Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good evening.

I now call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Apache Junction. Today's date is June 23, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. Can we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Should I please get a roll call?

Chair Hanchey.

Here.

Vice Chair Barker.

Here.

Commissioner Gage. Here. Commissioner Starr.

Here.

Commissioner Mikeland.

Here.

Commissioner Callan.

Here.

Commissioner Kelly.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you, Sidney. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda in minutes?

Mr. Chair. I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission accept the agenda as presented and approve the minutes from the May 26th, 2026 regular meeting.

Second. Sydney, I have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Kelly.

Yes.

Chair Hanchey. Yes. Vice Chair Barker.

Yes.

Commissioner Gage.

Yes.

Commissioner Starr. Yes. Commissioner Mikeland.

Yes.

Commissioner Callan.

YES. SO MOVED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THERE'S ONE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING CASE P-26-4-PZ. NICK, TAKE US AWAY.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THIS IS ON. I'm Nick Leftwich, principal planner for the city of Apache Junction. I'll be presenting the case information for P264PZ, the Banyan Apartments case tonight on behalf of staff, following which the applicant does have a presentation prepared. We'll be ready to answer questions. P26, oh, let's see, yeah. P264PZ, there's a, type it with the number, is a proposed plan development rezoning of approximately 6.7 net acres that is currently zoned, high density, multiple family residential, RM2, with the addition of a plan development, which would permit, it would change the approved zoning plans that were previously approved in 2022 to allow the development of a 146 two and three story apartment complex on this site. The plan development is requested to allow for a parking reduction of 8.5%, which is now 27 spaces. This project was previously scheduled and we had a previous iteration of plans that had a much wider gap of about 20%. The applicant has requested these continuances to today and to these later dates with city council in order to address some of the concerns that had been noted regarding this parking deviation. in order to shrink the gap and modify the plans accordingly. That is where we stand tonight. The proposed zoning of the property, again, it would be taking it from RM2, high density multiple family residential, to the same RM2, multiple family residential, but by a plan development, with that plan development authorizing the zoning deviation. As we look at the zoning of the site, it is surrounded by a different mix of zoning. We have commercial to the south, We have single-family residential, the medium-density residential, RS20M, to the west, as well as a little bit to the north. While also to the north, we see other high-density multiple-family residential that is being used for fourplexes. And then to the east, we see there are the RVP, RV parks, and MHP, manufactured home parks. This property is located within the downtown mixed use area of the general plan land use map. No change is required. This is something that does ultimately fit within the land use context of the general plan. So no amendment is necessary. Shown here is the newest site plan as was provided a couple weeks ago on June 10th. As we see there are six buildings. It is a total of 146 units. Buildings one and two are larger buildings that are limited to two stories along the frontage of Renick, while buildings three, four, five, and six are three-story buildings that are located further away from the street. Shown here are the elevations for those buildings one and two. This is what we would see. And shown here are the elevations of buildings three, four, five, and six. The applicant has complied with all the necessary public notification requirements. They've undergone some extensive public outreach efforts. A neighborhood meeting was originally held on Wednesday, January 7th, at which point there were six members of the public who attended, but the applicant has had ongoing outreach efforts in order to reach out to the neighbors. There was a previous zoning case in 2022 that had a lot of neighborhood input at that time, so staff and the applicant have made sure to coordinate that Neighborhood outreach was a very important effort in this case. And so staff have received, in this case, just one email correspondence, a couple different back and forth that has been included in the staff report from one of the city residents' nearby neighbors, noting some concerns with the site configuration. That was included in the staff report. And the applicant today provided 120 letters of support from local residents and business owners. It was noted that the letter and the signatures provided appear to have been for an earlier iteration of the plan that noted the two stories and five buildings and slightly higher unit count. But those were the letters that were received and were provided over email earlier and will be included in the staff report moving forward. But in review of the proposed zoning deviation in the site specific context, when we look at the context of the area and the height of the proposed buildings, Ultimately, staff has determined that we are not supportive of the proposed rezoning by plan development case and respectfully recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission a recommendation to deny the zoning amendment and request to end the zoning deviation to the City Council. Now, the Planning and Zoning Commission is at the leisure to make their own recommendation as you see fit, but that is what staff's ultimate recommendation has been. And following this, The City Council work session for this case will be held on Monday, July 6th, with a City Council public hearing. The actual vote on the case will be Tuesday, July 21st. And as noted, the applicant is here with a presentation and is prepared to answer questions, and I'd be happy to answer any questions after that as well.

I have one question. This is going to be a low-income housing one as well?

That is correct. It is a LIHTC low-income housing tax credit project. How does that work? That would be better answered as an operational question by the applicant. It is a funding mechanism and it influences how they rent, but I'll let them go into the details of that. Thank you, Nick. Anyone else, any questions?

Commissioner Gay. Recently, which for me means within the last five years or so, we went through several iterations on parking regulations.

Could you

SUMMARIZE WHAT WHAT WE DID WAS IT FIVE YEARS AGO AND WE COMPARED WITH OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA THE APPLICANT IS USING PHOENIX AND DENVER IN THEIR REPORTS WHO DID WHO DID WE COMPARE WITH AND JUST GIVE US A LITTLE QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE DID THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GAUGE I WAS PART OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT EFFORT ON FOR OUR PARKING REGULATIONS ON THAT FRONT AT THAT TIME IT WAS AROUND 2022

In 2021 and 2022, and the original rezoning case on this site was one of those cases that during 2022 and 2021, we had a lot of questions regarding these multifamily projects that we were receiving. It was either, you know, it was both apartment towers, it was builder grant. It's a lot of different iterations of plans. And up until that point in the 2014 version of the code, of our parking code, The minimum parking requirements were exclusively for residents. It was if you had a one bedroom or studio apartment, there was 1.5 parking spaces for every one bedroom or studio apartment. And then two parking spaces are required for every two and up bedroom apartment.

And that was the minimum. There was no guest parking requirement.

And in 2021, 2022, when there were a lot of concerns about, is there sufficient parking? Are people going to be parking on the street? And we heard a lot of those concerns from neighbors. And ultimately, those concerns escalated to the city council, who gave direction to staff in order to undergo a study and pursue a text amendment to see if a guest parking requirement was necessary in the city of Apache Junction, which was ultimately determined to be so at the time we studied it was mostly comparable cities in Arizona and both in the valley and in other parts of Arizona as we look at like Florence a little bit outside the valley but you know comparable and in terms of nature and and what kind of developments they were getting and so we went through and looked at other similar Arizona cities and tried to find what a reasonable guest parking requirement would be ultimately settling at the ratio of 0.3 guest parking spaces for every unit in addition to the bedroom count that had previously been noted. So in about 2022, the city of Apache, which was after the original rezoning on this site, after that, the city council adopted the text amendment in order to implement a guest parking ratio in addition to the bedroom count ratio into our zoning ordinance.

Thanks.

COMMISSIONER'S ON THE PHONE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

NO.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT LET ME JUST, I HEARD YOU CORRECT. THE SIGNATURES THEY GATHERED WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS FOR THE BUILDINGS FROM THE BUSINESSES?

I believe I'll have the applicant speak to that a little bit further. From what we gathered, the narrative details noted in the letters don't reflect the plans that were provided tonight on the date of June 10th. So the letters appear to be at least more than a couple weeks old. But that's the information we have to go by, and the applicant can clarify the dating of that.

Thank you.

any other commissioners have any questions all right would the applicant please come up and speak good evening chair commissioners for your records my name is Mike Merowitz I'm with the law firm of Snell and Wilmer and I'm here on behalf of Bannon residential who is the developer of this project. The purpose of this application is to accommodate the development of this property with a new quality and modern housing that is intended for households and families and will be offered at affordable rates via the LIHTC program, which I'll describe in my presentation. But as you'll see as I go through my presentation, We are doing this with a development project that is on property that's already zoned for high density multifamily residential, so we're not changing the underlying zoning. It is also a property that is subject to an approved site plan for multifamily, which our application is modifying to achieve what we believe is an enhanced design from that prior approved site plan, but also to address some of the practical constructability issues with that site plan. AND AS YOU'LL SEE, OUR PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED ALL OF THE ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING RM2 ZONING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROVIDED PARKING, ALTHOUGH AS WAS NOTED IN OUR PARKING STUDY AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HERE CAN SPEAK TO IN MORE DETAIL, WE ARE PROVIDING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WILL MORE THAN ACCOMMODATE THE ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUT BEYOND ALL THOSE TECHNICAL ITEMS, WHICH I'LL COVER IN MY PRESENTATION, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT HAS SPENT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME ON COMMUNITY OUTREACH, WITH DOOR-TO-DOOR OUTREACH OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, TALKING WITH NEIGHBORING BUSINESS OWNERS, NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT ONLY INFORMED ABOUT THE APPLICATION AND UNDERSTAND THAT HAS BEEN FILED, BUT ALSO TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR FEEDBACK, AND THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED And that is what development projects are all about and what makes a great, great development project. And part of the results of that have been the 120 support letters that have been received over the course of that several month outreach process, which is continuing to go on.

So a little bit about Banyan Residential.

Banyan Residential is a developer of multifamily projects throughout Arizona. They've developed over 4,600 existing units in various U.S. markets. That includes Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, and North Carolina. And one of their primary markets is Arizona itself. So you can see on this slide they have seven existing development projects in Arizona that they've built, and so certainly a significant emphasis here. And as was noted, Banyan, as part of this project, will be participating in the federal government's low-income housing tax credit program, or LIHTC, which is a program that is administered and regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And as part of that project, there are all these strict requirements that the developer must meet. And so as part of complying with those requirements, this is a project that for 30 years, there will be rental restrictions, so the units will only be available to households whose income is at or below 60% of the average median income, or AMI, for the metro area that includes Apache Junction. These types of LIHTC projects are also very much intended for families, and you will see that in the development plans for the project. Unlike the newer type of multifamily developments that you typically see developers build, of which our firm's been a part of many of them, This is not a development that just has one bedroom and two bedroom units. There are many of the larger units. So there's many three bedrooms as well as four bedroom units provided in order to provide the opportunity for families to live in these units. The rental restrictions are very much set by HUD that have to be complied with. And so if you are a qualifying tenant at 60% or under the average median income, HUD will establish each year what the rental rate is that you can charge for a LIHTC development. And just by comparison, it changes each year, but in 2025 for the metro area that includes Apache Junction, based on, depending on the unit size and the household income of the tenants that are there, the average rent in 2025 would have been between $1,200, just over $1,200, and just over $1,900, again, depending on the size of the unit. Banyan is also a developer that retains ownership of their properties for a long time. So they're not one of those developers that builds a project and then immediately sells it off. They retain long-term ownership for typically over 10 years, and that ensures that they will be a neighbor of the property, which is part of the reason for significant community outreach, because they will be a neighbor here. And another important component of the LIHTC program that often gets confused is that LIHTC is not a Section 8 housing. So with Section 8 housing, those are government vouchers. They're subsidies that are provided to those voucher holders where the voucher holder will pay a small portion of rent, and then the rest of the rent is subsidized by the federal government through that subsidy. That is not the LIHTC program. So with the LIHTC program, there are very strict income qualification requirements and other requirements that need to be met. But also, if you are a qualifying household for a LIHTC program, you are responsible for 100% of the rent payment. There's not a government subsidy required for the rent payment. And the other thing that the LIHTC developments do is that it's really intended as it provides a tax credit for a developer. And so what that does is it allows a developer to build a higher quality development that ordinarily would need to charge market rates or close to market rates in order to offset those construction costs. But with the tax credit, that allows them, rather than offsetting those higher construction costs with higher rental rates, they're able to meet the rental requirements, the rent LIMITATIONS ARE ESTABLISHED BY LIHTC BECAUSE OF THOSE TAX CREDITS THAT ARE GIVEN, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE FOR THIS PROJECT.

YEAH, I COULD BE MISTAKEN, BUT IN READING THROUGH THE TEXT, I THOUGHT IT SAID IT WAS A 15-YEAR instead of 30 as in your presentation for the LIHTC.

Chair, Commissioner, the restriction will be 30 years. So I think there was confusion in the application about noting a 15-year restriction. It is 30 years. That's a requirement of the LIHTC program. Okay.

And what happens after that 30 years? The rent restrictions go?

After that 30 years, it's no longer subject to the LIHTC program, and so it becomes back like any other market rate. Okay. Thanks. So again, for a bit more of context here, and I know staff did a good job of covering a lot of this. So as you can see, the property is located along Renwick Drive. We're in between Superstition Boulevard to the north there and Apache Trail to the south. And this is very much kind of a mixed area that has existing single-family residences mixed with higher-density residences as well as commercial businesses. As you can see on this map, directly across the street from Renwick Drive to the west, are single-family homes. To the east of this property are two existing mobile home parks. The one with a lot of the white structures that you can see in the zoomed-out image, that is a higher-density mobile home park at 18 dwelling units per acre. And I point that out because that is fairly consistent with the density that's being proposed for this project at 22 dwelling units per acre. And in terms of the rest of the surroundings to the north, you have a mix, again, of single-family homes as well as some fourplexes. And then to the south are existing commercial businesses, including an auto repair shop and other commercial businesses there. A little closer up image of the property. The property is just under seven acres in size, and you can see it's currently vacant today. This is what the project looks like from, or the property looks like from a street view image, looking kind of southeast at the project down at Renick Drive. In addition to this project providing or developing this vacant property with new housing in the city, one of the additional benefits of this project, you can see surrounding this property, there's not a lot in terms of streetscape improvements. There's no sidewalk today, no landscaping, red shade for that sidewalk. And so one of the things you'll see in the renderings that I'll show here in just a moment that's a Nice benefit of this project is we'll be significantly improving that streetscape with detached sidewalks that includes trees and landscaping that will provide shade for pedestrians to walk on with the sidewalk on the sidewalk there. This is covered by staff. So the existing general plan land use designation for the property is downtown mixed use today. That land use designation supports a high density residential at a density range between 10 and 40 dwelling units per acre. We're right kind of in the middle of that target density range at 22 dwelling units per acre. So this proposal is consistent with the general plan, which is why you don't see a general plan amendment before you with our application. The property has also been developed in accordance with the underlying zoning. So the RM2 zoning exists on the property today. That is the city's high density, multiple family residential zoning district. And the project meets or exceeds ALL THE ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO ALL MULTI-FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS BUT THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS NOT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING ZONING OR TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IT'S TO MODIFY THE THE STIPULATION THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE RM2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022 FOR THIS PROPERTY ON THIS SLIDE IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION ADOPTING That zoning, it was subject to 10 different stipulations, one of which is stipulation number one, which requires the development to be in conformance with the development plans that were associated with that zoning case. And that development plan includes this. This was the site plan that was provided as part of the prior case. This is an approved site plan today. This was a multifamily development with 124 units spread throughout 17 different buildings. As far as we can tell, this was always a speculative development with no real intent to develop the project. And the reason we say that is when kind of diving into this, you can see there are a number of issues with the design of the project and some constructability challenges that practically would make it quite difficult to develop this. And these were all things that when Banyan acquired the property, looked into building a development project and seeing could you build a project consistent with the site plan, And some of the issues that you run into are you can see the circulation on the site plan is not great because you have 17 different buildings. You've got streets interwoven throughout the buildings with dead end streets kind of all over the place, which is not a great design. Because you have 17 different buildings, you're required to have utility connections to each one of those buildings, drives up construction costs. And because, again, you have 17 buildings, you've got exposed walls on all the sides, increases energy costs. Again, that increases, there's concern about increased rental rates to make up for those energy costs. And so for a variety of different reasons, we are proposing a modified site plan, also a multifamily development, but one in which we think achieves a better design, but also solves some of those practical constructability issues. So this is a site plan that's being proposed. ON YOUR SCREEN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY. THE DEVELOPMENT HAS 146 UNITS, AND IT'S SPREAD THROUGHOUT FIVE BUILDINGS RATHER THAN 17 DIFFERENT BUILDINGS. WE HAVE TWO LARGER BUILDINGS ALONG RENNETT DRIVE THAT ARE IN THE BROWN THERE THAT ARE THE LONGER BUILDINGS. THOSE ARE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. SO THOSE ARE TWO STORIES AND 27 FEET. AND THEN BEHIND THOSE ARE FIVE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, OUR SMALLER BUILDINGS, KIND OF THE LIGHTER BROWN COLOR. THOSE ARE THREE STORIES AND JUST OVER 36 FEET. IN HEIGHT. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS PROJECT PROVIDES A VARYING MIX OF BEDROOMS AND UNIT SIZES. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE TABLE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, WE HAVE 38 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, 48 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS, 49 THREE-BEDROOM, AND 11 LARGER FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS. AGAIN, THAT'S VERY ATYPICAL FOR THE NEWER TYPE OF APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'LL SEE, WHICH is a developer trying to maximize density in lots of one and two bedrooms. But with this light tech development, again, it's really intended to provide new and modern housing options for families to live in. And in order to do that, you need larger units, which is why we have the larger three bedrooms as well as four bedroom units as well. Just a couple more details to highlight on the plan. So again, primary access is from Renick Drive. That leads to that orange building there, which is the clubhouse that will have a fitness area in there. There's also a pool and spa behind it, so amenities for residents. There's some open space courtyard areas as well. You can see the landscaping that's being provided throughout. I've mentioned a couple times now that this development meets or exceeds all the zoning development standards under the properties underlying RM2 zoning, with the exception of parking. And this table highlights that. So with respect to building setbacks under the RM2 zoning, we're required to have a minimum 20-foot building setback from the front, which is Renick Drive, and then a 20-foot setback from the rear, and then 10 feet from our sides. We are exceeding that. So you can go to the column all the way to the right. Our setback from Renick Drive is we're maintaining a minimum of 38 feet, so we're pushing our buildings further back than what's required under RM2, so you don't have a situation where the buildings are right up against the property line. And then with those taller three-story buildings that are in the back, rather than the minimum 20-foot setback, they've been set back 62 feet from that property line, again, to be sensitive to the surrounding properties that are there today. Density and number of unit count is within the density that's permitted under RM2, so no modification to the density. THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS ALSO LESS THAN THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE UNDERLINE ZONING. SO THE UNDERLINE ZONING PERMITS 40 FEET UP TO FOUR STORIES. WE HAVE A MIX BETWEEN TWO STORIES AT 26 FEET AND THREE STORIES AT JUST OVER 36 FEET. AND AS PART OF THIS REVISED DESIGN, WE HAVE 17 DIFFERENT BUILDINGS SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY WITH JUST FIVE BUILDINGS. WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE A MUCH LOWER LOCK COVERAGE. OUR LOCK COVERAGE IS ONLY 25%, WHICH IS HALF OF THE 50% THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER RM2. THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FROM WHICH WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR DEVIATION FROM AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS FROM PARKING. SO UNDER APACHE JUNCTIONS, MORE RECENT ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH STRICT PARKING RATIOS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, GIVEN THE BEDROOM MIX THAT'S PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU STRICTLY APPLIED THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU'D BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 317 PARKING SPACES. WE ARE PROVIDING 290, WHICH IS A DEFICIT OF 27 SPACES. WELL, AS WAS PROVIDED IN THE PARKING STUDY THAT WE PREPARED, THAT OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER PREPARED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, 290 WELL EXCEEDS THE ACTUAL DEMAND. WHAT THAT REPRESENTS IS 1.9 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, AND IT'S JUST UNDER ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING. rarely will see nearly one parking space for each bedroom provided in the development. And so in our mind, as supported by our parking study, we're well exceeding what the actual demand would be. These next slides that I want to cover will show the renderings and elevations for the development. Again, one of the common misconceptions about LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENTS OR LIHTC DEVELOPMENTS IS THAT THAT MEANS LOW QUALITY. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE OF THE GREAT BENEFITS OF LIHTC PROJECTS IS THAT IT ALLOWS FOR MORE QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE TAX CREDITS THAT ARE PROVIDED, AND RATHER THAN OFFSETTING THOSE COSTS WITH MARKET RATES, YOU'RE ABLE TO CHARGE THE RATES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE LIHTC PROGRAM BECAUSE OF THOSE TAX CREDITS THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING. And you can see some of those elements in the design of the project beyond the amenities and landscaping being provided. Throughout this process, in addition to the significant community outreach, we've had many meetings with city staff over the last several months to really help address, respond to the feedback that we received. One of the early feedback that we received was trying to incorporate more kind of Santa Fe architecture into the style of the development. with varying colors, movement in the building, and articulation. I think the design team did a good job of that. Here is a conceptual rendering of the clubhouse building. So this is right when you approach kind of the main entrance. So this is the single-story clubhouse building where the leasing office as well as fitness area will be and the pools behind that. Here's a rendering of one of the smaller three-story buildings in the back. OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE BALCONIES ARE PROVIDED AND SOME OF THE DIFFERENT MOVEMENT IN THE FACADE AND DIFFERENT COLORS. THIS IS A RENDERING FROM A RENIC DRIVE RIGHT NEAR OUR MAIN ENTRANCE LOOKING AT THE LARGER OR LONGER TWO-STORY BUILDING, BUT SHORTER IN HEIGHT. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT'S DONE A GOOD JOB RATHER THAN A FLAT BUILDING, WHICH TYPICALLY MAKES IT APPEAR AS A LARGER BUILDING. THEY'VE REALLY DONE A GOOD JOB OF BREAKING UP THE MASTING BY SETTING the building back with with articulation and again some different colors i mentioned earlier i showed or i showed the the existing street view image of of the property where we saw the vacant property and then the lack of streetscape conditions this is a comparison and so again one of the nice benefits of this project beyond the additional housing is the improvements to to the streetscape and you can see that that here so there will be new detached sidewalks along rennick drive and virginia as well as landscaping and trees that will help provide shade so now you have the ability to walk these are public sidewalks to walk along the sidewalks which will be much nicer certainly or an improvement from the existing condition and this is just another shot of the two-story building BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO LAYLA, WHO IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM TO DISCUSS THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH COMPONENT OF THIS PROJECT, I DO WANT TO TOUCH A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE PARKING, SINCE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN THAT WE HEARD FROM YOUR PLANNING STAFF. AND SO IN ADDITION TO OUR PARKING STUDY THAT DETERMINED THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING, WE ALSO WANT TO DO A COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS. WE KNOW THE PARKING STUDY, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, did a comparison which maybe wasn't the best comparison to Phoenix or Denver, which admittedly are cities that have lots of public transportation. So we did some other comparisons to other cities that we believe are comparable in terms of reliance on vehicles. So a few slides to highlight that. So with our exact amount of parking provided, with 290 parking spaces, if we were to park this exact same development under the City of Buckeyes parking ratios, we would have a surplus of 30 parking spaces Okay. Similarly, if we were to park this development in accordance with the City of Glendale's parking ratios, we would have a surplus of 41 parking spaces.

With the City of Peoria, we'd have a surplus of two parking spaces.

City of Surprise, surplus of six parking spaces. And then City of Goodyear, surplus of two parking spaces. Again, we've had, of course, our professionals analyze to ensure that we're providing appropriate parking IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LEAD TO GOOD DESIGN WHEN YOU'RE OVERPARKING A DEVELOPMENT. YOU DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE MUCH MORE THAN THE NEED BECAUSE THAT TAKES UP AREAS FOR OPEN SPACE, AMENITIES, AND OTHER ITEMS. BUT WE THINK WE'VE STRUCK THAT APPROPRIATE BALANCE. AND SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LEYLA VILLASENOR TO TOUCH ON THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, SOME OF THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED THAT LED TO THESE SUPPORT LETTERS.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. My name is Leila Villasenor. I'm also with the team, and I'll be speaking today specifically about our outreach efforts to the community. As you'll see from this slide, we began our outreach door-to-door conversations the first week of April. And over the course of the last two and a half months, we have had 166 CONVERSATIONS. NOW I WANT TO DEFINE THE WORD CONVERSATIONS IN OUR MIND IN ORDER FOR IT TO TALLY AS A CONVERSATION. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT LARGELY LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU'VE SEEN TODAY. LITTLE LESS TECHNICAL, BUT PRETTY MUCH DISCUSSES WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED, WHAT WAS FORMALLY APPROVED, WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING. AND I AM VERY HAPPY TO SAY THAT IT WAS LARGELY RECEIVED IN A VERY POSITIVE MANNER. As you can see, out of those 166 conversations, 121 chose to sign the letter of support that you mentioned. Another 23 verbally supported but did not want to sign any letters that would be submitted. 16 were neutral and six were opposed. I know you're going to ask, so what were the six opposed? Five of them just in general, are not a fan of new development in Apache Junction and would prefer that there be no development. Despite the conversation in the slides that it is currently zoned for multifamily, we did talk about how it is entitled to the 40 feet or the four stories and that we weren't going four stories. To just comment on staff's earlier statement, since we have revised the plans with adding the three stories in the back, that's very recent. And we are going around to update individuals. And so far, our updates have not changed any previous support or neutral. Next slide.

Excuse me. How many have you talked to since you changed it to three stories?

I would have to pull that number for you to be accurate, which I'm happy to respond to. One thing I'll clarify. I'm sorry?

You give me a ballpark?

Was it 10, 20? Oh, far more than 20. We really, we just got these renderings in the last week, maybe? So a lot of it has been verbal, and now that we actually have illustrations, it's certainly a more fruitful conversation.

But what I can assure the commission is- So those numbers kind of don't matter anymore, because three stories is a significant change from two.

And I agree that you feel it's significant. What I'm trying to articulate- with all due respect, is that it was discussed what's currently allowed in the zoning. Height was never a concern. As my next slide will show here, this is a list of some of the support that we have. By and large, the number one reason people wanted to support this project is because of affordability. Affordability and affordable housing is not an issue that is just an Apache Junction issue. As everyone well knows, this is a national conversation that all communities across the country are having. This is filling a need, and many of the people that we spoke to, including business owners, business managers, those are typically the people that we talk to, or someone that owns a home or lives and resides in Apache Junction, the number one reason they would want to support PROJECT IS BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF A NEW QUALITY PRODUCT COMING IN THAT COULD BE AFFORDABLE WHEN THEY UNDERSTOOD THE LIHTC PROGRAM WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO THEM AND THE PRODUCT THAT WE'RE OFFERING. I CAN ASSURE YOU HEIGHT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE AND PARKING WAS NEVER A CONCERN. WE ALSO HEARD FROM A LOT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT THEY FELT THIS WAS A GOOD WAY TO RETAIN OR RECRUIT EMPLOYEES AND A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS THAT WE SPOKE TO TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY COULD ACTUALLY BE CLOSER to where they work or live or play, where their friends and their family is. So it was very widely accepted. I understand the change in the back, but I can assure you that the conversations we've had thus far with the updated renderings that, again, are not even, I don't even think they're a week old, has been very well received. And my last slide is really just- Chair, can I interject while we're on that topic?

Go ahead. I happened to be present at one of these meetings at a business and I listened in and not once did I hear the guy mentioned light tech or low income in his presentation to the business owner. So I just want to let that be known when I was there and I witnessed one of these, not once was that brought up. Maybe it was just a fluke in the one that I witnessed. But I can say, THAT IN THE MEETING THAT I OBSERVED, NOT ONCE WAS, WERE THOSE TWO THINGS MENTIONED.

AND THAT IS, THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT AND THAT FEEDBACK. THAT IS UNFORTUNATE. AND I CAN ASSURE THE COUNCIL, AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE A COPY OF OUR PRESENTATION, WHICH INCLUDES A FULL SLIDE ON LIHTC HOUSING, AS WELL AS RENDERINGS AND INFORMATION ON WHAT EXACTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS. SO I APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMISSIONER ON THE PHONE. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME. that you didn't hear that stated, but I can assure that it is in the presentation and it is part of the discussion.

Commissioner Starr has a question. Are you continuing? Now, I see that it's going to be July 21st for the council's actual approval time. Are you going to continue to do the surveys and update with these people that you already surveyed, or are you going to do additional surveys?

Yeah, I think the scope of the work will be finalized with the team. I do know that what we are going to do is revisit everyone that's already had a discussion. If there will be additional conversations, I think that's yet to be determined or to see what we can achieve. I think our priority would be to make sure that anyone who has stated their written or verbal support still feels that same way.

You also got email addresses for all those people on those forms. Are you going to email them with the updated information?

That's a great suggestion, and we certainly can do that as well. Again, the updated renderings are very fresh, and we're working at double speed to try to make contact with a lot of these individuals.

Yeah, you give them an opportunity during the email to change their opinion or to make further comment, right?

Provide update, right? With current renderings. Correct. Be happy to do that. I think that's a great suggestion, and it's certainly in our tool house now.

Okay. Please continue.

Well, really, that's it, unless there's more questions. This last slide here is just the key takeaway, being that by far the majority of the people that we spoke to we're support of having additional housing in Apache Junction that is affordable.

Okay, then I do have a question. I don't know if- For me or- Probably for the other gentleman.

Well, I'm available if you have any other questions. You both can hang out right there if you want. Thank you for your time.

One of the things you stated was that the new design actually provides more green areas over the old design. Looking at the old design, there's actually a lot more green area in that plan. You know, one of our main objections, you know, we can't protect sight line or view, but the old plan did try to provide some sight lines for the residents across the street to where they could actually look through the alleyways of the development of the green belts that were created to still see stuff. To where yours, you're putting up a giant wall essentially across the street, and then you say you have more green area, I don't really see that.

Chair Hans, thank you for those comments. If I said green area, that's inaccurate. I think we're meant to say the revised design had in order to increase the parking, we had to shrink the footprints of those buildings in the back and go up a little bit in height. That created less lot coverage, not more open space or green area, but less lot coverage, less building area, which allowed us to provide the additional parking.

The main reason is just to increase occupancy, correct?

CHAIR HAUNCH, THE MAIN REASON WAS, AGAIN, REDUCING THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SO WE HAD MORE SPACE ON SITE NOW TO ADD PARKING.

BUT AS THE MAIN GOAL WAS TO INCREASE OCCUPANCY?

CHAIR HAUNCH, IT WAS SOLELY TO INCREASE THE PARKING. SO SOME OF THE ITERATIONS OF THIS.

I MEAN THE DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE. INSTEAD OF GOING WITH THE PROPOSED PLAN THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, YOU'RE TRYING TO GET MORE OCCUPANCY IN, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A WHOLE REDESIGN.

Chair Hans, no. So the reason why when Banyan acquired this project and looked into developing a project in accordance with the approved site plan, which would be the much easier path, right? It's an approved site plan today. It wouldn't need to spend the time and effort of hiring my firm on the community outreach component was because of the actual constructability issues with the project. So I mentioned earlier that the circulation that was proposed in that prior development is exceedingly poor with lots of those dead end streets It also then has the practical issues of 17 different buildings need utility connections to each one of those drives up construction costs. And then the concern with, again, it's a light tech development, not a lot of energy efficiency with 17 small buildings with exposed walls. And the concern is that in order to support those energy costs, you need increased rents, which doesn't really work for a light tech project. So those were the problems. If this was a development where it could be built in accordance with that site plan and that made sense, That certainly would have been the much easier path, but we genuinely feel that this is an enhancement from what was previously proposed.

Okay. Who wants to go next?

I'll go first. I just have a question. Do we have any, I didn't see any renderings for the West Virginia Street. And going back to the map on there, I did see it looks like there was a second entrance, but it looks like there could be a gate there too. Could you just clarify on that?

And in my presentation, I do not have renderings of those buildings. I do know staff had the elevations, the 2D elevations in their project. I'm going to go to the site plan to show the access. Well, here we'll give you kind of an iteration. So this one here is one of those back buildings, very consistent architecture for those five or the, excuse me, the four buildings in the back there. And so this is the architecture of the building that you would see along Renick Drive. And you're absolutely right in terms of access. So we have our primary access from Renick Drive that leads to the main gated entrance. There is then a secondary exit along Renick Drive there as well, which is also, there will be a vehicle gate there as well.

How does that gate work?

Do we know? So that gate... The intent, in order to access it, that you need to come in through Renick Drive. But then we need to have the ability, of course, for emergencies and trucks to be able to get out Renick or in that way. But there will be a keypad for the main entrance and then the second one.

Are we leaving it gated?

Leaving it gated, so yeah, no access to that one.

So it's mainly just going to be an emergency gate? Is that my understanding?

That's correct.

Okay.

So it's not really an entry, it's just an exit? It's a secondary exit. That should probably say exit, not entry.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

That's it for me.

Mr. Gage? Okay. Thanks. Mr. Barker? Vice Chair Barker?

Just an observation.

It really bothers me that you turned in 121 signatures

that were attached to five buildings, all two story. It really bothers me that you did not tell us that, that we had to be sharp enough to read the fine print where it said five buildings instead of six and two stories. That bothered me a lot. And also, this is not a very friendly looking place. No place for kids to play. And you say it's family oriented. Well, there's no place for kids to get out and play. There's no dog park. I always have to say that. Sorry. Yeah, just observation.

Chair Hanson and Vice Chair, if I may, and I completely acknowledge the comment about You have 121 support letters. The design has changed in the last couple months. And you saw kind of in front of you two continuance hearings here. The one thing that I will say is we, of course, the community outreach is constantly an ongoing process. And we started it very early on in this project. And those initial conversations, again, start with we filed this application. Here's what's being proposed. What is the feedback? And the project evolves in response to this feedback. And we always advise our Clients that we think that's the appropriate way to do these Development projects because rather than us just coming with a original design being very rigid in terms of the development that we're proposing It's listening listening to the feedback that that we heard and this very much this final iteration that you see Was very much a response to all the feedback whether it was resident feedback as well as the comments that we received from staff Which frankly were a very big motivating factor. That's what we had a balance here we started this project it was all two stories but the issue was if that had 42 less parking spaces than than what you see today now our parking study still showed that that 42 less was sufficient to meet the parking demand but staff was was very concerned with with that amount as being too big of a reduction so we went back to the drawing board to see well how can we kind of balance the we we like our two-story development but we also have this concern about parking How can we balance that? And that's what this design is in front of you, was taking all the feedback we received, keeping two stories for those larger buildings, not having to change that, but adding another 42 parking spaces. We're at 290, which the trade-off to that, again, was the three-story buildings. But this has always been a balancing act. And I will tell you, and my client would certainly be okay with me saying this, if the overwhelming consensus of this commission was, we like the two-story design, we want the less parking spaces as a trade-off for that, WE COULD CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO GO WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL, BUT THROUGHOUT THIS IT'S BEEN A, YOU KNOW, BALANCING ACT WITH THOSE TWO CONSIDERATIONS, AND SO WE ARE FLEXIBLE IN THAT RESPECT. COMMISSIONER STARR?

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED NOT BUILDING THE THREE STORIES? ARE THESE NOT TWO OF THEM? AND THAT WOULD GET YOU DOWN INTO THE PARKING SPACES?

Chair Hunt and Commissioner Starr, that's certainly an option. So if any of those buildings are not three stories, again, the practical consideration that come down, building footprint gets a larger, we lose some parking spaces. But again, we still believe that we have a significant amount of parking. We'd be happy to explore reducing some of those down two story or frankly, all of them down to two story, which would be the original design. THAT'S 42 LESS PARKING SPACES, BUT STILL, 1.7 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT WAS THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.

COMMISSIONER'S ON THE PHONE. ANY QUESTIONS?

WELL, LISTENING TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, I QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF LETTERS. I ALSO HAVE BEEN OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE HEARD JUST THE CONTRARY. WHEN THE CITY HAD ASKED THEM WHEN THE CITY HAD ASKED THEM WHEN THE CITY HAD ASKED THEM FOR SO MANY PARKING SPACES FOR SO MANY PARKING SPACES FOR SO MANY PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME AND THEY COME BACK WITH AND THEY COME BACK WITH AND THEY COME BACK WITH SURVIVED AND COMPARED TO SURVIVED AND COMPARED TO SURVIVED AND COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES, OTHER CITIES, OTHER CITIES, WE'RE NOT OTHER CITIES. WE'RE NOT OTHER CITIES. WE'RE NOT OTHER CITIES. WE'RE APACHE JUNCTION. WE'RE APACHE JUNCTION. WE'RE APACHE JUNCTION. SO I WOULD LIKE THEM SO I WOULD LIKE THEM NOT GOOD FOR ME.

THANK YOU. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY, JUST ONE COMMENT TO THAT, THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE LOST. SO OUR CURRENT PLAN IS SETTLED ON. IT HAS 290 PARKING SPACES, AGAIN, RATIO OF 1.9 SPACES. THAT IS EXACTLY THE PARKING RATIO OF THE EXISTING APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TODAY. SO THE EXISTING APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TODAY IS UNDER THE CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENT. THE REASON FOR THAT, AGAIN, IS THE PARKING RATIOS HAVE OF CHAINS, BUT WE'RE MATCHING THE RATIO THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE PRIOR DEVELOPMENT.

BUT THEN WHAT WE END UP HAVING IS THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES HAS OVERFLOW PARKING ALL IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSES. EXACTLY. AND WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU MENTIONED ALL THESE OTHER CITIES. YOU KNOW, I'M ALL OVER THE VALLEY FOR WORK. YOU COULD HOST BIGGER CITIES, AND YOU'RE FIGHTING TO FIND PARKING ANYWHERE BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE OF NOT HAVING PARKING STALLS FOR RESIDENTS WHERE THEY LIVE. AND SO THEN IT BECOMES, WHERE CAN I PARK? WHERE CAN I PARK? NEXT THING YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PARKING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S HOUSE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIND PARKING WHERE YOU NEED TO. AND THEN THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE DON'T HAVE THE PARKING THAT THEY NEED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME. THANK YOU. That's why it's such a big thing in the last, you know, however many years I've been on the commission, this has been a big discussion, you know, because we've been growing a lot and putting in a lot of these high density residentials. Um, and even with the commercial side, it's been a huge emphasis on parking stalls that are going to fit for our community and our city, not Peoria, not our two key, not all the other places you mentioned. Apache Junction, we're different. Same thing like Sedona. Sedona's very hard to get anything done because they've realized in their head, the people of that city, this is our city and we want things to fit within the parameters of what we believe we want and need here. Not what outside third parties there people say is acceptable. It's what's acceptable to the residents of Apache Junction.

Chair and Commissioner, I think those are all good points. And I can tell you, I absolutely agree that the number one concern when it comes to how much parking is, is that going to lead to on-street parking? And again, it's a balancing act because you never want a development to have too much parking because that hinders what you can provide as part of the development. But you need to ensure there's enough parking so that doesn't lead to on-street parking. In this case, and we're at 0.9 parking spaces per bedroom, that's assuming one vehicle per bedroom for each one of these UNITS, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT'S BEING PROVIDED. BUT THE OTHER THING I WILL SAY IS THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION OF, WELL, YOU WENT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY WITH A PRIOR DESIGN AND YOU RECEIVED 121 SUPPORT LETTERS. THAT WAS WITH A LESS PARKING THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PROVIDED. THAT WAS 42 LESS SPACES, AND STILL THERE WAS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.

HOW MANY MORE UNITS?

THE... It was not one?

We might have more spaces, but less units.

Yeah, I'm sorry. It's within one or two units of what we're currently proposing.

And then I would like to point out, when you compare it to the old plan, that was under our old standards of parking requirements, correct, Nick? And this is one of the plans that helped drive that new standards.

If you're referring to the 2022 case, that's correct.

So that's why you're showing that there's actually the same amount of parking spaces per unit. We weren't happy then with it, but we were handcuffed with what our standards were, and this is one of the major projects that helped push us forward to requiring more parking.

Sure. Thank you, Chair. The only thing I'll now offer, I think I've gone through the parking ratios and put my case forward. We do have our traffic engineer here, if you'd like to hear from him.

I just want to point that out, because you were using that as a comparison, and You know, we were handcuffed at the time, and we weren't really thrilled about it then. So that's not really a standard we want to use. All right. Thank you. Thank you. No more questions before we go to the public?

If we ask any more after, we're going to have to reopen the public.

On the phone, any more questions before we go to the public part? Nope.

No.

So at this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. When you come up, please state your name and address. And you are limited to five minutes. We cannot address any questions directly. This is just a chance for you to use statements. And more than happy to get with the people afterwards. They can maybe answer some of your questions. But we cannot speak to it. I hereby open it to the public.

Mahmoud Mayuddin, 2304 North Cortez Road, Apache Junction, Arizona. I'm a business owner. They approached me with a letter, and I signed it. And they did not tell me there's a low-income family. And they're building it up over here. And are you guys aware of it? About a couple of months ago, the council, they shut down one of them. That kind of project was on Idaho Road. As a business owner, and I'm originally from Pakistan, I came over here with nothing. I work hard and I build myself. Why these people don't wanna work? Why we wanna support them over tax dollar working hard to pay and then they're gonna get the government funding from the federal government for the next 15, 20, 30 years? No, that's not fair to us. They need to, for example, have a five employee quit. Because they say, okay, we make more money from the government, free taxes, and we're getting money, and then getting free medicals. Are we going to support those people? It's your call, Commissioner. But I just want to clear up, they said 160, 120 letters. Nobody was told us. Matter of fact, a gentleman came today at my business. We have a meeting. Can you join us? I asked him the same question. He said, no, they are not. But they admitted now they are low income. If they have 120, 160 letters from the people, why didn't they show up in a meeting? Thank you.

Thank you.

Donna Carr, Apache Junction resident. And just to say is...

Address.

I don't give my address because I've already had people say is, I know exactly where you live. So if you want to give me your address, I'll give you mine. ANYWAY, I THINK THAT ON THIS SIDE... WELL, TYPICALLY, THEY GIVE THEIR ADDRESS.

I THINK THAT'S ASKED EVEN AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, BUT IT'S YOUR DISCRETION.

I'M FINE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE AREN'T BREAKING ANY RULES.

OKAY. MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU'RE TURNING THIS SIDE OF APACHE JUNCTION INTO A SLUM. WE ALREADY HAVE THREE MENTAL HEALTH PLACES. WE GOT AXIOM, WE GOT LAFONTERO, AND WE GOT GENOA ON THIS SIDE OF THE TRAIL. AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT WE'VE ALREADY TRIED, LIKE ROYAL PALM, WHICH WERE LOW-INCOME APARTMENTS, AND HOW THAT TURNED OUT FOR US, I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED ANY MORE LOW-INCOME APARTMENTS. TAX CREDIT BREAKS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO COME IN AND TRY TO DESTROY THIS. I MEAN, WE CAN SHARE THE JOY AND PUT IT ON D.R. HORTON'S SIDE OF THE FREEWAY. BECAUSE I THINK THIS PART OF APACHE JUNCTION SHOULD BE LEFT AS OLD TOWN PART OF APACHE JUNCTION. We already have council members that say the north side of Apache Junction and the south side. I didn't know that we were dividing it. But if that be the case, then I think this side needs to stay as old town Apache Junction. If it's insisted on that you have to have low-income apartments come in, instead of bringing trouble, why not make them 55 plus? At least... The older people, they don't bring a lot of trouble with them. And then there's also enough parking. Because I don't know about anybody else, but if you have even a two-bedroom, the husband and wife usually share a room. And I know that I had twins myself, and when they turned 16, they both wanted a vehicle. So that's four parking spots right there. So just saying, yeah, I'm opposed to the low-income apartments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Yes, my name is Adam Fitch, 466 North Rennick, Apache Junction.

Thank you for hearing me. First, I'd like to thank you for being savvy about some of the non, we'll call them non-disclosures.

Some of my concerns are with the height of the buildings. We do live on the corner of Virginia and Rennick, and we were told they were going to be two-story, which we weren't thrilled with, but we were like, okay, and now we're on to a three-story situation. We were told that it was going to be low-income housing.

However, I do have some concerns with the parking.

The other cities that they're basing their study off of have public transportation. We don't have public transportation. In the paper, they were talking about how there was going to be less people using cars and utilizing public transportation.

We simply don't have that infrastructure right now.

So I'm not real sure how that's going to work. There does seem to be an increase in traffic over time on that corner, just people going down Renwick in between Superstition and Apache. I mean, it is kind of a thoroughfare. I do think adding high density housing over there would be detrimental to that situation. Thank you. Thank you.

Who would like to go next?

Good evening. Thank you for being here. My name is Denise Duval, and I live at 590 North Renwick Drive. And I first want to address the two people who said that they knocked on doors. My husband and I are both retired, and never was our door knocked on. Never was our door knocked on for questions or paperwork. Just wanted to make that clear. I also agree with the young gentleman who just spoke in reference to the parking. Grabbed the newspaper article originally that said typical residents under the program would include seniors, people with disabilities, and lower-income family households who typically rely less on personal vehicles, and they have fewer vehicles per household, and they use public transportation. That was my question tonight. What public transportation do we have?

We don't have public transportation here.

I guess unless you're a senior going to lunch at the multi-gen center, you can get transportation. But that's hardly what I would call public transportation. And second point I would like to make with what Vice Chair Robin Barker spoke of, Parking lot, yes. There is no play space for a family with four bedrooms and multiple children. Oh, they'll play in the parking lot? There is no play area. Those are points that I thought were worth mentioning this evening. Thank you for listening. Have a good evening.

Thank you. Anybody else going to go?

Hi, Paula Mahoney, 350 North Renick Drive. A couple of things, and I want to point out on the original plans that we were so vehemently against, and you guys voted for, I don't know, like six to two or something, and you're all excited, and oh, traffic's not going to be a problem, and now all of a sudden it's a main concern. We've come to terms with progress. And I have to say, these designs, I'm going to be, I guess, the lone descent. I was wholly aware of the third story. I was wholly aware of the revised entrance. And our concerns with progress is not to ignore us completely. And the biggest thing, of course, was the original plan had the main entrance crossed from my driveway. I would never get out. And they agreed to make modifications. And we've held true to that. And the new developers have held true to that. So I don't have a problem with that. Also, the facade, the elevation of the buildings.

It's not just one big industrial-looking building. They're making an effort.

Although I do want to say, as silly as it sounds, please do not do those desert colors. They date. They look dirty after a year. And they look like 10-year-old paint jobs after one year of a monsoon season. stay neutral, do a nice accent on one wall. But having yellow and turquoise, it brings down the quality. I would drive by that. I would think, oh, it's a cheap building that was just built, and let me put some paint on it. So that's very minor. I was aware of the three stories. They listened to us. You're only looking at 90% occupancy. I don't know why parking is a major concern. There's no apartment complex that has 100% occupancy with every eligible driver owning a vehicle in that same complex. I think we're reaching for the parking to be a problem. Further, they're having a 40 foot setback and I think that's very important because you have long established houses across the street and they're trying to be as less invasive as possible. My husband had to work, but he did ask me to read a statement if I may. All right, my name is Matthew Mahoney. I reside at 350 North Renick Drive, directly across the street from the Banyan development. When this project was initially proposed, we had significant concerns regarding the impact on our immediate infrastructure, managing the influx of daily traffic on Renick Drive, which is a single lane road without a center line. That was our primary operational concern. A poorly placed entrance would have severely disrupted the established flow of the neighborhood. However, we've been working closely with the developers. They've kept nothing from us. We've had questions and they have answered them. Banyan Residential has been receptive to our logistical requirements and has legally committed to the strict site design constraints. most notably anchoring the primary vehicle entrance to the southern portion of the property. And because they have formalized these boundary and traffic mitigations, this agreement in turn allows us to support the rezoning and development of this current plan. We ask that the council approve this request while ensuring that the developer remains strictly accountable to the exact site plan, except for the colors, as the project moves forward. And I'm sorry that people didn't know all the details. I mean, we've got information as recently as like last, I don't know, last Thursday, I think. And most of us have accepted that change is coming. And how can we make it the least impactful on these well-established houses? These families have been there for a long time. These houses were built like in the 60s.

And I would hate to see

somebody else come in and built shoddy apartments. And I always, low income is being used interchangeably with HUD or public housing. That is not the same. They were very upfront with us what it meant to qualify to live in this apartment complex. You had to be a working individual. You had to have an income that prevented you from I don't know, um, qualifying easily for market rate apartments. They're trying to bridge a gap. This is not public housing. There's a difference between low income housing and public housing. Most people are low income in compared to how much it costs today. So I like the plan. It's not obtrusive. It's not as horrible as the first plan is.

And again, the parking, I think, is a non-issue because no apartment complex has 100% occupancy. That's just silly.

And they made every effort so that the traffic is not in our front yard. And I respect them for that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tim Lodice, 590 North Renick. Being a contractor all my life, there's going to be a lot of asphalt going down in this unit. Right now, when it rains pretty hard, Renick is horrible. The shoulders are like rivers going down. Just for my own satisfaction, I'd like to know, is the drainage water from the parking areas going to go into dry wells? Where is it going to go? If it dumps out into Rennick, it's going to be a nightmare when we get a good storm. Thanks for your service.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to go? It's your chance. Don't be shy. Twice. I'm now going to close the public portion. Okay. Discussion. We can't address anymore. I'll have to reopen public. Okay.

Thank you, Chair. I was going to ask for a rebuttal, but I'll respect that.

I'm really saddened by some of the public's thoughts about low-income housing. That saddens me because there is a difference, a big one. And we have need of housing for those folks who don't make a lot of money. I am unsure that I could afford one of your apartments at the rates that were there. So that is not low in my mind. However, it does sadden me. Just a comment.

Anyone else? Commissioners on the phone, would you like to say anything before we get a motion or take a vote?

I would make a suggestion to developer to lose building three and make it a playground. To tell you the truth, if they're going to make it to a family-type housing, that would be a way to do it and to get you underneath your parking problems. It's just a suggestion. Vice Chair Barker?

just one more thing to clarify some things. We have a code that we gauge all of these developments on, and parking is part of that code. And staff worked for months to get it to the point it is right now, and I really feel like The developers knew that coming in. They knew what our requirements were, and they keep coming back without meeting those requirements. And I'm sorry, but we have some requirements. And I really think that we back off of an awful lot of our requirements. And some are important.

Yeah, I'd like to comment, too. I think green space is important. And I see very minimal in here. It's concrete. You know, they talk a lot about heat islands and everything, but it's Arizona. You know, I think they're trying to cram too much into too small.

Mm-hmm.

LEAST WITH THE OTHER ONE, WE DID HAVE A DOG PARK. WE HAD SOME GREEN AREAS FOR KIDS TO PLAY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE TRY AND BALANCE WITH ALL OF OUR THAT WE APPROVE. AND WHENEVER WE GIVE SOMETHING, I THINK THE CITY SHOULD GET SOMETHING BACK FOR IT. AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF GIVEBACK FOR GIVING HERE IN THIS CASE. THAT'S MY OPINION ON THIS. I'm not necessarily opposed to three stories in the community. I'm not generally in favor of them either, but there's places and needs at times. So I don't think that's a major deal buster, but I don't think this is the proper location for it. I think they did their best to accommodate for it. But at the same time, I think there's a lot of shortages in the subdivision. And me personally, I think they're just trying to cram more occupancy in a smaller space. And, you know, the first one I believe was 126, 27 units, 24, you know, and that's minimum of 20 more cars, probably realistically closer to 40 more cars coming in and out of this area as well. So to me, that's even more important for parking. And that's my two cents.

Yeah, and I didn't, you know, like I mentioned earlier, how I feel like the outreach team maybe wasn't, maybe they, I don't want to say they weren't being truthful, but maybe they were being negligible on some of their presentations, because as we heard from one of the other open to the public speakers that similar thing happened to them, and they even signed approval for it, but they did not, they were not told what type of housing this was going to be. I'm not saying it happened to all of them, but that's too confirmed. Who knows if businesses would be in favor or not, not having all the details or if they had all the details. And then as we heard from some neighbors that live right there in front of the place, yes, a couple are in favor. They say, you know, it is what it is. There's nothing we can do, so might as well accept it. But a few of the other ones, you know, they understand the concerns, and it's directly. Most of us here tonight, it's not directly... GOING TO BE OUR BURDEN EVERY DAY. IT'S GOING TO BE THEIR BURDEN EVERY DAY WITH A PROJECT LIKE THIS ON THEIR STREET RIGHT ACROSS FROM THEM.

THANK YOU.

AND ONCE AGAIN, LIKE I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY, WE'RE AJ. WE'RE LIKE THE LAST GEM. WE WERE THE HIDDEN GEM. NOW WE'RE THE BLOSSOMING GEM IN THE VALLEY. And we need to really, really, really be specific on what we wanna put in our city, because we have that ability. Because growth is gonna happen no matter if you're against it or for it, oppose it to the death, it's inevitable. But we, as a community, as a commission, as a council, as residents, we are in a great position to really decide and choose what direction and look our community and city heads into, what's best suited for us as a community, you know, presently and in the future. And my little daughter Gina agrees.

Thank you. Yeah, we have we have to do finding effects on this one. Yes, yes.

Oh sure.

OK, the findings of facts for planned development rezoning. So we have a requested deviation in the parking. And as required by our zoning ordinance, a plan development request may be approved by the city council after consideration has been given to three different criteria. The criteria are, number one, that a better design cannot be achieved by applying the strict provisions of the underlying zoning district.

I disagree.

Yeah. We have a standard for the the number of parking spaces. I've been kind of beating up on Sydney a little bit over the last year or so about negotiating our standards. My background is you stick with your standards, so I think we need to do that so a better design would meet our standards. I agree.

The lack of public transportation is an issue.

It is.

It is.

Number two, that strict adherence to the provisions of the zoning ordinance is not required in order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the proposed development.

Nothing's ever totally required.

It's true.

YOU KNOW, IS PARKING GOING TO NECESSARILY HEALTH? I DON'T KNOW. STRESS.

COULD BE.

KIDS HAVING TO PLAY ON RENIX BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO PLAY IN THE COMPLEX.

OKAY.

YES. THAT'S A POINT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. RENIX IS NOT A MAJOR STREET, BUT STILL, IT'S A STREET, AND IT'S A STREET THAT'S GOING TO BE INCREASING But this complex, probably at least 10 times the traffic.

Yep. We don't really have provisions for playgrounds or anything in use, so we can't really hold them accountable for that. It said welfare, you know. Right, but I'm saying as far as our zoning ordinances go.

We have open space restrictions. Yeah, and there's technically some open space here. Well, that's concrete. Is it properly used? It's concrete. It's not open space.

Right, but I'm saying we have our green belts and desert landscape belts.

Actually, with all that concrete, it is a safety issue.

Could be.

Somebody's going to get burned. All right. Number three, the strict adherence to the ordinance is not required to ensure that property values of adjacent properties will not be reduced.

And that's true. Yes.

That's definitely true. It's not going to hurt property values the way this is. Not going to impact it at all. One way or the other. Mm-hmm.

So that's the finding of facts.

That is the finding.

Does anybody want to do a motion? Sure.

I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Apache Junction City Council the denial of the proposed rezoning by plan development case P-26-4-PZ, a request by Banyan Residential LLC, represented by Nick Woods and Noel Grimsman.

I hope I... That's okay.

Okay. Schnell and Wilmer LLP to rezone parcel 101-13-108D currently zoned high density multiple family residential RM-2 to high density multifamily residential by plan development RM-2 slash PD to amend to approve plans of ordinance number 1526 and to permit a parking reduction. That's not making sense to me. Did I read that correctly?

You did.

OK. And I also want to add to that that I regret having to ask for a denial of a, it's not low income, it's ill. H, that. I regret that much.

Do I have a second? Second. Sydney, I have a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Callen.

That was a long, long reading. This is a yes or a no, accept or deny?

It's a yes for a denial.

Yes. Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Commissioner, I'm sorry, Chair Hanchi? Yes. Vice Chair Barker?

Yes.

Commissioner Gage? Yes. Commissioner Starr? Abstained. Commissioner Mikeland?

Yes.

Motion for denial passes. Thank you, Sidney.

THERE'S NO OLD BUSINESS THIS EVENING, NO NEW BUSINESS THIS EVENING.

NOT AT THIS TIME. ANYTHING TO REPORT? NOTHING FROM THE DIRECTOR TO REPORT, NO, SIR.

SO LET'S DO A MOTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. I GOT TO SEE ROBIN'S VOICE. GO FOR IT. GO AHEAD.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hold a regular meeting on July 14th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 East Superstition Boulevard. In the event there are no items to be brought forward to the Commission, these meetings may be canceled. Notification of cancellation properly posted and the Commissioner is notified by staff. Second.

Got a motion and a second. Can I get a roll call, Sydney? Commissioner Mikeland?

Yes.

Commissioner Callan? Yes. Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Chair Hanchi? Yes. Vice Chair Barker?

Yes.

Commissioner Gage? Yes. Commissioner Starr? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. I now adjourn the meeting at 8.24 p.m.