Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

for the city of Apache Junction. Today's date is August 26, 2025 and the time is 7 p.m. Will you please join me and stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all. Rudy, can I please get a roll call? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Henchie here. Vice Chair Barker here. Commissioner Gage here. Commissioner Star here. Commissioner Mikeland

here. Commissioner Kalen here. Six president. We have a quorum. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rudy. Uh, do we have a motion to approve the agenda and the minutes? Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission accept the agenda as presented and approve the minutes from July 22nd, 2025's regular meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Rudy, I have a motion to second. Can I please get a roll call? Commissioner Kalen, yes. Chairman Hans, yes. Vice Chair Barker, yes. Commissioner Gage, yes. Commissioner Star, yes. Commissioner Mikeland.

Yes. So move, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rudy. Tonight, there is one public hearing this evening. Consideration of case P-25-114-PZ, a request to reszone 282 North Palvery Drive. Um, a minor general planned amendment for medium density to high density residential. Nick, take it away, please.

Thank you, Chair Hansi. I'm Nick Lewitch, senior planner for the city of Apache Junction. I'm happy to be able to present to you tonight and I'll be presenting the case information for P2414PZ. I will note we're having technical difficulties after the power outage with the storm yesterday. So, we couldn't uh put all the presentation on the TVs within the council chambers, but if anyone in the public would like a copy of the presentation that you'll be able to see on your computer screens, we do have paper copies on the table in the back. And uh I believe this meeting will be recorded will be posted on our our usual channels. So should be good for public record. So P2414PZ is a request for a reasonzoning by a plan development of approximately 62 acres from RS10M which is medium density single family detached residential to RM1PD which is highdensity multiple family residential by plan development which involves a minor general plan amendment from medium density residential to highdensity residential as I'll show in just a moment. So I will note that this property right located right here near the northwest corner of Gregory Street Palvery Drive 282 North Palvery Drive it is a legal non-conforming property as which to explain it is a property that has been in operation in in this current format uh since before our current zoning laws and regulations came into effect. So, as noted in the staff report, the original home on the property is unit A, which was a home built in 198 or sorry, 1934 and uh in 1950 they built the two duplexes. So, since about 1950, which predates the city, predates any of our zoning laws. The property has been in effect as a multifamily residential property, but that predated the zoning. It predated the development of the

neighborhood around it. And so it's always been a little bit of an oddity. With its current legal non-conforming status, there are restrictions on what they can do regarding replacement of buildings, regarding any kind of new development. Anything that's a change in growth affects the status of the property or legal non-conforming status because of this zoning mismatch. It prevents them from from building anything new on it. And so in this case, the property owner would like to replace building A, that 1934 single family residential home in the rear. They'd like to replace that with a forplex, which would add a net three more units to the property. The zoning context of this area is predominantly the same zone as we see on this property, this R RS10M medium density single family residential zone. So, it is a it is a little bit of an odd situation that we're seeing here with this resoning request. We do see though there are some odd zoning configurations within the neighborhood around pit because even though there are also zoned RS10M, we see RV parks and there are some forplexes on some of the other properties further to the south. And uh this kind of zoning mismatch is kind of portrayed as well on this uh general plan land use map. As we see the the brown is other we see a little bit of a patchwork with the brown being other highdensity residential properties all among this yellow medium density residential that we see here. So the request of this would would turn this property specifically into the highdensity residential uh so that they may be able to have this resoning that they may be able to correct the non-confor the historic legal nonconformities and that they would be able to build an extra building on the property. So shown here is a site plan uh of what they propose. While they are not proposing to change the construction

of the existing duplexes, they are proposing sitewide development, which would include the paving of the right now it's just kind of a dirt lot in the rear around the buildings. And they are proposing the paving of the lot, kind of a formalization of their parking spaces, um landscaping amenities like some site tables and things like that. and uh the required construction engineering like retention basins and so forth. And again, as noted, they would be replacing the western building with this depicted forplex. So, the applicant has completed all their required public notification requirements. There's a sign posted on the property. We've had the mailing notification and the newspaper posting. They held a neighborhood meeting back in February of this year, which was a while ago. But part of that is because when they held that neighborhood meeting, they had one of their neighbors attend and they had one of their tenants attend. And the neighbor who attended immediately to their west noted that he had some just he had some concerns regarding privacy and he requested that they incorporate an 8ft wall into their design and uh which they have. As they they revised their plans, resubmitted it. It took them a little bit to figure out what exactly they wanted to do because in that meeting there was also noted density concerns, parking concerns. And so as part of that, originally they proposed more units. In our coordination with the applicant, they reduced the unit. So now it's it's just a forplex in the back net three. And that keeps it within the RM1 uh density boundaries, which is the lowest of the multifamily residential zoning densities. Um, so hearing the concerns that their tenant had expressed, that their neighbor had expressed, they they worked on it for a few months, workshopped it.

Uh, they reapplied with some modified designs, some modified architecture. uh they proposed this 8-ft wall along the north, south, and west of the property lines and they reduced the unit count in order to make sure that they hit all the required on-site parking requirements. So that way there wouldn't be parking spillover onto the street or anything like that. So since all this has been posted and the public notification requirements have been sent out, staff have received one phone call with questions regarding the the on-site development. someone who wanted to know what was happening. Uh they had questions about parking, wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be this spill over onto on-site on or sorry onto the street parking and upon hearing that they met the city requirements, they said they didn't have any objections at that time. So that's what we have received when it comes to public input. So with all this considered, staff's major questions for this with the unique nature of the property was consideration on if it was ultimately an improvement of the property and if it was considered like a characteristic detriment to the neighborhood. And given that the historic context of this being in sight and in place since at least 1950 and understanding that what they are proposing is ultimately trying to improve the site and trying to fix up what has been there for such a long time, staff does recommend the approval of P24 114PZ subject to the conditions of approval note in the staff report. Some of which would involve making sure that the upkeep of the existing buildings is maintained, making sure that these other items that have been noted like the wall are kept in place to address these neighborhood concerns. Thank you. And the applicant is here tonight to answer questions as well.

Are they going to present anything? They don't have a presentation prepared, but they are here to answer questions as noted. Would you put the um site plan back up again. This one or is it the other the floor plan documents? Um on building two? Yes. Where's the parking for that? Are these three in front where the parking is for those two apartments? There is parking in front, but there is also these rectangular boxes are existing carports as well.

Okay. And then these two the apartment parking is in front of it to the east of it. And what about building one then? Where is the parking for that? Building one also has carports like the very north rectangle and the very south rectangle of building one. Is there additional parking? Because right now there's cars that are parked out in front of it. They're not in the car ports. And they one of the development requirements is to kind of fix this up with driveways so that they would be able to properly park. Okay. That that was one of my concerns as I drove.

It is one of our zoning requirements that all parking is accommodated all required parking is accommodated for on site. Right. Hence my question. Yes. I could be sure I was reading this correctly. Thank you. Nick, I have a question. During your presentation, you said they're not going to do anything to the existing buildings. Does that mean that like freshen up the outside as of now or is It is one of our zoning requirements that they do freshen up the outside. I meant like structural work uh like changing the actual footprint of those buildings.

Are they going to do any elevation enhancements or anything? I believe the applicant may be better suited to address that question for their long-term plans, but it is one of the uh zoning conditions of approval that they do uplift the facade with at least like a new coat of paint. So, well, I'm just wondering is it going to match? Is everything going to match again? And that is part of their requirement as well that what they do matches the new development. So, but I believe that they may they may be able to go into more of the details about how they plan to upkeep the whole property. They are a newer owner to the property, so I believe they have plans. Okay.

Regarding the um west wall and a setback, is it possible to keep it at 20 and still have enough coordinated parking for that particular area? That is something that we had looked at and uh when it came to the required backups and the positioning of everything because as as is noted within the staff report and for the sake of the public, one of the requests within the plan development is the reduction of the rear setback on the west side from 20 feet to 10 feet. Okay.

Um which is what is which is what commissioner Mlin is noting right here. uh as part of the site design process. It was something that was that was looked at if that would be required for flexibility. The applicant has noted that they needed that in order to make things fit in order to there's it would impact the parking as we see on the north side as well. Uh but I can leave that to the applicant as well if they can speak to that further. My concern is on many projects that are brought forth, we're constantly moving the setbacks and as planning and zoning, I you wonder why we have codes if we're constantly moving the setbacks. So that's why I wanted to know.

Thank you. What are the existing utilities on the property or they plan to have property as old as the property is? Is it got septic still and what have you? I believe they are on sewer and uh the Apache junction I they would be within the Arizona Water Company's jurisdiction but I believe that they have the required facilities chair commissioners uh I I just got informed from the control room that they can't hear you and if we could use the mics and so so it's properly recorded. Thank you.

Thanks Commissioner Star. when they do come in with construction documents as well, they will be required by building code in order to meet the required flows. Um, but in terms of the availability of utilities, there are accessible lines for sewer and water there. They're going to connect them out obviously. Yes. Where is the entrance to the property off the off palvery? They are using the existing entrance on Palvery. It is this souththeast corner of the property. This right here is a driveway. They'll be required to improve that. Right now, it's just kind of dirt or like you have the uh

you have the the sidewalk and then you have the driveway on the sidewalk, but then it just cuts into dirt for the rest of the property. And so, one of the things they would be doing is actually improving that, making it a real driveway, paving the site. Uh we're required to meet, you know, city dust control, everything like that. and this kind of upkeep for an actual multif family development, they would have to meet all our current codes and standards.

Commissioner Gage. Yeah, just my my one comment about setbacks. I mean, it's not pertaining to this project, but you know, they are our standards and we change them quite a bit. They're becoming more of a suggestion than a standard. So just something for you guys. You know, any developer that comes in can pretty much change a setbacks new one. That's what it appears to me. They get changed a lot. Agreed.

Commissioner Gage, uh any developer can ask for the deviation. They have to provide staff uh the rationale and then ultimately it is up to the commission to consider that setback request or that deviation from code. And that's why it's covered under a planned development and then it would be city council's decision to approve the request at that time as well. No, I I appreciate it. My my background is in engineering and when you have a standard, you just that's your standard. Makes it a lot easier.

Yeah. Yeah. No, we to we totally understand as a as a staff. Uh and we have these conversations with applicants and developers all the time, but every site is unique and uh and each and so that the circumstances change because site design and and of course their desire for the development of the site. Yeah, I appreciate that, Sydney. Just absolutely, you know. Yeah, tossing in my background. Yeah. No, we take the standards very seriously. Um, but we always look for a win-win uh scenario for the residents. It's really a a win-winwin. It's a it's a win for staff, the residents, and the applicant. And so that is kind of the filter for our decision matrix.

Gotcha. Just making sure you know we're watching. That's all. Thank you. From what I can tell, none of these other buildings really hit the current setbacks, right? because of the age and everything and that that was the other thing noted. The side setback is being modified not because any new development needs it but because the existing buildings do not meet the side setback and as they are right now that makes them legal non-conforming which right

uh restricts repair if there's even in the case of like a fire for instance uh by law with legal non-conforming structures unless if something is done to make them conforming which is part of this this plan development request uh you wouldn't be able to repair more than 50% of its volume in the case of fire and that that impacts things like insurance. So we do see these requests in some places where people are trying to or trying to figure out how to effectively use existing buildings that may have been built uh in order to have this legal non-conforming status. They have to prove that they predated the rule itself. Right.

So Mr. Chairman, just a quick point of order. Uh Commissioner Ken, are you still there? So there's one I think we lost I think we lost Ari. The music playing a guitar. Yeah, maybe he's or he's jamming. One of the two. Yeah.

So, after this change is made, this this property still will be legal non-conforming because of the existing 1950s building. Is that correct? the proposed deviations within the planned development will make it legal conforming. Like uh because the the rules of a planned development supersede this those the typical zoning standards and so they allow the zoning of a property to have like a specified deviation. And then like to to elaborate like it would be legal for someone to rebuild the building where it is with a planned development saying the zoning setback is now the side zoning is 5T because under its current context if it were to burn down in a fire a new building would have to be built to meet all of the base zoning setbacks which in this case is 10 feet on the side. uh and so they would have to to move the entire footprint of the building and that's what m that's the difference between what makes something legal conforming legal non-conforming. So by adjusting the setbacks through a zoning deviation which is only available through the plan development process they can you know properly ensure the building they could rebuild there if if needed and those are some of the effects of what makes something legal conforming legal non-conforming and the impacts that it has. So that is a change then. So if we approve this existing buildings will be legal if

yes if they were to try to rebuild them tomorrow without this change they would it would not work because they don't meet the current setbacks. That is correct. Currently they are legal non-conforming and then they will be if this is approved legal conforming which erases the kind of stigma and the issues that come with the legal non-conforming status and that's the entire property. Yes.

For both the there is legal non-conforming issues with both the use which is the multif family aspect of it and the positioning of the structures themselves. Any other questions? Did Ari come back in? Commissioner Colin? Yeah, I'm back in. No questions here. No question. Okay. Would you like the applicant? I would. Hi.

Hello. My name is Justeller Tegan. I'm representing Hermolina Properties. You talk into the mic, please. My name is Juster Tegan. I'm representing Hermolina Properties for the resoning. And what questions do you guys have? Um, my one question with the existing buildings. Um, what are your plans? Like once this new building's built, how are you going to make them match and all that? What is the plan? Uh, we plan to refresh them with fresh paint and, you know, kind of match them up with the new buildings that will be built. I know they're a little like on the old side, but we're just going to, you know, refresh them and all that. Is the facades going to match or what's the plans on that? I'm gonna have to ask my group investors on that, so I can get back to you guys on that.

Okay. Commissioner Gage. Yeah. Good. Are the existing buildings connected to the sewer or are you on a septic system there? Do you know? Um, I'm not too sure. I can ask my group investors, but I know we can work around that pretty good. Well, yeah. So, so then you get into the whole the if the new building will have to be connected to the sewer, correct, Commissioner Gage? I I believe the site is already connected to sewer and so there's already appropriate infrastructure in place. So they would have to just exi just connect to the existing line. Yeah. The new the new building would have to be Yeah. Exist but then you get to the existing buildings.

That's right. And and so that's that's going to be thoroughly reviewed during the construction document review phase. And so when uh if they are approved then they will submit construction documents to the city and the sewer district would be part of that review. And then when it comes to the overall facade improvements they are going to match the building. So they're architecturally uh they are going to speak to one another. Okay. Uh and u and theoretically if the plan development uh resoning request is not approved then really the site stays as is and there is no improvement to the site. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. I get it. Yeah, I get it. I just

How far do you go? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Right. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. All right. Since this is a public hearing, I now open the public portion of hearing case P-25-114-pzy. [Music] Would anybody from the public like to please step up? Please state your name and address. You have three minutes.

Uh I'm Susie McCord. I'm with the Desert Chapel United Methodist Church. We're a direct neighbor. And my only question really is regarding this 8-ft wall. And I'm concerned whether or not it's going all the way around the property or is it only on the south and west side. We're not allowed to directly answer questions, but we'll put it out there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted. Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak? Going once. Going twice. I now close the public portion of the hearing. All right. Um, so to address on the 8 foot wall, from what I can see on the plans and everything, it's going all the way around with the exception of the east, right, which would be the street. Yeah. I mean, that's what it's showing on this site plan. We we have up Yes, that is my understanding. Okay.

And and what is depicted on the plans? Yes. Let me

any other discussion? Yeah, this is the site plan that was provided as part of the documents and within the staff report and it notes that the proposed 8 foot wall will be extended along the north side of the property. What? Why did you go eight feet instead of six feet? Really? The eight feet requires engineering. Yeah. Work. I believe. That was one of the concessions that the applicant had made to the neighbors, right? Uh because a sixoot wall is a standard wall

and our our zoning standards do not require 8t walls. Uh however, because of concerns that were expressed regarding privacy, they They proposed it themselves as part of that and and we agreed that that would be a good concession. It is of course an extra cost, but if that makes them a better neighbor, they noted that they were create a heat island in there, especially around the four apartments, an 8 foot wall and those apartments sitting almost on top of it. It's going to be very warm. They do have a lot of trees. Yeah. Well, eventually. Yeah, eventually.

And and one other question just out of curiosity, how much how many what's the distance between the building two and the wall? Is it five feet? I I have it at about six feet. So, I I've noted the the distance between building one and the wall is five feet. Uh according to their documents, building two is just a foot or so away or more away, but it is about it is also about five six feet.

You know, they could build a six foot wall and then have something that is um translucent, not transparent, but translucent two feet around it to make it a little more decorative and a little less Ed in there. 8 ft is just big wall. It really is. It's not going to look very good. You put a real fence up there. And it's it's not called out as a block wall right now, is it? It's Yeah, it says masonary wall. Yes, it is. Mason, there it is. Yeah, that's

black and white. a solid concrete wall. It is an improvement over what it is though. The wall, the whole thing. The whole thing. Definitely. No, I agree that in driving by there today, it definitely will improve that particular site as well as add improvement to the entire area. That's a very old area of the city. It is.

It has lots of of properties that have there forever. Um, yeah. So, any types of improvements that can be done there, a good thing, but it also grandfathers in the two existing buildings does, which is a good thing. The blessing, which will allow them to make real improvements on time, make some changes maybe as time goes by.

All right. Do you want to we want to do the finding effects then? All right. As required by the Apache Junction zoning ordinance, a plan development request may be approved by the city council after consideration has been given to three different criteria. The criteria of the applicant response are outlined in text below. I read the wrong one. Finding facts for the There's two actually. Finding a fact for the plan development zoning first. Yep. So whether a better design can be achieved by applying the strict provisions of underlining zoning districts. I don't think we can.

Uh whether strict adherence to the provisions of zoning ordinance is not required in order to ensure the health, safety, welfare of the inhabitants of the proposed development. I think it will improve everything overall. Yeah. You have one of those drugs down here. Well, yeah. So, you know, the two existing buildings were built in 1950. So, the building code has changed significantly. Whether they're safe or not, I'm going to sit here and say have to be now.

Then the new buildings do have bigger yards and everything than the old. So that does show an improvement.

Uh three, whether strict adherence to the ordinance is not required to ensure the property values of adjacent properties will not be reduced. I think it'll do the opposite and improve. Yep. Yep. I agree.

All right. Okay. Now we got to do the finding a fact for minor general plan amendment as required by the Apache Junction general plan. A minor general plan request may be approved by the city council after consideration has been given to the specific criteria. The criteria is outlined below. Number one, whether the amendment process a land use designation that the land use plan does not adequately provide optional sites to accommodate. I mean, it will allow not the way that this is built. Yeah.

Presented. Yes. There's optional sites all over town. However, we're looking at a piece of the specific one. Yes. I agree

whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the general plan, will not solely benefit a particular land owner or owners at a particular point in time, and is consistent with the overall intent of the 2010 general plan. Yes, they benefit, but so do the neighbors and everybody else around it. So, um, number three, whether the proposed amendment is justified by an error in the 2010 general plan as originally adopted. Not applicable. Nope.

Whether the process change is generally consistent with the goals, objectives, and other elements of the 2010 general plan. It does whether the proposed change is justified by a change in the community conditions or neighborhood characteristics since the adoption of the plan.

I don't either. Um but there the plan does call you know it's increased housing and everything. Yeah. as they pointed out, whether the amendment will adversely impact a portion of or the entire community by a significantly altering acceptable existing land use patterns, especially in established neighborhoods. No, this neighborhood's already a hodge podge. Um B, significantly reducing the housing to job balance in the planning area. No, it's not big enough at all. uh substantially decrease existing and future water supplies.

No. No. Again, we're not talking big enough for any of the No substantiality at all. Yeah. Replacing employment with residential uses. No, it's already residential. requiring additional and more expensive improvements to infrastructure systems and/or proximity to municipal facilities and/or services that are needed to support the prevailing land use uses and which therefore may impact the level of service for the existing and proposed developments in the area. Art sewer can handle it, right, Jess? Yep.

All right. increasing traffic without mitigation measures on existing roadways roadways beyond the planned level of service and that negatively impact the existing and planned land uses. No, I don't think an extra eight cars a couple of affecting the existing character i.e. visual, physical and functional of the immediate area. I think the fence is going to impact it, but I think overall it will improve. You won't see it. The whole It'll be behind an 8 foot fence. You won't see it. Well, it's open from the street.

It's getting painted. The fence. If it's camouflaged, we'll never see it. Increasing the exposure of res of residents to aviation, general noise, safety, and/or flight operations. No, it does not apply. Material diminishing the environmental quality of the air, water, land, or cultural use. No. Nope. It'll actually improve because all that dust is going away. Oh, yeah. They're going to pave that area. That'll be good. significantly altering recreational amenities such as open space, parks, and trails. No alter thing,

but it doesn't have your dog park. No, it doesn't. But that's okay. There's no room there besides my dogs would be too hot behind that wall. Okay, so we are good with that. Would anybody care to make a motion?

Where is it? It's here somewhere. I move that the pl and zoning commission recommend to the Apache Junction City Council the approval of case P-24-114-PZ a reszoning request by Melinda Pondo of Molinda Properties LLC to reszone 282 North Palivvery Drive parcel 101-02-0050 approximately 62 net acres from medium density single family detached residential to high density multiple family residential by plan development and approve the a minor general plan amendment from medium density residential to high density residential subject to the five conditions that are in the staff report as of this date.

Anyone want a second? Second. Rudy, I have a motion and a second. Can I please get a roll call? Commissioner Mikeland, yes. Commissioner Star, yes. Commissioner Gage, yes. Vice Chair Barker, yes. Chairman Hansen, yes. Commissioner Kalen, yes. Six in favor. Uh so move, Mr. Chairman. This case will go to the city council with your recommendation of approval. On what date, Nick?

It will be Tuesday, October 7th for the city council public hearing. Thank you, Rudy. Mr. Chairman, uh there's no old business, no new business. Commission, do we have any news or information to report? All right. Uh Rudy, do you have anything to report for us? Uh just uh we're recruiting a couple of new staff members in development services. Uh we've had a few folks leave us in the last couple months. So we are recruiting a new planning intern, a new code compliance officer, and a new building inspector. Wow. So we're going to get our staffing back up and get ready for the busy season. Good.

Yes. That's it. down south keeping you guys busy, too. Oh, yeah. A little slower than last year, but still very steady. Very steady. Sounds great. All right. Do we have a motion to select the next meeting date, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Barker.

I move that Planning and Zoning Commission hold a regular meeting on September 9th, 2025 at 700 PM 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 cancelled. Notification of cancellation properly posted and the commission notified by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Rudy, I have a motion and a second. Can we please get a roll call? Commissioner Star, yes. Commissioner Gage, yes. Vice Chair Barker, yes. Chairman Hanshee, yes. Commissioner Kalen,

yes. Commissioner Mikeland, yes. So move, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rudy. I now adjourn the meeting at 7:39