very different things.

For now, the land at Araby Road and 26th Street has cleared an important zoning hurdle without the company that originally wanted to build there.

The next meaningful development will not be another copy of QuikTrip's old site plan appearing in a City document. It will be a new applicant bringing forward a specific proposal, along with the traffic analysis, infrastructure arrangements and permits needed to make it happen.

Until then, commercial development is permitted under the new zoning, subject to its conditions. What will actually be built remains an open question.