Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

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 August 25th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. Let's please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Rudy, can I get a roll call, please? Chairman Hanchey. Here.

Vice Chair Barker, unfortunately, called in.

She will not be able to make it this evening, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gage. Here. Commissioner Starr. Here. Commissioner Mikeland. Here. Commissioner Callan. Here. Commissioner Kelly. Here. Six present. We have a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Rudy. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda and the minutes?

Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission accept the agenda as presented and approve the minutes from June 23, 2026. Do we have a second?

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

Commissioner Kelly? Yes. Chairman Hanchey?

Yes.

Commissioner Gage? Yes. Commissioner Starr? Yes. Commissioner Mikeland? Yes. Commissioner Callan?

Yes.

So moved, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Rudy. There's one public hearing this evening for a conditional use permit, case P-25-46. Nick, take it away, please.

Thank you, Chair Hanchey. I'm Nick Leftwich, principal planner of the city of Apache Junction. I'll be presenting the case information for the Bella Norte project, P2546CUP. This project consists of a proposal to build a 210-unit, three-story multifamily residential community on 9.31 acres located at the northeast corner of Idaho Road and Junction Street. So the property is zone B3 city center, which And so this proposal would require a conditional use permit to be approved by council in order to be approved. So that is why it is going through this process at this time. Shown here is the zoning of the property and the area. It is surrounded on most sides by the similar B3 city center zone. To the north, we have a vacant undeveloped property Then we have the old hotel site across Idaho to the west. To the south, of course, is the Fry's Marketplace. And then to the east is the RM2PD high-density multifamily residential by plan development project. That is Skyline Towns. It is the same developer, Bella Floor. They went through that process just about a year ago. Also, in this case, it is a two-story multifamily residential lease community, but it is also a multifamily project adjacent to this. Shown here is the general plan land use map. This site is located squarely within the downtown mixed use area. That is, according to the general plan, the area that has been designated for developing this downtown core of the city. There's high density residential, mixed use, commercial, a variety of those uses in order to facilitate a downtown core within the city. So what is being proposed here matches those plans and the policies of the general plan. This is the site plan of the site. There are 10 buildings, and as we're looking at this, there's the primary access off of Idaho. They have a deceleration lane proposed. There's secondary access on Junction. There are 408 parking spaces, and I'll note that they are short the total requirement. However, they are within the 10% limit Excuse me. So there is a 10% allowance, a margin that is given within the parking code that allows a administrative exception. And they are within that. And so they do not need at this time a special condition or a special zoning deviation in order to allow the parking deviation. So while it is not explicitly part of the conditional use permit request, we wanted to make note as part of the site plan details of this.

As we also see,

On this landscape plan, we can see the amenities in a little bit more detail. There is a pool and a clubhouse. They have pickleball courts near the junction entrance. There is a dog park right at the southwest corner of the site. There's a amenity area with a playground, tot lot, ramadas. There's bocce ball, cornhole. There's different amenities for the site altogether. They have a nice community lawn. And notably, one of the big items to note along Idaho and Junction is a trail system that is part of our downtown active transportation plan. It does connect, in this case, to the Skyline Towns project to the east. And so in addition to the sidewalk, there's also a trail system. And it would continue north as well when that gets developed as well. So that is something that impacts... this project and the development of the street section. With that in mind, the applicant is also asking in this case for a deviation of the city's street section development code. So typically on an arterial, we require a meandering sidewalk, which is offset from the street. And in order to provide the site plan as it's formatted and that trail system and to utilize the existing Idaho sidewalk and infrastructure, the applicant has asked for that, to be able to use the existing sidewalk and not tear it out and rebuild a meandering sidewalk. And that's just to fit everything, to fit this trail system and those items.

One quick question. Would the trail system fit in there with the meandering?

Within the current format, they're pretty tight for space along there. I can let the applicant speak to that a bit further. I know that they've prepared a presentation following this and have specific slides on that point. Within the current design they noted that they needed the space and that's why they're asking for it.

Is that on Idaho or Junction where this meandering?

It is on Idaho that it would be required as an arterial. And I know that that was the primary item. Junction, depending on its classification, I think Junction is classified as a collector. It doesn't have the exact same street section, but I may have to double check on that item. But as it is right now, I believe that they don't need the same deviation. There's already some landscaping, and it's offset in a different way. It has a little bit of a different street design along Junction, but the primary ask is along Idaho.

I had two questions. With the meandering, what's the purpose of that exactly? Because I looked at it in the general plan, it just said to have it, but... In a city, you know, idea, what's the purpose of it?

As a general planning item, it's like we have required just in our, in this case, it's one of the engineering standards. When the sites are built out, we ask for a meandering sidewalk as a kind of a quality of life item. It's not a strictly, it's not strictly mandatory. like required in every case. It provides a little bit of safety. It offsets the pedestrians a little bit further away from the street. But one of the major items is that it provides a little bit of a landscape buffer between the street and the sidewalk. And in a lot of cases, it's an aesthetic item. So it's not strictly a safety item, but it often just allows for a little bit more variety. You have a sidewalk that just has a visual interest. Separates from the road a bit. Kind of like a community trail. It's used in a few different ways, but it's kind of more of an aesthetic item in a lot of cases. But it helps as a good quality. And that's why we generally ask for it.

Okay, my second question is, when it goes north, like you said, would that be another developer at that point, continuing to build that path north?

They would be expected to continue to build the trail system north. And the sidewalk would likely be in line with the existing sidewalk on Idaho. And that's part of the reason why they have this ask, is to be able to utilize the existing sidewalk system and the infrastructure. So it's likely that there would be a similar request. But one way or another, we would be requiring a continuation of this trail system and of a similar street section.

Thank you. I'm a little confused. So the meandering sidewalk versus the trail system, is it the same setback from the road to the property, or have they reduced that setback by eliminating the meandering sidewalk?

In this case, if you're asking about the setback from the road itself or like the curb to the sidewalk, In this case, the sidewalk, as it is being proposed now that this is currently built, is right on the street. The trail system is offset. The sidewalk's width from the street. Let me skip to the end. I have a... So this being the curb, as it is currently built, Idaho has a five-foot sidewalk section. And as is proposed, there would be a eight-foot DG trail.

And then how wide would be the meandering? I guess the question is, is this request decreasing the trail slash sidewalk easement?

Commissioner Gage, the only difference that they're asking for is whether they're going to detach it from the curb or not. And in this case, they want to keep the sidewalk attached. The width would be the same regardless if it's attached or detached.

Total width of the sidewalk slash trail.

It would be the same.

So it's the same. So really you're just talking about a meandering concrete in the same space.

The only thing that they're asking for is to keep the attached sidewalk in place. Thanks. Yes.

So with the inclusion of the trail, it ends up being about the same space. This is the city standard detail for the arterials. So right here, you know, a 10 foot and the math ends up being about the same or more with the trail. We've worked with the applicant AND THE CITY COUNCIL PRETTY EXTENSIVELY ON THE ELEVATIONS. WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS AND WE BELIEVE THAT WITH THE APPLICANT THIS FORMAT IS MORE OF A KIND OF A SOUTHWEST INSPIRED LOOK THAT WE BELIEVE BEST ACCOMMODATES OUR VISION OF THE DOWNTOWN. THEY'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE REVISIONS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL LOOKING FOR THIS KIND OF PUEBLO STYLE WITH THE INCLUSION OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN ORDER TO ACCENT THAT. WE HAVE HERE SOME OF THE 2D ELEVATIONS. The applicant has gone through the necessary public notification requirements. They've been in process for a while, so in this case, their neighborhood meeting was held last year, at which point six members of the community attended. Many of them are city council members who asked questions regarding site planning, parking, crime-free housing policy, funding mechanism, construction timelines, and so forth, as is noted. And since that time, staff has received 23 letters of support from local business owners. In a staff report, 11 was provided. I just yesterday received 12 more, which has been printed out and included and put on your desk here, and they will be included in the staff report moving forward. And with all these things considered and looking at this site, looking at the general plan and the context, staff supports the proposed multifamily use at this site. We believe that it meets the general plan goals of this downtown core. The city center zoning district has a specific is specifically designed to allow for some of this higher density multifamily in order to better support adjacent commercial uses. And we believe that there is a need for that downtown still. We believe that this use aligns with the downtown mixed use general plan designation of providing the mix of encouraging infill development and as being an additional housing option and a different variety, something different than lot of what we currently have and there's also the concentrated downtown master plan which was a economic development plan that was developed about a year ago a little over a year ago now in order to better facilitate a very specific core there's the property that the city it's that the city had purchased in order to develop and in order to see this the the core downtown and businesses and to have have that grow part of the plan required having these additional rooftops and having this kind of setup. So we believe that this proposed land use facilitates the goals of those plans. With that, the applicant does have a presentation and will be able to answer a lot of the operational questions, but if you have anything for staff, I'm happy to assist.

Yeah, I have another question. Concerning the existing sidewalk there, I mean, it's been down for a while. If there's any damage on any of that, who will be replacing it? Will the builder replace any defective stuff at this point, or will the city be responsible?

That is a great question.

Sure, Hanchi, the city would be responsible at this time. The city is? I'm saying once they start constructing. If they damage the sidewalk, then they would... Only if they damage it, but if it's currently damaged? It would still be right of way. It's under our purview. They would be responsible outside of sidewalk. They would be responsible for the trail system.

But if they have to do the meandering, then they would be fully responsible for the sidewalk. That's correct. That's right. Do we know if there's any damage out there?

I do not. I don't have that information available at this time.

We could always add a condition that they would take up and fix any...

I had a question for you. I was just curious, when it comes to that 10% parking, why was it not applicable for the Banyan Apartments that we declined last time?

If I may note, there are some differences in the context.

I'm sorry, that's not on the agenda. Sorry about that, but that's a different project. So it's not on the agenda.

So where would the 10% come from? Could you explain that?

The 10% allowance is within the zoning ordinance's parking regulations, which I believe is 1.7. In this case, the exception, I believe, is 1.74. Our standards are 1.73. Anyway, there is an allowance given that as long as a project meets very specific criteria... and provides, one of which is the provision of a parking study that shows and demonstrates that there is a sufficiency of parking with what is being provided and that it isn't going to cause negative effects within the surrounding area, that we could administratively grant a deviation of up to 10% the required parking spaces. In this case, the applicant has provided such a parking study. Now at this time, nothing's approved until the project itself is approved. But it is part of their request and that they plan to use that tool in order to facilitate the site plan as proposed. So they provided those reports. They provided satisfaction of the criteria or at least a proposal to satisfy that. It is just a tool allowed by the zoning ordinance to provide this margin of flexibility.

Thank you. For the record, they're under by one spot, under the 10%.

Chair Hanchey, I just want to provide a clarifying point to your previous question regarding the sidewalks. The only existing sidewalk that will stay in place, if you can see my cursor on your screen, will be from this area to here. The sidewalk going north here to the entrance will be new, and they'll be responsible for construction of that new sidewalk because of the deceleration lane.

Yeah, I was just curious if any of the existing... Sure. I mean, if we're saving them a bunch of money, maybe they could help save the city a little bit of money. Understood.

So I'm reading through your staff report on the... We're back in parking again. There's two conditions to satisfy. I'm assuming that the required parking can be accommodated with existing public parking that is available to one or three of the property. That's kind of off the table.

Yeah, that one was a and or situation. And in this case, it is part of the consideration that there won't be overflow parking on Idaho by any means. There's no practical way that they can do so. And so that does alleviate some of those concerns of that kind of overflow parking.

And so then your determination basically relies on the parking study that they did. And there's two different methodologies in there for determining the right amount of spaces. They used Phoenix, Goodyear, and Mirage as benchmarks. How does that compare to the study that we recently completed within the last five years? We didn't compare with Phoenix. It's not really apples to apples because they have so much public transportation.

I can speak to that.

Yes.

Yeah, of course. So I happen to have been the planner that was the project manager for the guest parking text amendment. And I did do the study. And in this case, we actually took just about every city within the valley, including Phoenix, just to get and establish our understanding of a wide range of different comparable cities. Now, of course, Phoenix, far more public transportation. We did not come up with the parking ratio to reflect Phoenix's. They were on a different end of the spectrum. But at that time, we did compare ourselves to, I think it was about 10 or 11 different cities, ranging anywhere from Phoenix to Florence. And because at that time, what was added in this case, it was we received direction of staff December of 2022, which was shortly after we had several other multi-family projects that came through. And because there was a lot of discussion regarding parking, council issued a direction to staff in order to research, in this case, comparable cities, research what is being done because we just didn't even have a guest parking requirement at all. We just had a minimum per bedroom count, this many parking spot requirement within our parking ordinance. So what was implemented and after about nine months of work in September of 2023, we implemented a new guest parking standard. And that was done, again, We took all these comparator cities with that broad spectrum and tried to understand kind of more where we were. Some cities, like further out, we actually ended up on the stricter side where we require more parking than most cities do. So tried to compare ourselves more to the cities that are further out don't have public transit. But even then, we did end up requiring, it was 0.3 guest parking spaces per unit. So you have 10 units, you have three more guest parking spaces. And that was something that was added on top of what had previously just been our minimum standard. So that's part of the reason why we have had this consideration when it comes to the deviation, is in consideration of the guest parking requirement that had been enhanced. We understand, and in terms of the methodology that was shown, we are on the higher side of our parking requirements of our per unit space. But we still have that consideration on a case-by-case basis. We look at a context within the site context. It depends on what's in the area. It depends on what kind of neighborhood they're in. It depends on if there's a concern of overflow parking onto the streets. And to be able to... The tool and the flexibility is really only to be applied... on a case-by-case basis, because even we don't want to justify it with bad logic or just say that we have the same situation as Phoenix. But some sites, some contexts demand a little less, and that's why we have that 10% tool for flexibility.

And like Chairman Hanchi says, if they had one less parking space in their design, they'd be over the 10%. So basically, this is by design. We're heading to 10% for this development. I guess if I was a design engineer, that's how I'd do it. But as I've said in the past, I believe we should stick to our standards as much as we can. You guys are comfortable with the 10%. You've signed off on this. Do we need to adjust our parking regulations in the next 10 years or so, what's your feel?

Commissioner Gage, we're definitely gonna look at our parking standards, probably on a every two year basis. Technology is changing quite rapidly. Ride sharing is quite popular. We've just got news that Waymo is going to be expanding to the valley, to this side of the valley. And we've also seen demographic changes in our youth that they don't drive as much. They'd rather use an Uber or a Lyft or a Waymo. So times are changing. And with that, standards have changed throughout the years and throughout the valley, even since our latest text amendment to our parking standards. And so it's something that we will keep an eye on closely as time goes on. Makes our life easier.

Looking to the future in Idaho Road, I don't know if the general plan has been looking at this. Idaho Road is going to become, because you've got all these high-density apartment buildings being constructed along Idaho Road, that the future, I think, is going to include public transportation and bus routes down Lighthouse Road, but we're not making any revisions or allotting spaces in the plans. We're just building and building and building, and what's going to happen, we're going to have to go back and put in bus stops and so forth, but we don't have any plans for that. Is there any planning in the future for that?

I may not be able to speak to public transportation specifically. It would be something I have to probe Public Works regarding. But when we have made our street section plans and our right-of-way acquisition plans, Public Works has definitely always tried to acquire an adequate amount of right-of-way that if we needed to expand, we could. or you're putting in a walkway. The space by space decision of where a bus stop is, is a higher level. It's a very involved traffic study when you're trying to analyze the patterns and what's a good spot to stop. That level of planning has not been done at this time. So unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to pinpoint where we would reserve the space for a bus stop?

My point is that you're putting in a walkway, and you have a sidewalk and a walkway, where's the bus stop going to be? If you keep on doing that, you're going to interfere with one or the other, and probably the walkway. Just something we might consider in the future. We appreciate it. Thank you.

I mean, there's, what, 15 foot of space there? From the edge of sidewalk to the wall, I believe. They could probably meander that in the spot to accommodate a bus stop. Good, but if you plan it ahead of time, it's much more cost effective. It is. If you put them in the wrong spots, it doesn't really save you anything.

If I may pass the mic over to the applicant. Thank you. They have a presentation to give. Thanks, Nick.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For your record, my name is Reese Anderson. I'm with the law firm of Pugh and Lake, and we represent the property owners here. It's always a pleasure to be in front of you, as we have over the years. We do have a presentation. A lot of it will cover the same material that Nick did. I will go super quick over those slides, unless one of you backs me up. I hope that's okay, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to waste your time. And then we can pause on some of the slides where you had questions and share a bit more information if that would be a acceptable approach.

That'd be great, thank you.

So I'm going to, ah, did something right, hit the right button. So this is the site. We don't need to focus much on that one. Now let me pick up the last slide the staff had, which is their last bullet point, talked about the concentrated downtown master plan. And in it, you can see right where the site is at. It's in that core downtown zone. Now that goes to things such as traffic, parking, intensity, all of those things are what's It's supposed to be here. We're consistent with that plan. This is one of the future land use maps from that plan. And if you look carefully, drawn an arrow to where this site sits, what does it call for? Strategic residential. And when we get to it at the end, you're going to see those support letters that's coming from our business owners that are here. They need and want these people. This is the site here, just like Nick explained with RM2 next door. That site's under construction now if any of you happen to drive over And again, like the trail along Junction Street, all of that will match up. It was planned that way from the beginning. So before you tonight is just the conditional use permit and the acceptance of streets. And as Joel Stern explained and Nick explained and Cindy, too, the parking reduction is part of the tools that the staff have that's outside of the hearing tonight. It's a common tool that gets applied in various cities throughout the Valley. and where the staff are allowed to look at things on a case-by-case basis, which is what the staff have done here. And yes, someone may say, hey, you're at 9.9. I get that. But it also means that the team is working as hard as they can to get as many spaces as they can and balancing that with the open space. If you look, there's 38% open space. That's a good number. If you look at the number of amenities, and we can get there in a second, And here, this is the landscaping plan, but just scan down like one, down through 13, 14. There's an incredible amount of amenities here, which represents a very high quality project. This is a place where if I was newly married and didn't have a home now, this would be a great place where I would live. Right in the downtown core, where so many good things are happening right now. Anyone want to look at this slide a little bit longer? OK. Maybe we'll stay here for just a second and I could talk about the trail. And I appreciate if you notice circle 20, just to call your attention to that. That's about the location where Sydney pointed out that the right turn lane, the deceleration lane comes. So when we talk about the meandering sidewalk, to me this is a balancing of interest, a balancing of planning principles And I want to add a bit more to the conversation, because we try to keep the sidewalk and the trail within the right of way. So that's one principle we're trying to do. We try to put in the deceleration lane. And yes, all of that sidewalk, curb, et cetera, will have to be taken out and put back at the developer's expense. Of course, if they damage anything else. When you look at what's happening in this area, and I'm going to skip forward, everyone, if that's OK. These are all letters of support, but I'll come back to them. So I asked the design team, what's going on in this area? In that top slide, the blue line represents the right-of-way line, the new property line. And if you start to zoom in and look a little closer, and let me go to this slide just because my old eyes need a little bit more. They've recently undergrounded the electrical lines that went along That's a big improvement. But they got placed in that same area. There's a water line that's going to be installed. So when you start thinking about meandering that sidewalk, the only real place it could be done is south of that right deceleration. And what the engineers explained to me is, could it be done? Possibly. But they think that by doing so, it would affect the quality and rest of the trees that are there, and possibly could affect the number of trees that are there. If you look at stipulation number four, It is, hey, put in the right number, put in the space. And so I'm looking at it saying, OK, this is a fair place in the city where we take a general rule across all arterials. And in this short section here, this is a fair place where we balance those interests of existing utilities, existing sidewalk, a trail, which doesn't go everywhere in the city. And then, of course, we also have the other planning principle that we work with the staff, which is to bring those buildings close to the street, but not reducing that setback. So all of those things in tandem that you have to look at as a whole, rather than just say, oh, hey, the developer just wants to skip some money. You have to look at it in that broader context. And I invite Sydney and Nick to correct me if I've said something wrong, because I want to make sure you can make a fully informed decision on this issue. So let me go back, if you don't mind. Or should I pause, Mr. Chairman, to see if there's any questions on that?

Ari, do you have any questions?

No questions. Mr. Chairman, I can go through the conditional use permit findings of fact, but needless to say, to save yourselves some time, we meet every one of them. We really do. I'm happy to address a specific one if someone has it, but we're consistent with the general plan, consistent with the policies. We're not going to cause any detriment. There's been a traffic study submitted. Traffic from a multifamily site is so much less than a commercial site. I think you all know that from your experience in training. You saw the elevations. I think they turned out very nice. A lot of good work went into that between the staff and others. We met with the Chamber of Commerce. This is a copy of their support letter that you have in your package. And then our team, who's here tonight, went out and met with many of the business owners around. The large one is just a sample of that. And then the yellow stars on this map show where we've gotten letters of support. I think they've done a great job showing, hey, this is a needed, wanted, consistent plan. So let me pause there to see if there's any questions. I would just lastly say that we're here with staff support. We're here with neighborhoods and business support, and we'd urge your support for this also moving forward. Now, did I miss anything or something specific? Mr. Chairman, let me address that for you.

I do have the one question. If there were any damages on the existing sidewalk, would you guys be willing to repair those to save the city some money, since we're allowing you to save money by not having to rip it all out?

You know, so my client's not here, but the answer to that, I know he would say yes, because they want it to look good, et cetera.

Right. Anyone else have any questions at this time? This is the time to do it, because once we let him go and then we open it to the public, if we bring him back up, we have to reopen it to the public.

I would appreciate if there's a specific concern raised. I'm not aware of any opposition, but if there is, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to answer it.

I do have another question, like the parking. I've noticed, you know, what's the rhyme and reason that you guys went with on the covered parking?

Let me see. Can you restate? Just give me a bit more.

Why are some of the parking covered and some not? And it's kind of I didn't see a pattern or anything.

So let's go back to the site plan, should we? So let me can ask a question of Nick and Sydney. And just as a reminder, does the city require a certain percentage of required parking?

We require one covered parking space per unit.

That's that was my memory. Thank you for confirming it. So you're going to see there. The darker gray are the covered parking. And I'm looking at it thinking, yeah, it seems like they're pretty evenly distributed. But if some needed to move, I'm sure that would work with the staff.

No, I'm just curious why you chose where you put them and why not do more.

From my semi-educated view on this, and I invite, again, the planning staff, I think they get placed on, one, you want them to be close where you're going to live. Number two, they have to be balanced against fire access to those buildings, and so you have to provide some breaks. And then, of course, again, just try to evenly distribute them through the site. But meeting that requirement of one-to-one. I don't know if I answered your question completely, Chairman, but to me, when I looked at that, I thought, well, that looks pretty good.

Some of those southern exposed ones would be nice to have some.

You're talking down here like where we'll say the pickleball courts are, circle three, is that?

Yeah, more or less on the other side there, like where number five is there, your turf. Because ours are going to get sun. Where the pickleball courts and all that, you know the sun's going to come, and it'd be nice to have them cars in some shade.

Yeah, there's no doubt. I mean, when you have a one-to-one ratio, you have each unit assigned to one space. So, I mean, one covered space, I should be more clear.

We can always do more, though. Yes, you can.

It is a true statement.

I do feel there's a lot of green space and stuff in here. You have good amenities. I do appreciate that. I even noticed the EV parking, which I think is the most EV parking I've seen with charge stations out of a project we've had come up.

The owners are large EV supporters, and so I know they go above and

So again, I do see a lot of great things in here, but we can always do better. I always ask for better.

Anyone else, any questions?

Ari, do you have any questions you'd like at this time?

No, I believe everything was answered.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.

So at this time, I'm going to open it to the public. I'm going to invite you up. Please state your name, address if possible. You have five minutes to speak. It's now open to the public.

Donna Carr, Apache Junction resident. What I don't understand is, Why is it a traffic problem for one developer, but not a traffic problem for another developer in the same area? I mean, since Fry's has gone in, we have had traffic problems in that area. And as far as Idaho Road goes, Idaho Road is the main road that you get off the freeway to go to Canyon Lake, to Tia Flats, the rodeo, the state park, the ghost town, the museum. And there's not much land left to be developed on your way in that direction. Why not have it better used for something like restaurants, gift shops, catch the people coming and going. Not say, oh, check out those apartments, cool. You know, I mean, we need something better along Idaho Road and it's not apartments. Sorry. And plus the fact is, is we just got the cut on the Colorado River. So we're going to be struggling for water problems. And from my understanding, I'll have to check into this, but Arizona water has not confirmed 100 years worth of water use. So just want to check on that too. Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine Meek. I'm remembering the last construction project that was just turned down by the city council. Their big concerns were traffic on Idaho. And the three stories was a big push. I know we need more apartments. I know we need a lot more housing. We need more rooftops to get our businesses supported. But until we get Idaho under our control. It sounded like the City Council wasn't going to approve anything like this. I'm just not sure how that's going to fit in together. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Just wait till you get up there and please address.

One of the other things is my understanding is if a developer pays the water bill, it does count towards 100 years worth of water use. But if the leasee pays the water bill, it does not count towards 100 years worth of water use. So I don't know how that's going there either.

Thank you. So again, anyone else like to speak? Going once. Going twice. I now close the public sections. Would we like to discuss anything?

We have to do finding of facts on this, don't we, Joel?

Do we have to do the finding of facts on this? Yes.

So before we do the finding of facts, would you like to discuss anything? Any thoughts? You know, it's a needed project. It is very supportive of our general plan of getting rooftops so that we can develop the downtown commercial area. So from that perspective, I think it's a very good project. My reservation is around our standards, again, getting push it into the administrative section instead of just meeting the standards that we have. That's all I have to say about that.

I would like to comment. Compared to the last one we had, I really think they put a lot more open space in around the buildings. There's green spaces. There's a real playground. There's a dog park. There's a pool, spa, bathrooms out there, barbecue areas, it looks like. And I think that they could probably meet those additional parking spaces, but they're going to have to take some of these amenities away. And my feel on this one, I think, is I think it would better serve the people living here to have those additional amenities in comparison to, what are we talking about, 40-some parking spots? So that's why I'm I think they'll lean to give them some leniency on the parking. Because I think they did the extra effort here. I really do. And I think overall living conditions mean a lot compared to parking.

Is this gated access?

It is gated. There's a gate here, a gate over here.

And does it have pedestrian gates by the main gates?

I didn't look that close, but I'm sure there are. I can't ask them back up.

If you look at number 20. What does water mean? If you look at 20, it says pedestrian gate. Okay, yes, it does.

Yeah, there's a pedestrian access.

There's one, two, there's at least two, three, four. There's four of them that I see.

I always have problems with high density housing. It's gated for safety reasons alone. I mean, if you have to evacuate this property, those gates don't work.

I'm sure the fire department has overviewed this and I trust them.

I trust the fire department, too, but I don't know if we ever get any input from the fire department.

Well, they have to approve everything off, so if they don't approve it, it's not coming in front of us. That's why I don't dig into that so much. I mean, you know, we could always set it up for the future. If you'd like the fire department to come in and address any of your concerns, you could always ask for it via Rudy for a future meeting.

I like that. I would like that, especially on some of the ones that we've proved in the past.

We'll address that later and we can always make that request. Ari, would you like to say anything before we go into finding the facts?

Oh, you guys, everybody that's listened to me knows how I feel and many other people feel. But I do want to say it is a beautiful project. Just based off the pictures, I love that there's a lot of outdoor activities, and it's not just a bunched-in concrete jungle of apartments. Is it right for our city? That's another question, but it is. I do want to commend the developers and the city staff on really putting out a beautiful project.

Thank you, Ari.

Thank you.

All right. Anyone else? All right. Dig into the finding of fact. All right.

Go ahead, Commissioner Gage. So findings of facts for conditional use permit. Number one, adequacy of roadways, off-street parking, public facilities, and services to accommodate the proposed use.

I believe it meets everything, and we don't have to really think about any off-site parking.

Number two, negative impacts arising from the emissions. Odor dust gas noise lighting vibrations smoke heat or glare don't foresee any Three contribution to the deterioration of the neighborhood with a negative impact on neighborhood property values improve Number four, compatibility with surrounding uses and structures.

Yes, there's one right next door going on. There's even more to the north.

Conformance with the general plan and city policies. This is what the city plan wants. It's in the downtown corridor. Number six, screening and buffering of uses. I think it does well with its buffering and landscape plan. Number seven, unique nature of the property, use and or development's physical characteristics.

I don't think there's too much uniqueness, but I think it conforms well with the general

So again, would anybody like to say anything at this time before we motion? All right.

I move the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Apache Junction City Council approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed 210 unit, three-story, multifamily residential rental community on approximately nine acres, zone city center B-3 at the northeast corner of Idaho Road and Junction. Do I have a second?

Second.

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

Commissioner Callan? No. Commissioner Kelly?

Yes.

Chairman Hanchi? Yes. Commissioner Gage? Yes. Commissioner Starr? No. Commissioner Mikeland? No. So it's a tie vote, Mr. Chairman. Basically, you're... Case goes on to counsel with no recommendation. All right.

There's no old business this evening?

No, sir.

No new business this evening? Not this evening. Commissioners, do you have anything to report? Would I like to create? Congratulate Sandy over here on her election to City Council.

Thank you.

Remember us when we go up again. I will, I will. You really don't have to. I will. Rudy, do you have anything to report tonight?

No, Mr. Chairman, just trying to fill some positions. We've got a building inspector, a permatech, senior code compliance officer, and a cable compliance manager to refill. Got some candidates that we've interviewed and hope to be back up to speed here in about the next 30, 60 days.

Outstanding. You guys have been holding it together over there pretty well.

Holding it together so far. Nick's doing a great job.

All right. Motion for the next meeting date. I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hold a regularly scheduled meeting on September 8, 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 make this meeting be cancelled notification of cancellation properly posted in the Commission notified by staff We have a second second Rudy. I have a motion in a second. Can I get a roll call?

Commissioner Mike Lund yes Commissioner Callan Yeah Commissioner Kelly yes Chairman Hanchi yes Commissioner Gage.

Yes.

Commissioner Starr. Yes. So moved, Mr. Chairman.

I now adjourn the meeting at 7.52 p.m.