Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Z meeting. Yeah, I'm fine with it. You can see the screen. Is it? You're so Is this date night for you, Joel? Look. Is this date night for you? That's what it is. I love it. Is there anybody out there? I think I went this far. No, it's good. I don't care. The chair is spoken. It's good. There you go. All right. Candle light. Boom.

Good evening. I now call to order the meeting of the planning and zoning commission for the city of Apache Junction. Today's date is March 24th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. Will we please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Rudy, can I please get a roll call? Chairman Hansen here. Vice Chair Barker here. Commissioner Gage here. Commissioner Star here. Commissioner Mikeland

here. Commissioner Callen here. Commissioner Kelly here. Seven present. We have a quorum. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rudy. We have a motion to approve the agenda and minutes. Mr. Chair, I move that the planning and zoning commission accept the agenda as presented and approve the minutes from the October 28, 2025 regular meeting. We have a second. Second. Rudy, we have a motion in a second. Can I get a roll call, please? Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Chairman Hansheie. Yes. Vice Chair Barker. Yes.

Commissioner Gage. Yes. Commissioner Star. Yes. Commissioner Mikeland? Yes. Commissioner Kalen? Yes. So move, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Rudy. Uh there's one public hearing this meeting this evening. Tonight's public hearing presentation discussion public hearing and consideration of case P-25-59-PZ the proposed reasonzoning of parcels 103-21-025F 103-21-025G 103-21-25H 103-21-25E E 103-21- 026E 103-21-026G 103-21- 026 C and 103-21-026F located at the norththeast corner of South Acacia Road and Southern Take it away, please.

Thank you, Chair Hansi. I'm Nick Leftwitch, principal planner for the city of Apache Junction. I'll be presenting case information tonight for Diamonte Homes at Acacia. So, the subject property is located here at Southern Acacia Old West Highway and Star, which is just west of Goldfield Road. The proposal is to reszone this approximately 7.96 netacre property uh in order to de from these three zoning districts. It's R1 PD, B1, R, sorry, RM1 PD, B1 and RSGR to the RM2 PD, which is the highdensity residential by plan development with a new plan development overlay in order to authorize the development of a 129 platted town home subdivision. So to illustrate what the zoning context of this property is and where those zoning districts are, this is what the zoning looks like. So, the West four properties 21 years ago were zoned with a plan development for a a similar highdensity residential zoning district. It was originally a town home development that ultimately never got developed even though it was approved by city council. And then we have three B1 general commercial properties. They've never been developed. As we've talked with marketers over the years, we found that it's just kind of an awkward position that had dealt with a significant uh hydraological challenge when we look at the wash. And then there is one RSGR, the low density general rural residential lot. This parcel previously did have a home on it, has since been demolished. And so currently all eight of these parcels are vacant. As we look around the context of the property, there is other lowdensity residential, other commercial, and as we go into the uh further away diagonally,

we see a little bit more higher density residential. This is the general plan land use map. Currently, half of the property is already high density residential. The other half is commercial. And so as part of this reasonzoning request, there is a minor general plan amendment so that the entire site would match under the highdensity residential land use designation. Shown here is a site plan of the property. These units would sorry these the town homes rather than units, they're all subdivided lots, but they are all alley loaded units with twocar garages. Uh there is adequate guest parking on site for surface parking. The applicant is proposing to have a guest house with a pool, playground, parks, some green space, and a trail system as on-site amenities, a pickle ball court, and uh primary access would be off of Acacia. There is a egress exit on southern, but as we see here, the primary access ingress egress would be on Acacia. So shown here are elevations. There are multiple different color three different color schemes and then a couple different elevation types with different formats of of the building itself for a different look varied look throughout the community. The applicant has complied with the public notification requirements, the sign posting, mail notification, newspaper posting. They held a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, September 2nd, at which point five members of the community attended. This was at the Apache Junction High School. Uh there were questions regarding site planning, access, water sourcing, pricing, traffic, uh general questions regarding the interest as neighbors wanted to know what this would look like, who their new neighbor would be. And since that time, staff have received just one email from a city resident who

specifically wanted to know how this would be integrated within the city's bike lane trails and wanted to make sure that that was something that was acknowledged and planned for. And as as this is part of the on southern one of the city's arterials that would be something that we believe is part of the street sections and these are all concerns that are already being assessed under the subdivision improvement or street improvements. So that is its own process, but just wanted to make sure that those things were made aware of. And so with all this considered, staff recommends the approval of P2559PZ, the Diamonte Homes Adacia project, finding that the proposed development does meet the general plan goals and policies. So the general plan identifies that this corridor along Old West Highway is a prime spot for development of of different uses including higher density residential as we get closer to the freeway as well. Uh this is an infill site that's needed a lot of love. Uh and that's part of the reason why as we've seen the challenges on the site, we're happy to see that there is a productive use being proposed. Uh we believe it meets the goals of having diversifying the housing stock. These town homes are home ownership opportunities as it is going to be a platted subdivision and that helps add, you know, home ownership opportunities to the community. And so we believe that it meets these general plan goals and policies and so that and that it ultimately meets that the intent and so that the minor general plan amendment is still in line with what we see in the area and what was planned for. And minor general plan amendment only being a little less than half the site, we find it to not have a significant impact on the commercial balance or the land use balance of the area. Uh, as a small note, there is a proposed modification to condition six. This came up on the staff side of things because as we were working through with the engineers of the site during the

subdivision planning, there was a an update to some of our planning comments that had been made in order to better align with the city's approved engineering standards. So, just as a minor note, something that would affect the motion, we would just ask to strike the language in condition number six that says as outlined in the previously approved pre-application and review comments. And and that note, because the approved engineering standards of the city are already sufficient in order to meet the the standards and uh the the proposed infrastructural requirements that we've discussed with the applicants engineers. So, this would just be kind of a technical note to to rectify a difference between what was in the pre-application comments and what has been worked out now.

So, can I clarify what you're saying? Yes. Saying on number six that the first sentence remain and the rest of it is stricken. I would say there's one phrase after the first comma that we would strike

because the rest of it is still in place. All of the planning comments that we've made in coordination with with the engineering review and analysis are still in in line with the city's approved engineering standards, which is the ending phrase of this condition. Um, it's just that some of the pre-application comments have been updated and just for the sake of not imposing any kind of uh inongruent conditions on the project, it the most clear way was just to strike that line and that phrase. As outlined in what was that? I'm sorry. As outlined in. Yes.

Thank you. Sorry, I didn't see this up there before I asked the question. And with that, there is a city council work session scheduled for Monday, April 6th at 7 p.m. And then the city council public hearing for this project would be two weeks from that time out on Tuesday, April 21st. And the applicant tonight is here and has a presentation or and is here to answer any questions. So I invite them up. But if you have any questions for me specifically, I'm happy to answer.

I do have one. Can you go back to like the plot area? Yeah, that'll work. That this one either. Well, actually go back one more. Okay. So, are they doing all the street improvements on Star? They're doing all the half street improvements relative to their side. Yes. And then how the one lot sticks out. What is is that an old easement that was extinguished or It is a section of an easement. the all the other properties have already dedicated uh their easements as city rightway. That one residential parcel never did so. So, one of the conditions of approval specifically identifies that they would make that 33 ft easement dedication as right of way,

which they've agreed to. When we jump over to that, that road north that goes out to Old West, they're not going to touch anything up there, right? that has not been involved in or we have not required that. No, typically we require we we do see some instances they're they're typically rarer such as with the Gold View subdivision where as part of a trade-off, Gold View did improve Star going northward Old West Highway, right?

Generally, we have just required that the developers improve the rightway immediately within and adjacent to their property. So let's say if that stays RSG1 there, that little triangle, is that burden going to be put onto that property owner to conform with what's south of them? It typically is not put on single family residential. It it is not put on single family residential property owners. So then it be on the city to do it typically. Yes. So I mean in this case I kind of have a problem with that. I think they should have to finish that out going north. the amount of traffic that they could impose on that road. Point out this.

Yes. North that little small section north. Yeah. My question was traffic flow. How do you see it flowing out of there on Acacia up to southern and then down? I think it could go both ways or over to Star, but not. Yeah. Yeah. I think more people would want to go north out to Old West and hit the freeway right away because otherwise you got to go southern all the way down to get out there. So I think that should be something that we need to consider with the improvements going north there. And then also with what about an old west highway? Are they going to improve any section on there since they butt up against that too?

They would be providing some landscaping but and I spoke with our public works director today. He has indicated that the city is working through a grant that through grant monies we would be improving uh the frontage of Old West Highway with sidewalks and that's something that currently working on at this moment. They in the future be responsible for those sidewalks or is the city going to city may have to the city would be responsible defer that one. So I mean they're already getting off the hook on that. I mean I I really think they should improve going north. there in my opinion only noted something the city should look into

I mean is that it's possible we could add that condition right as a possible condition of improvement it's something that could be added worked or worked out but that is something that you know you would want to speak with the applicant regarding as it does impose some cost something that we have not yet discussed with Um, Nick, do we know if that portion of Aacia is on the improvement list, the transportation improvement list? I haven't seen it in a long, long time. You know, where they point out roads that they're going to improve small neighborhood roads. Probably isn't because there's nothing on there.

Well, if there's nothing Yeah, probably not. I don't believe it is, but I think something that will be noted as the the applicant's rep representation comes up, there is a limitation on how much we can require uh when it comes to plan approvals and uh off-site improvements when they get further away from the project site. Uh that's something that I think they'll speak to, but I I will just note that that's part of the reason why the requirement hadn't been made. Um it's just one of the more sensitive items out there in the planning world. Thank you. Anybody else? I've got a couple. Um the 100redyear water supply. Yep.

Has that been addressed with this? I thought since these were

flatted it would have to be addressed. Is that the case or not? So in this when it comes to our water supply, this is located within the Apache junction water district area which has a a water designation and uh currently they are assessing they have assessed the cap the capacity and have notified us of which uh projects are already within like the the accounted area and so this is one that they've they've already reviewed. We had been working on on different projects on the site for a while for a few years now and so there being a development there has already been something that's been factored in and water has not indicated there's any issues with water supply uh going through the subdivision process.

Okay. So the city water district has reviewed this and there is a 100 year water supply. Yes.

Okay. Then the second thing I'm a little confused. I'm I'm I don't have an issue with the resoning part of this, which is I think what we're here for today, but my issue is on the uh relaxing our the city relaxing the standards on the road width, which is basically the same as a setbacks and road widths. It's a geometry problem on how many units you can fit in there. Um 20 100 is 129 now. Uh, and if we stuck with our standard 28T wide road width, there'd be less than 129 units in there. This is, like I say, it's just a big geometry problem. I don't believe we should be relaxing those standards. And, uh, I've said it in the past. I don't say it again. So, but I guess my question is, is this just is this a straight resoning?

This is a reasoning by plan development. Now, we're not talking about the uh the details of this of this development.

It is a zoning deviation. Uh it so it falls within the consideration as an a a condition of plan development approval. It is something that we have already accommodated on nearby development sites like the close by Goldfield Estates. It is uh within the zoning the the private street standards outlay outlined by the zoning ordinance. there's a specific accommodation given to relaxing the street standards when it comes to design details. Um the this is specifically because of the street section. So these being Ali loaded units, uh some of the the some of the the width uh that would have gone with a 28 foot wide street is is being it it we don't have the same kind of street section with the sidewalks in front of all the units because these are all there's no front door from the uh as we look at the elevations. Sorry, there is a front door, but it is like a more it's primarily accessed through the vehicles as an alley loaded unit and the circulation. There are interior paths to the the rear sides which is where you see these front kind of patios but primary access the alley loaded style. Uh we found that it when it comes to there was the Ironwood Station town home project, the Goldfield Estates town home project that in a couple instances there were similar circumstances that warranted having reducing the need for like a a sidewalk right in front of the units when there's one on the back side of the units and being able to work with a more narrower street. And working with the design team on this, we found that their request was reasonable in that in light of that and in light of those specific design standards. And that's why we are still supportive of the project with that deviation.

Can you go back to the plot back to this? No, the one you had with the landscaping. So, are there walkways on the front sides? There isn't, is it? No. Like, uh, if we're speaking regarding like in front of each of the units, right? There would be Well, no, I'm saying like curb ribbon. Well, it' be the back, I guess, which is really the front. Okay. Yeah. There there are walkways there. There are walkways. Yeah. As we see them. And that's how visitors and everybody would Yes.

Approach. So, this is more of a uh imaging of the landscaping, but we have more detailed improvements that Right. And then I couldn't detail. Is that just like a gravel trail out front by Southern there? Is what is that? Some of it is is drainage, but there is kind of Oh, sorry. Southern or I'm sorry, Old West. I'm sorry, misspoke. in that landscaped area. Oh, see that trail or is that a trail or is that sidewalk? What is that? So, this is a section that is uh going to be developed with a sidewalk under the uh public works grant that I'd noted, but they're not

the the applicant hadn't proposed to uh include all that information or this was more of like a conceptual area for them since they didn't have all the design documents for that. But for for the most part, other than the landscaping, they're provided, the actual sidewalk and design is going to be provided by the city as part of a grant that we have uh been awarded. So, they're only going to do plants out there. Yes. I just want to make sure what we're So, right now, the trail that we see right here is not not indicative of the final end design, but that's because this is part of a uh city grant for improvements along the south side of Old West Highway. I have a question. There's no dark part. So, no, there's not.

On the areas that are not by the garage doors, the areas that are on the curve and so forth, will there be front door of the units are here, right? Will there be parking there? Walk on this road because my concern is somebody parks over here. They're going to There's no parking at all down here. Wait till he's done. Yeah, but these this garage faces this way. Come in. Did you guys sorry explanation.

Okay. So, in the areas that are not in front of the garage doors, because obviously you're not you're probably I would assume you're not going to be able to park there even though that would be your maybe assigned area to get into your garage on the other areas where the rounds are. Um if it is 26 ft as opposed to 28, does that present any kind of problem with emergency vehicles coming in? The fire department has very specific standards regarding what the what width of street they allow parking on. And at 26 feet, they wouldn't allow on street parking. That's what I wanted. In order to make sure there's clearance for emergency vehicles. Okay. But this is going to be pretty much private roads and gated. That's correct.

So, the police aren't really going to be patrolling that to enforce the no parking. the police wouldn't be, but it would fall under, you know, standard enforcement and they would be, you know, fire the fire marshall has its own set of enforcement if they were to be found in consistent violation. So, it's going to be a HOA type situation. Yes. As a platted subdivision. Okay. Do you have any further questions you guys are discussing? Oh, um, no.

On this You know the uh I guess the front doors are in the garage and the front door is in the same side. Garage door and the front door by by the elevations pictures. No. Can you There are there are front doors. I But they're not on the garage. Not on the garage itself. No, not on the garage side. There are there are some doors on the garage side and there are also patio side doors. So, as we see there's there's a couple different arrangements, but not on all units. Yes. Doors on all units. So the egress and uh and from each one of the units I'm looking at it from a fire type uh situation the the way out is through the garage there's or to the back patio door

there will still be other doors but depending on the configuration of the units. So some units have doors as we see here on both the front and back. uh that we do see some units that are more arranged like this that have some doors on the side. But for the interior units, the uh if not through the garage door, it would be through the rear side. So, as we can see, like with this kind of configuration, it does not have doors in between the units here like it does on this configuration, but it would have these kinds of front doors on the other side. So, there's a few different arrangements for the doors, but they will all they will always have at least the garage door and another door, another front door. I take it we you've run this by this by the fire department.

That's correct. Yes. They they love it. They indicated they're supportive of it, but That is not part of approval. And where's the dog park, Nick? There's some green space on the plan. I see the green. It was not necessarily uh vice chair labeled that way, but if I can interrupt, Nick, vice chair, I think the applicant would like to give a presentation and answer some of these questions. Thank you, Sen. Thank you.

I did have one question for you, Nick. I was just curious um for the zoning um has there ever been any commercial interest at all for those plots? We've not received any. Uh they especially the one that is front the parcel that fronts Old West Highway most directly is probably one of the most awkward ones with the the weird triangle shape. It's also the smallest parcel in in question. Um so frankly no. Okay. Um the wash is of particular difficulty.

Is that southern uh that southern avenue? I I bike down that all the time. That's a steep hill coming down southern down towards Quacia or basically towards Star. Um and that that is very uh that road needs to be improved quite a bit. Is there any any plans on improving that road? Yes, there are. So, those are part of the subdivision improvement plans and uh evening that out is part of the city all the way from Cortez to Star. I'm sorry, what was that? But all the way from Cortez to Star because that's basically the uh

they would be improving the portion immediately adjacent to their project which is between Acacia and Star but not all the way to Cortez. But the traffic's going to going to go out the Cortez or Star. Then you have to get down Star and you have to make a left and go down past another highdensity housing area there at Goldfield Estates.

Understood. Thank you. We'll make note of that in in our conversations with public works just to ensure that the road improvement situation is accounted for. Thank you.

Chair, members of the commission, good evening. Brennan Ray, 2325 East Camelback here on behalf of Dante. We're certainly uh excited to be able to talk to you tonight about a another um residential development on a very tough infill site. Um especially as you look at it, you all are very familiar with the area. Uh Nick did a wonderful job on his presentation. Uh and he's very thorough in his staff report. Um I will commend staff as I work around this valley and other municipalities. Uh you guys have good staff here that's very thorough in their review, not only from a planning standpoint, but as we visit with the other um departments and disciplines relative to engineering, traffic, fire, everything, um seems like whenever we come down to meet with them, we're all meeting with the entire gang. And so I should commend them for that. So, a couple of things just to emphasize and I and I won't try to replplow a lot of the same road that Nick's already gone down, but I want to try to be responsive to some of the questions. But, as you know, access to this site is very limited. Acacia does not punch through to the north. Uh, and there's this um and it and it will not punch through um at least not in connection with our development. Um there's the wonderful US Supreme Court cases of Nolan and Dolan. uh that uh Joel will uh be more than happy to espouse a little bit in more detail, but what that effectively states is that uh municipalities um are limited into um what they can ask for in terms of improvements and those uh what they ask must bear a reasonable relationship or a nexus to the proposed development as we look at it. So that's one of the things that impacts that. The other thing is that the scope of this zoning request request before you tonight is what's outlined there in yellow. We none of this request includes the property to the north of us which they are entitled

to their rights as their property owners and stuff like that. It nevertheless have we've worked with staff in it. There are a number of improvements that will need to be made in connection with the development including the eastern half of acacia and the northern half of southern. Um again that goes back to those US Supreme Court cases that I mentioned a long time ago and that's the typical development pattern as we look across this valley that the improvements must bear nexus and have a reasonable relationship to the request that's in front of us. So that's with respect to that. The other thing is we look at this site that really encumbers it as you can kind of see a little bit of green space running through there. There is significant drainage that is coming off of Old West Highway that really impacts the viability and developability of this site. So that when you look at this site, while it's a pretty green space running through the middle, what that really is is huge amounts of retention, huge volumes of retention with retaining walls uh and all of that to take care of that because we are responsible for that on-site flow and we have to channelize it and that's what all that green space improvement is. So when we talk about a reduction in the street width from 28 to 26, I will tell you um 28's kind of an odd number. Um and as I work from place to place, typically what I see on private streets is about 26 feet. Um that is more than adequate for not only fire but for um solid waste pickup as well. um because we certainly want to design a community that has safe ingress and egress for the emergency responders and stuff like that. Um as was indicated uh there will be an HOA. It will be the HOA's responsibility to enforce no parking uh relative to that as we look at it. The other thing that I will

mention and it's not on this plan. It's on this plan that's right here that's not as pretty as that one. And I'm more than happy to pass this plan around. You'll see my chicken scratch on it. This is the actual site plan, but as you look on it, there are sidewalks that do run the front of the units. Um, and so we are ensuring again, you can't really see it at this scale. This is a pretty picture. Uh, intended to uh convey the the landscape intent and design as we look at it. And so there will be sidewalks that will be running in front of those units to provide access to and from. Just to emphasize something that Nick said, fire obviously we want to make sure it's safe as well and we will comply with the fire code and we do have two points of access uh throughout all of the buildings whether it's two doors, whether it's a door and a garage door or some other combination. We do have two points of access throughout these uh residences because like I said, we have to comply with the fire code and building code which mandate that we have those kinds of things. Um, let's see. Old West Highway. I know there was a discussion about improvements there. And as Nick indicated, as we've talked to them, there is a the the there is a larger master plan. There's a grant that's associated with putting the sidewalks in because while we're here in this development, as you look, there's lots of undevelopable land that occurs as you go to our left, as you go to our right. And so what as we've talked with staff and worked with them about it, um they've asked that we provide the landscaping uh to ensure that it's there. And then as Nick indicated with the grant that we'll provide the Old West Highway um pedestrian access because like I said, I think the intent is that people can traverse uh up and down Old West Highway without actually being in the in the highway itself.

Um, I think that was most of the questions that I think I picked up uh as I ran through it. I'm sure if I forgot of one or something else or an additional question pops up, I'll do be more than happy to answer it. Again, we're very appreciative of working with staff and their recommendation. Uh, we think they've done a good job vetting it to ensure that it meets the expectations of the general plan, the expectations of this community, and certainly something that's appropriate to the area. and we're okay with that modified stipulation number six. Um, we're going to work with the engineering department to make sure that it it meets it and as we go through the process. Sometimes what we initially think is required when we first come in and as we get deeper into the details of the plan to where it is today, we need to be able to make those changes. So, we we're we're good with that additional modification. So, with that, I will shut up and try to answer any questions that you all have, but we would request your recommendation for approval.

Um, I have a question. Have you considered making the main entrance off of Star versus Acacia that way? Because since Star is going to be all the way up to Pest Highway improved on your side at least. Yeah, as as we looked at it, um we're not immediately adjacent to Star. Uh which kind of creates a challenge. Uh I know from aerials and exhibits it looks like we are, but as I understand it, I'm not immediately adjacent to it. Uh and so as we've looked at this uh and visited with the residents, uh it was the residents that live across the street uh that showed up and and inquired about it. Again, when we're talking about 129 units, um when we look at at the AM and PM peak impact, uh we felt in in working with staff that what we're designing for a a primary access and again that secondary access off of Southern um provides with with good ingress and egress. Well, you're actually I'm talking about the one officacia that being on the other side linked up.

I understood. Okay. Yeah. I mean, what barriers stop it from being over there is my question. Um, I think I know the answer, but let me go ask my client and and I'll I'll come back. Fair enough. Rob, these are family homes. Okay, you have a fire. You tell me a kid's going to be able to open the garage door. Get out.

Yeah, but can you pull open the door? Can you can a child reach that pull down to the garage? I am sure the fire department has looked at that. That's And if they didn't, they should have. Fair enough. I mean, fair enough. I responded enough enough scenes to know that that's a problem. Yeah. But these are adult family. Two, three bedrooms. Three bedrooms. Three bedrooms.

Two stories. chair, members of the commission, thank you for your patience. As I've visited with my client and visited with staff, um it's a great question that I don't know that I have as as good an answer as is necessary at this time. Um when we first went through it was under our impression and I know it wasn't a planning comment. I asked Nick about it that it be on one side or the other. Um it was our impression that through um the initial steps and processes that we were um directed to put it on acacia. Uh however, in visiting with my client, um we can figure out a way if if it's this commission's desire to make it work on STAR, um in terms of that, um we'd probably I don't know how we would handle that. The best way I would know would be a stipulation to work with staff. um that the stipulation would read something to the effect of the applicant shall work with staff to provide uh appropriate access um from STAR. Um at least from my perspective and I defer to staff. I think that gives them enough direction, gives us enough flexibility that we can continue uh through this process uh and and yet still accommodate should that be the desire of of this group.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Commissioner Bark or Vice Chair Barker whoever the person sitting next to you I this is just because I don't know how these things work your retention area as you come down south and it stops at the roadway are you going to cover that water under the roadway? Um what what plans do you have to take the water from that point to across the street?

Now uh through the chair vice chair um I I I think I understand this the question. Are you Well, you have a wash there. Okay. Are you talking? Let me see if I can get the uh Oh, isn't there a There was a little magic drawing thing. Maybe. Yep. Oh, there's a laser pointer. I can't get to the pen right there. All right. So, I'll use the laser pen. Laser pointer. Can you see that? Okay. I like it. So, I presume what you're asking is what happens at this point right here. Well, that was the second part of the question. And the first part is um north of that coming from here.

Keep coming down. It's flowing down down right there. How are you going to get across the road and up high and down low? Yeah, that would or do you feel there's not enough water to be concerned? Oh, no. There's a lot of water running through there. Um that's a bridge that goes under. Yeah. Oh, okay. That's that was okay. Really the question I just was looking at it sort of cut off and thinking h is it going to just rise or No no no for for those for um I think there's one that's attending virtually um so that we're all clear there there are means for the water to flow underneath

that area and then continue out underneath at the bottom.

Yeah, it continues out there. Um, we do have it doesn't dead end because if you go back and look and again I'll defer to Joel, you'll see that there's this wash that comes through there in that general fashion. Our responsibility is I if there are historic flows that come through the site, I must continue those historic flows to move through the site. Um, I can generally have a point A and a an entrance point and an exit point that are similarly the same. and how I get it move it through the site. That's that's I guess within our purview. Um but there nevertheless is a responsibility for us to continue those historic flows. Where that differs is normally we're required to retain our half streetet improvements. So the half streetet of southern again a portion of the half streetet acacia depending on the discussion you know maybe acacia goes away and it becomes star. Obviously, one of the things that we'd want to look at from STAR is our making sure we're having appropriate separation and distance. Um, that we can ensure that I've got appropriate separation from Old West Highway coming down here and southern down here. Um, off the top of my head, I don't know if the math works um for us to have uh an access point here. or hopefully it is, but we'll work with staff and I think there's a way in there. I see Sydney nodding his head for someone that's listening that that we can hopefully figure that out as well.

You know, you're going to talk about talking about the wash the wash area. the uh during a normal uh monsoon uh southern floods from that wash and it cross the southern cuts it off uh because if you look at the terrain there it comes down that hill from Cortez right through that area and on top of that you're going to increase the flows uh because of the of the pavement that you and the buildings that you're going to collect water from and that's going to increase the flows flows from the north going to the health.

Yeah. So through the chair commissioner, I we're I'm probably invited a discussion that's not within the purview of a reasonzoning case relative to engineering standards and the like. Um be anything about zoning, but let's talk about planning.

Yeah. But in terms of in terms of engineering standards, when it comes to drainage flows and and all of that, there are much people smarter than I who know how to deal with that and engineer it. I know what my standards are and what I'm required to do. uh I cannot like I said by law and I believe Joel would agree if it's a historical flow I'm required I'm required to make sure and ensure that those historical flows move through in terms of the design of Southern um part of that design of Southern um and why you see landscaping down here is that flows from the half street of Southern I'm required to retain on site um as far as where off-site flows come through Southern down the existing roadway network. Um that's why um there is engineering staff on the in the city that look at it and and see the big picture uh and are able to ensure that what we design on this accommodates what we're required to and um still addresses some of the bigger picture items.

Well, we got to get all the stuff in the truck. All right. I love it. I love it. Kids kids never bother me at all. Any other questions, Commissioner? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does uh Commissioner Callen have any questions? Commissioner Callen, chasing the baby. Um, no. I just I'm pretty sure I heard earlier I just want to confirm this is for these are for home ownership, correct? Town homes. Yes. Correct. Just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. Another question.

Well, if I can I'm sorry. They can be rented though, correct? By a homeowner. Yeah. Through through Yes, Chair. As with any single family subdivision that's that's platted. Um there are opportunities for rental. I think Nick said it best, there are ownership opportunities within this development. Um, but no different than a Dr. Horton or a PY, any other single family subdivision. Um, whether they're owned or leased, um, that's just the nature of of the market and and residential developments, but we are, this is a platted platted community.

Do you know what the the uh clubhouse capacity is going to be? Uh, through the chair, Commissioner Star, I do not. Okay. Okay. I mean, you got 192 people in an HOA. How are you? And uh, you know, then you added uh other people within the subdivision. You mean you could have five, six hundred people in this in this lot? Yeah. Through the chair, Commissioner Star. Um, my client has been in the home building business for for decades. uh and I'm confident that they will appropriately size uh the amenities to accommodate a community of of this size.

All right. Thank you. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. If I could just clarify uh Nolan Dolan that is Nolan was a case from 1995. Nolan versus California Coastal Commission. Dolan was a case for the city of Tigard in 1994. And so basically those cases I I agree with almost everything that um Mr. Brennan said. Um it's uh whether the permit commission the permit conditions must have an essential nexus to the city's land use intent and its rough proportionality to the effects of the proposed land use to which they are being applied. So when you talk about do you want to possibly do uh make them do that extra

putting your girls up. Okay. And I'll come back for Gina. Well, uh, there has been some recent case law that talks about Nolan Dolan. It did not overrule it. I'll come back here.

U, however, they are asking for quite a bit with a lot of zoning and and a minor general plan amendment. So, I mean, that's something we could talk about. I'm not sure uh if you if you did that that would violate Nolan Dolan. I'm not sure it would. We'd have to look at the costs and that's something if you know we can look at but at this point I'm not sure it would violate Nolan Dolan because of what what they're asking for a lot of zoning here a lot of zoning changes and also um we had a a case what how many months ago regarding transportation that was a very significant case on Idaho road and that was a big issue for a lot of uh um the city council. So transportation is a big issue in this community. So to have two entrances onto Old West, I mean that is a that is a public purpose. So I do want to mention that. I also want to mention the historic flow. I agree with Mr. Brennan. Uh yes, the owner has to allow the flow to come in where it historically came in and where it went out. And there is a retention requirement. Um, I think it's is it 36 uh hours for percolation? I I'm not sure. I'm not an engineer, but Rudy or Sydney, I'm not sure if that's the current one for uh for multi-ousing, but there is a requirement for for on-site retention.

Sheriff, add something. Yeah, chair, if I may. I I think when we were initially talking about the concern about acacia, that was with the access being on Acacia. I think if this group is agreeable to a stipulation that we work with staff to move that access point onto STAR, uh I think that alleviates that that concern. Yes. Or if we leave it on Acacia, would you be willing to work with something going to Old West Highway and improving that northern part?

Yeah, chair, members of the commission, because that's not property that neither we own nor control. um unless the city is willing to exercise their power of eminent domain if we're unable to uh acquire that property through negotiation um my hands would be tied at that point because I would be stuck with a stipulation that is legally impossible if the um property owner is unwilling to work with us. I've never found a municipality willing to exercise eminent domain. certainly possible. Um but in that regard, I I think that would be a challenging condition uh to address uh certainly at this time. That's why again after conferring with my client, we're okay with the solution to move uh the access point over to STAR and work with staff that it meets the appropriate spacing and safety requirements that are necessary for that access point.

Mr. Chair uh staff is uh is that acacia property? Is that a federally patented easement or is it an alignment or is it dedicated? Do you do that? It's federalally patented ement. So it is a federally patent eent on both sides 33 ft. Okay. So yeah, technically the city has a right to go and improve that. That's what I thought. Yeah. So, it's not dedicated, but it and it is someone else's property, but we do have a right under the uh small federal small tract Act to do that from 19 I think it's 1938. So, with that being said, would you still be a no for that or uh let me let me ask my client. I I think I know what the answer is, but let me ask

Hey, Nick. Nick. Can you put that map up that shows if it's a fedally patented ement? There are some extinguishments in this area that we need to be cognizant of. I don't have the easement map necessarily memorized, but I've I've obviously done a fair bit of review on this site. Shar if I may while he's looking at that. Yes.

We would as between the two options we would rather have the access point be on star rather than acacia. Um there are a number of like I said additional questions while I believe what Joel said and what staff has said about easements going through that and then the potential uh length at which it is to work property owner whether they whether they acknowledge or agree that the easements are there or not and we have the right to do that that's a separate different discussion not to mention that. So um as between the two we would prefer uh to have a stipulation that we work with staff to have access on to STAR which would then uh eliminate uh the access on occasion.

All right.

Did you find what you needed, Joel, or Well, no. I I wanted the the easement met, but I don't think Nick could get it. But I the question is if it was a federally patented easement, the city has a right to go ahead and do it. We don't need the property owners. But if they you're right, Mr. He's right. If say if they contest it, then you get into a lawsuit and you get into an FPE lawsuit and that could take 6 months to a year. And I don't think the applicants would want to wait that long. And and that's that's costly litigation. So, you know, it's a question on whether you want that access or whether the Star Road one that alternative is best for you. Um, Sydney, would you be okay with OnStar versus Aacia?

Yes, we're comfortable with working with that condition and working with the applicant to satisfy that requirement. Do we do we have any traffic studies? It's going to be because you got that Goldfield estates right down to the south of it. It's It's similar size unit, similar type housing. Then you have the actual subdivision between them. Are you talking what? Traffic traffic the traffic down back out to back out to Goldfield. Subdivisions would use it, right? But they their main one is off on West Highway for that subdivision. They're over here. Mr. Chair, was there was there a traffic study or or staff? Do you know that?

I think here these are

chair if if I if I may add a little additional illumination. Um, as as we look at this site from a traffic standpoint, as I'm looking at the application and submitts that we've made, we have not been required to provide a traffic study. And I think um, as I look at it, um, the reason that that um, traffic study is because under the general plan, as Nick indicated, half the site is already designated for high density density residential. The other half is designated for commercial. When we look at that from a traffic generation standpoint, um commercial uh land uses uh will generate more traffic than uh uh even high density development of the kind that we are talking about. And so when we look at that on balance between the commercial and the high density that that exists today, even if you take into account the current zoning designations today and what's approved there, um on balance, um while I can't avow to it, it's my belief based on my experiences that this that this proposed development will generate less traffic overall relative to what is currently permitted on the site, especially with those commercial zoning designations,

which I tend to agree and understand that thought process.

Um, anything else before I open it to public? Because once I open it to public, we're not if I bring them back up, we have to go back to open public. Not that I think that'd be a huge problem, but All those guys back there are with me. All right, go for it. Thank you.

Thank you. If I may speak to a quick note, um really struggling with the technology of all the links being broken, but I think I may be able to pull up the easement map, but as it shows, there are some federal patent easement issues with Acacia in terms of what's already been extinguished. Uh not all of it is under uh city easement at this time due to prior city abandonments. So that's just another factor uh something that we've been looking into but is is part of the factoring of why these uh requirements had or hadn't been made?

So we still don't that section up there has any of that been extinguished? This section right here has been extinguished which is where the road actually is. So I'll as this has been a uh major item of the discussion. So that road's technically illegal up there on that portion.

Nothing's ever easy with the technology, is it? Okay. Uh but according to the map that I had until it crashed on me that that is correct that there are issues legally um that we would hope to resolve and that is part of the reason why those requirements had not been made. Uh it it is unfortunately a little messier than we would like and as noted because it involves private property ownership uh we would have to trigger quite an extensive legal process not not even with the applicant but with the private property owners in order to resolve uh or to to work that out more reason to move it over to STAR probably

that's that's potentially a factor with it and so we'll certainly work with the applicant regarding how to best approach that but uh this it it is a a broader issue not not necessarily the burn of the applicant but on our own city departments to to mitigate some of that easement question but well here's my question if that road is technically illegal right now if that main entrance is on aacia you know people are still going to go north and want to go out on old west highway I ain't saying everybody but shortest pathways and stuff.

I think people will go north and go to the Old West Highway to go and get on. So, if that road isn't 100% legal, that landowner could essentially shut that off. Correct. Uh, Mr. Chair, yes. uh if if say it was abandoned and uh that means we allowed someone we gave up our our rightway or our FPE right

uh that federally patented easement for roadway and utility purposes that means they own it and then that means hey they can put up a fence if they want. Now, if it's an FPE, just a federally patented easement for roadway and utility purposes, we could use it. We can do that. And I I mean, if it's a roadway that is used right now, I think it is used right now, but um if it's on someone else's property, yes, they could they could fence it off, right? They could certainly do that if they wanted to.

Well, I think part of the conditional difference is there's one house on that road right now and the amount of traffic coming up there would probably be limited. And all of a sudden, if you have an exit there for 130 homes, it's going to see significant more use. So that could trigger them to if that if that is extinguished to block it because they're like, "Hey, I don't want all this going on now." Yes. I ain't saying it will, but it's a possibility. It's a possibility. And uh Nick, it' be a 66 foot rightway, correct? if it would were were to be done the correct city um uh design. Correct.

So some of the that is correct that we would have 33 ft on both sides. Some of the easement is in place. It just happens to be that it wasn't fully in place and that it just complicates things a little bit. So some of the easements in place for roadway purposes and utility purposes. It it it's just unfortunately it was a little bit more complex than we would like. And so those requirements um excuse me commission I think this concern will be resolved with working with the applicant and changing the entrance on star

that's what I'm saying that's why I think it would be more beneficial just to flip it because there's even more potential for it being blocked and if we left it on acacia we could that could be another future problem for the city to deal with that just by flipping that I think we to reduce that potential. Agreed. Nothing else. All right. Let's see. Here's my note.

Yeah. I now open the public portion of the hearing. If anybody would like to speak, please come up to the microphone, state your name, address, and you'll have three minutes to speak. Anybody want to come up? Going once. Going twice. Three times. I now close the public portion of the hearing. Do we have to do the finding the fact on this? Well, we have to have discussion up here if anybody has. Yeah, but I'm just asking.

Well, if you're you're doing a recommendation, yes, we have to go through both of them. This does not have the findings effect that a conditional use permit does. So, do we have to go through them? Although it's in the staff report. Yeah, we both of them. So, I think you should. Yep. Okay. That's what I was asking. But you don't have to spend an hour on it. No, no, I understand. Do we have any discussion on this? Yeah, vice chair.

Okay. I I would just like to remind all of us, myself included, that this is an approval of a reszoning, not the buildings or any of that, just the reszoning. And that kind of takes some of the things that we've been discussing off the table. Yes. Just thought I would throw that out there. But at the same time, since we're giving stuff, we can ask for stuff. Yeah. Oh, I don't don't have a problem with it. But I just rather than

Yeah. I mean, like building design and all that stuff is not in our purview. We're just saying yes or no, you can or cannot reszone this piece of property in order to do this thing. Yes. That was my comment. Now they're asking for the change in the uh easement, right? 26 to 20 28 28 26 ft. That's part of the part of the zoning. That's part of the zoning part of Okay. That's part of it, but that's the internal streets and everything inside there. Right. Right. So, they're asking for a waiver. Right. Okay.

Is there any issue with that for anybody? Yeah, I' I've got an issue with that and and it's,

you know, we we we are relaxing our standards in order to to fit more units into this property. Um, and in my opinion, what that accomplishes, it gives the developer more profit and it squeezes the residents that we're supposed to be representing into a tighter space. And over and over again, we've been relaxing the city standards in order to do this basically the same thing, be able to put more units onto this piece of property. um as we've developed uh over the years, I think it was necessary to get to get the development done, but at some point we've got to realize that that we I mean, it's 129 lots at at 120 something or 129 minus X you can have the standard street width. And I'm sure they've designed it that way. And then they said, "Well, let's re reel this in a little bit and narrow it and do setback changes and all the other stuff to fit more units into this piece of property. And we allow them to do that by doing these verifications or the, you know, these these modifications to our standards. And I think we should stick to our standards. That's why they're there. um if we

I agree compromise them every with every development that comes up is we're not going to be able to call them standards anymore. So I would like to ask staff a question on this. Um are our standards consistent with the other municipalities around us? They're they're generally consistent. However, caveat to that question is uh it's not atypical for a developer to ask for a deviation to have better circulation. uh better uh site design and so it's not atypical that a commission would approve it either. I understand that. But I'm just saying on this case the 28 foot is pretty typical throughout the municipalities around us, right?

I would say 26 to 28t is is generally typical. Yes. So So what you're saying is that both are typical. Yeah. the range is so so what the engineering team looks at is and the fire district is uh can they get the fire trucks in there? Do they have sufficient width? Um and so those those widths are appropriate and so the 26 ft as asked staff is comfortable with that. Is there a reason we settled on 28 instead of 26 as a um as a city? I I would have to ask the engineering team. Yeah. I'm just curious if

Yeah, but but I have seen widths uh driveway widths as uh narrow as 24 feet. So, so something to note. So, that's just my, you know, opinion on it. I've got a an engineering background and you stick to your standards. You know, it kind of sounds like we have two standards or we have a range of standards.

What planning staff and engineering staff take a look at is does it satisfy circulation and does it do it safely? As a comparison, all of our subdivisions down south are they on a 28 foot standard in there. Uh they have a very large document that uh covers a very a variety of of widths. Yeah. Yeah. So they have varieties as well down there. Oh, absolutely. With all the brand new subdivisions and and they are sometimes different from our standards that are up here on the north side. Right. No, I'm just as a comparison, I wanted to kind of throw that out there. So yeah, in fact, possibly in some of our new subdivisions south, we have 26 foot interior roads versus

Yeah. And I think some of them are as narrow as 24. Yeah. Yeah. And they do that on purpose to slow down traffic. Um, and that's a more of a child-friendly environment. Yeah. They're oneway streets though. Some are, some aren't. But the 24 width around the clubouses are two-way streets. Yeah, some places some places, but most of the time it's So it's not that out of the way. No. And it's not difficult to drive and I understand. I want to understand how our community is laid out.

It seems to kind of fit our criteria as a city. So, it's not necessarily bad that it's two foot smaller because we seem to do that quite often in different areas. Even with our newest stuff to where I think we would all say in the beginning they didn't have space restrictions. So, for allowing it there without any space restrictions, is it really that big of a give on this case? It's a give. It is. I understand it's a give. Yep, it is. But I'm just, you know, in the grand scheme of it, is it a huge one? Maybe.

Well, I mean, I is it the hill? Is it a hill to die on? And no, I'm not planning on, but it's a big It's not a But I I'm I'm at a place where I'm I'm just tired of all the standard variation, and I'm probably going to vote against this, even though I do think it's a good reasoning, and I do think the town home concept with uh with platted lots is wonderful. We haven't had one of those in No, we haven't. But I'm just having trouble with always um compromising on our standards.

So something to note that's currently happening within the city is public works is actually rewriting uh their engineering standards and so this uh with uh requirement may change in the future. We haven't seen them yet. They're they're being draftly drafted as a as we're Yeah. Yeah. I mean, one of the strengths to me I believe in this is that it's private ownership versus the number of rentals rentals we've had come in. Yes. Yes. Yes. Here. Here. You know, usually that standard is applied at 28 ft from curb to curb. There's no curbs here. This is 28 from garage to garage. No, I understand. 26 is garage to garage. Yes. Not not curb to curb. So, there's no there's overlap.

No, I understood. Okay. But I mean, some of the new subdivisions, depending where you drive, there's no sidewalks either. It's just a curb. The curb depends where it's funneled. There is a curb. Sometimes. Yes.

Any other discuss? I know it doesn't have a dog park. No dog park. I'm very disappointed in this development. There is no dog park. Now, if that means that people can't have dogs, that's a problem. Of course, more people come to our dog park and use them. Well, they're pretty far away. Goodness. A development without a dog park. Oh my god. The dog. Um, I think, in my opinion, I think we need to put something in there addressing the fact to move the main entrance. Got it. I mean, do we all concur on that or

Yeah. Yeah, I do. I especially because I think that I think that if it stays on acacia that a number of folks will want to get to Old West and they will simply drive down that road. regardless of what kind of shape it's in, regardless of a house it might have to go around, it doesn't matter. They're going to take that road down there. So, I I think it would be beneficial for everyone concerned to try to relocate that on Star.

I think it would save a lot of trouble in the future. My thought too is if we did extinguish any of those easements, it could cause major problems for the city in the future as well. Yeah. When we went, we could end up with something like Plaza. We went on an extinguishing about 5 years ago, 10 years ago, where half the roads it seems like got extinguished. It was ridiculous. I know it was at least 10 because when I moved out here, I was looking into getting the one in my backyard extinguished and I think I talked to Rudy at the time and he said, "Well, we had been on a spree and we've kind of stopped." Definitely slowed down. Yeah.

But, uh, they're still processing a few extinctions, right? But the likelihood the city isn't too much in favor of extinguishing anymore. Correct. Correct. And that was as of about 10 years ago when I was looking into moving out here and put developing my land. So Rudy was a great asset at that time as well. He still is. Yes. When you flip you flip the access to Star from Placa, you're also you're flipping the fire access as well. That's something they'll have to work out and move it. It'll probably still be on southern as it is, but probably at the other corner, but that's for them to work out.

Not for us. It's up to them to make it fit and work with our city staff which I have all the confidence. Um, so do we want to do the factf finding? Yeah. Are we we're good with discussion? We don't need any more. We can move on to the Yes. Anybody volunteer? Sure. Okay.

Okay. The findings of fact for plan development reszoning. Number one, that a better design cannot be achieved by applying the strict provisions of the underlining zoning district. I do not believe it can be better designed. I mean, we've run into so many businesses that have tried to get that little triangle and they work on it, work on it, work on. Nobody can mess with that. This is probably the best design I've seen. I I tend to agree. I mean, especially with that wash running through there. Oh, yeah. This is a mess.

And I think long term, this is the first step into improving that area by getting that portion of the wash at least. Hope so. Channel. Yeah. And it gives a business the opportunity to go on the east side. It does. Yeah. Uh number two, that the strict adherence to the provisions of the zoning ordinance is not required in order to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the proposed development. That's not a problem. No, it might improve might. Yeah,

less flooding. Number three, that strict adherence to the ordinance is not required to ensure that property values of adjacent properties will not be reduced. I don't think this is going to the one area is empty. Got the same types of developments to the south. I think this should be fine. If anything, I think it will up property values. Hopefully, it will raise.

Yeah. Okay. And that is the end of that portion of the reasonzoning. So the finding effects for minor general plan amendment. Um first of all whether the amendment proposes a land use designation that the land use plan map does not adequately provide optional sites to accommodate. I think the way it's designed, I mean, nobody's going to get commercial on that little triangle. No, it ain't going to happen. No.

Okay. And whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan will not solely benefit a particular land owner or owners at a particular point of time and is consistent with the overall intent of the 2010 general plan. It does. It means Yeah. But does that mean anything anymore? The 2010 general plan. Hopefully we have a new one soon. Hopefully. The 2010 plan has come under much abuse lately. It certainly has. It certainly has. You're right. Didn't plan anything. It didn't

Yeah, we did. We did a good job on it. But we've changed as a city. We've grown 16 years. Don't look for growth. You don't You're not doing the good plan. I'm sorry. Are you finished? No, I'm I'm finished. I'm just saying you want to discuss discussion

whether the proposed amendment is justified by an error in the general plan. No, there was no error. It doesn't doesn't uh have anything to do with this particular thing. Four, whether the proposed change is generally consistent with the goals, objectives, etc. of the general plan. Generally consistent. Uh that concurrent is

yes. I like particularly the the applicant's response that this answers the need for housing that serves different demographic and income levels. That makes me hope that there will be some affordable housing here. That was I think it's great that it's going to be privately owned compared to the rental influx. Absolutely. Uh whether this is proposed change is justified by a plan in the community conditions or neighborhood by a change in the community conditions or neighborhood characteristics since the adoption of the plan. This is

It fits in. It fits. That was five. Where's 666? There it is. Whether the amendment will adversely impact a portion of or the entire community by significantly altering acceptable existing land use patterns, especially in established neighborhoods. No half of this is already zoned for high density anyway. Yeah. And is that six? That's it, right? Yeah. That's it. So,

um, would anybody else like to add anything? Our member on the phone, do you have anything? No. No. Okay. All right. Does anybody want to make a motion for this one way or the other looking at me? Okay. You guys do. Okay.

You have all the notes anyway, right? Yeah, I tried. Okay. This is an interesting motion because of all the numbers. So I will try very hard. You don't have to read all the numbers at all. You can just say the number, but we want to add one.

No, no. I'm talking about the numbers in the motion itself. Okay. I'm of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Apache Junction City Council the approval of the proposed reszoning by Plan Development case P-25-59-PZ, a request by Diamonte Homes Incorporated to reszone parcels 103-21-25F 103-21-25 G 103-21-25H uh 103-21- 025E 103-21- 026E 103-21- 026G 103-21- 026 C and 103-21- 026 6F currently zoned highdensity multiple family residential by planned development or RM-1/PD general commercial B-1 and general rural low density single family detached residential RS-GR to high density multiple family residential by plan development RM-2/P PD and the minor general plan amendment to modify the commercial land use designation of parcels 103-21-026E 103-21- 06G 103-21-6 C and 103-21-06F

to match the high density residential designation of the remainder of the project properties subject to the conditions in the March 21st uh staff report with the exception of number six which would um we would remove the words as outlined in the previous provided pre-application and review comments and from number six And we would add a number nine and having staff work uh with the developers to ascertain the possible change of the entrance exit point from Arcatacia to Star Road.

Outstanding. Do we have a second? Second. Rudy, I have a motion and a second. Can we please get a roll call? Commissioner Callen.

No. Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Chairman Hansheie. I'm going to vote yes. But I do have concerns with traffic. Vice Chair Barker. I also have concerns with traffic, but I do think that the development has great possibilities. So, yes. Commissioner Gage, uh, no, due to the standard issue that I raised. Commissioner Star, no. Commissioner Mikeund,

yes, because I'm confident that they'll work well with the city in the changes. Yes. That's four in favor, three opposed. Mr. Chairman, uh the motion your recom the motion passes. The recommendation from the commission to the city council will be for approval. Uh with the no votes so noted. Thank you. Um there's no old business this evening. No sir, there's no new business that I'm aware of. Sydney, any new business? No new business, Mr. Chairman? Um I have no information. Do we have any information reports?

I think the only report that we may have is tomorrow's Joel's birthday. We want to wish him a happy birthday. It's a rumor. Happy birthday to you. It's a rumor. Happy birthday. Who is responsible for the cake? Yeah. And where is it? We'll have to address that under our next a request. We can request that to be requested. Feel the love. They do not have to comply, though. That's true. Uh Rudy, director's report. Anything?

Uh just one thing, Mr. Chairman. Uh you may have noticed we have a new senior admin assistant. Uh Julie retired back in December and we have spent the last couple of months recruiting for her replacement. We now have Brenda Richter on board. Uh so from here forward you will expect to see emails and notices and stuff uh coming from Brenda and uh she's uh she's great and she's learning a lot of stuff and so there might be a few bugs to work out at first but uh uh very promising uh new employee in development services. I'd like to mention big thanks to Julie and I'm happy she got her retirement

but I sorely miss her. I had to write my own script for tonight. And you did such a good job. And that's one of the things we're working on. Yes. Now, I understand there's going to be pains and she has big shoes to fill, which I'm sure she can. Yes. Um, selection of meeting dates and times, location, the next meeting. Can I get a motion? You want to welcome? I'd like to make a motion for a selection of meeting dates, times, locations, and purposes. No, that's the there's the motion. So, you shouldn't have.

I move the planning and zoning commission hold a regular meeting on April 14th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in the city council chambers located at 300 East Superstition Boulevard. In the event that there are no items to be brought forward to the commission, these meetings may be cancelled, notification of cancellation, properly posted, and the commission notified by staff. Do I have a second? Second. Rudy, I have a motion and a second. Can I please get a roll call? Commissioner Mikeland. Yes. Commissioner Kalen.

Commissioner Kelly. Yes. Chairman Hansen. Yes. Vice Chair Barker. Yes. Commissioner Gage. Yes. Commissioner Star. Yes. Mr. Chairman, before we close up, uh, Commissioner Kelly, is this your first meeting with us? Yes. Yeah. Welcome to the commission. Hey, this was an easy one. All right. Thank you, Mr. J. Thank you, Rudy. Thank you, everybody. I now adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Round one.