City Council - workshop

I'd like to call the City of Apache Junction Work Center session, excuse me, of August 31st, 2026 to order and ask everyone to put their cell phones on silent. Roll call.

Mayor Wilson.

Here.

Vice Mayor Schroeder. Council Member Cross.

Here.

Council Member Heck. Here. Council Member Johnson. Here. Council Member Nestor.

Present.

Council Member Soler.

Here.

You have a quorum, Your Honor.

Thank you. presentation discussion on agreement for school resource officers at Xavier Charter School. Chief Pulley.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council. Mike Pulley, I'm the Chief of Police for the Apache Junction Police Department. We're here happy to talk about two grants that we were awarded and we're here to... hopefully have you guys accept those grants. They're for two SRO positions or school resource officer positions. One is going to be the first one, which is item number 26-413, and the next is 26-415. One is for Avalon K-8 school, and the other one is going to be for Apache Trail High School on Apache Trail, which is a high school. We currently have SROs at Apache Trail This grant is just being renewed for this year as well as Avalon is a brand new school that will be getting an SRO position. I'm here to answer any questions.

Yes. Chief, how many schools remain without an SRO?

The only school in Apache Junction that will be without is going to be the new school ALA. So that one is the one. which is actually probably the biggest, but we're working with them to see if next year they would be able to get funding for that. But we have currently, this will be 10, 11 schools, 10 schools that have SROs here in the city of Apache Junction to include Peralta Trail, which is an elementary school actually in Gold Canyon. But because it's part of the Apache Junction Unified School District, we agreed to supply an officer there as well.

In regards to ALA, I'm sure they welcome our officers using the parking lot as a place to write up reports and stuff like that, so they kind of have a visual presence, or do they not want us anywhere on the campus until we have an agreement?

No, we have definitely started a very good relationship with ALA. They want our officers there. We've been sending officers over there to help out, especially with the beginning of the school year, We've had officers helping with traffic and traffic enforcement and just educating the staff on a few things. So they've been fantastic.

Mayor? Yes. I just want to let everybody out in TV land know how important it is. When you get into the high school, that's one thing. But when you go all the way down to the elementary school and you have officers in elementary, junior high, and high school, That really builds a connection and Apache Junction should be really proud of that, that our police department is putting resources in to be with their kids and help their kids understand and make those relationships that are last a lifetime. And that is very, very important because I work, as you know, over in Mason, we can't fill every school, you know, but it's really, really nice that we can do that here because that really makes a difference with the kids. they have law enforcement contact all the way through their whole career as a student, and that's really big.

Thank you, Councilman Soler. It is, we've seen a difference in relationships that have been built with youth, as well as their parents or guardians, as well as the staff that works at these schools as well. We've also had an increase, actually, I mean, it's It's an increase, which is good, but for crimes that have been reported that happen outside of the school that have come to our officers specifically because of the trust that they have with those officers. And in fact, there's an incident that happened where a young girl was hurt very severely at home and she went to the officer and both of her parents were arrested for child abuse. So had we not had that officer there, would it have been reported? Maybe. But it was just an example of the relationship that these officers have. The consistent face time that they have is invaluable.

And these are on the consent agenda for tomorrow night. Okay. For approval.

All right. For one and two. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Presentation. Discussion. on case P-26-4-PZ. Nick.

Thank you, Your Honor. Good evening, City Council. I'm Nick Leftwich, Principal Planner for the City of Apache Junction, and I'll be presenting the case information for P-26-4-PZ, the Bennion Apartments planned development case tonight. This is a proposed plan development rezoning with approximately 6.7 net acres located at the southeast corner of Renick and Virginia. The property is already zoned RM2, high density, multiple family residential. As of ordinance 1526, which was rezoned in 2022, previously this property was zoned RSGR, which was an outlier for the neighborhood, as I'll get to. But it was rezoned in 2022 for a different 126-unit apartment complex. At that time, it did not end up getting developed. And so a new developer, Banyan Residential LLC, has acquired the property and is looking to develop it with a different plan. In this case, it goes up to 146 units, two and three stories. And in order to do that, they need to amend the existing ordinance 1526, And they're doing that by way of this rezoning. The zoning of the area, as noted, the existing property is RM2, high density, multiple family residential. And as we look to the north, there are other RM2 properties. In this case, they are fourplexes that have been built along San Marcos. But there are also RS20M, single family residential, medium density properties. And we see that as we look to the west as well. Looking to the south, there is B2 Old West Commercial Properties. There's the Arnold's Auto Center. They had owned this property previously and were involved in the prior rezoning. And then as we look to the east, we have both manufactured home parks and RV parks. The general plan land use map designates this property as downtown mixed use. No changes required. This is something that is compliant with the downtown mixed use plans. It's one of those kind of odd infill sites and Again, in terms of higher density residential, that was part of the reason why this property got rezoned back in 2022. As this has been on the City Council agenda for a few different dates, let me just give a brief summary. The project was originally scheduled for public hearings back in April and May. And at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing of April, Staff had previously expressed concerns regarding items like parking, and the applicant then asked the Planning and Zoning Commission for continuance in order to have more time to address some of staff's concerns that had been noted. This, of course, then went to the City Council, asked them for continuance, and they did provide a revised plan set, which they then presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 23, 2026. But at that time, The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial by a 7-0 vote, still noting concerns with parking, amenities, and those items. And following that meeting, there was a City Council work session on July 6th. At that point, the applicant had asked for an additional continuance in order to request more time to amend their plans further in order to address the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and concerns that had been expressed by the City Council, which now leads us to tonight. So tonight we have the work session and then in two weeks on September 15th, we will have the planning and zoning, or sorry, we will have the city council public hearing. And that's the trail of all these dates and time. So from that July 6th city council work session and then the following public hearing where they requested a continuance formally, they have updated their plans in order to address the concerns expressed by public, city staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council altogether.

They've updated the plans primarily in the following ways.

Parking, they have now met all the zoning ordinances parking standard minimums. So there is 317 parking spaces that are required for the site, and they are now providing 317 parking spaces on this site. No deviation is required any longer. They have now included additional amenity spaces. There's now a playground. They've identified dog park. They've identified additional green space. And I'll show that on the site plan, how they've reorganized some elements of the site in order to provide more space. And then there is also some additional adjustments to the building elevations through more muted colors. And I'll showcase that shortly. Additionally, there was a request by the city council that the applicant continue their public outreach efforts, and hold a second neighborhood meeting, which they held on Tuesday, August 4th. Their original meeting was on January 7th. But at that time, they had an open house at the Apache Junction Multigenerational Center in order to try to get the word out about how things have changed. And beyond that, they have been going back to the neighbors that they previously communicated with in order to inform them of the changes of the plan. The fact that there is now three stories since that it was something that wasn't in the original proposal we received in January. And at this time, many of the letters of support that were previously provided have been updated with new signatures referencing and references to the updated plans. So I'll now go through the site plan and to show what has changed. This is the old site plan that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And then this here is the current site plan that is now being proposed. So just to go over some of the elements of the project. The project is composed of six apartment buildings. There are the two longer buildings along Renwick Drive. Those are limited to two stories. But then the four buildings in the rear are three stories each. And then there's a clubhouse right on, this is south side, right on the south end of the property. They have a pool, some of the other community amenities. One of the changes between The proposals is this amenity space right in the center, which is a family park, has some playground features. And with the realignment of some of the buildings, they've been able to provide the missing parking. The primary access to the site is located at the southwest corner of the site along Renwick Drive with secondary access right at the northeast corner on Virginia Street. So here are the elevations. The applicant has gone for a Pueblo-style, Pueblo-inspired architecture set in order to try to fit into the southwestern feel as we've tried to establish character in Apache Junction. The difference between the prior set and the current set is, again, more the muted colors and trying to, there had been concerns noted over some of the brighter colors being used, and so the applicant has revised that accordingly. These are the three story elevations. These were the old ones, and then these are the new ones being proposed. And we will have, again, the public hearing on Tuesday, September 15 in two weeks' time. I'm happy to address any questions that you may have. The applicant will also be giving a presentation in two weeks.

Be able to answer the operational items Nick do you know is it the first go-round they were? Identifying this as a workforce housing Project is that something that's still a part of their planning I?

Yes, the project still is specifically the LIHTC, the LIHTC tax credit, which we've presented some of those projects to council before. So that is the federal funding, wherein the HUD sets the rent rates and has very specific criteria for the rentees. And this would be a project, the applicant still says that they would be funded through that mechanism. and would adhere to those rules, which include the ownership responsibilities and all of the rent obligations that go there with. Yes.

From these, good Lord, from the statements of support, the original ones, I mean, they were all where they signed for a two-story buildings.

Correct.

And How well was that conveyed that these were going to three-story and that they were the income restricted? Because I've actually spoke to a couple people who signed these, and they pretty much did not feel like they had the whole story. Thank you.

That is an excellent question, and it's one that was a point of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. That's something that I'll have to defer to the applicant. They have a public outreach team and staff prepared to go into the detail of that question. From what they've indicated to staff, to us, we understand that they have undergone this second wave of public outreach efforts in order to clarify that specific point. So we've received updated letters that at least note that they're going to three stories and note the LIHTC items. But that's just what they've provided us. To be able to go into detail about how extensive the conversations are, I'll have to leave that to their public outreach team.

Well, because I'm kind of looking at these notifications, okay, and I don't see them specifically bringing forth that they went from two to three on this neighborhood meeting or that it is the income item in the invitation and the notice. And I'm just concerned that when people sign these, I don't see that at all being referenced. And I know some of these people. And if the question is, am I good with having more affordable housing in the area, That's a pretty generic question. Please sign here.

Understood. We'll make sure that the applicant addresses that as they have their public outreach presentation.

Okay.

That was one of my questions. What did they do and how did it go? And make sure that They gave the right information out this time about the height and all that. The revision for parking and the zoning commission concerns with parking and the amenities. I see they put in the amenities. How did they come about with the parking? Did they get the spots they needed? I know you said yes, but how did they do that?

great question and it's one that we looked into and we had a meeting with them in order to to determine that what they ended up doing was shrinking some of the landscape areas they are still meeting the zoning requirements such as along the south side of the property this used to be a much wider buffer between the property to the east as well as a different driveway alignment and then the orientation of the buildings ultimately by reorganizing the site and introducing just a little bit more variety in how they position things. They were able to ultimately provide, there was a shortfall of 27 spaces. And so they were able to come up with those in these different places. There were certain spots at which they were, for instance, had more frequent landscape islands than were required by the zoning ordinance. And by pretty much meeting our standard, having them at least every 12 spaces and so forth, among the other items of reorganizing the landscape and the reorientation of the buildings and the drive aisles, they ultimately came up with exactly the 27 spaces that they were missing.

And then now that they got those spaces, Does the project require any variances from the required development standards under the property zoning?

As it is currently proposed, it does not. It does not require any deviations from our basic zoning standards. And the staff was good with this? Yes. So at this point, it has addressed the concerns that have been noted by staff. And so we're able generally to support it at this time as something that meets the zoning standards, something that meets generally the general plan and the land use designation. So there's no deviations being requested at that time, and that's ultimately where we find it ourselves. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. We will see them.