Resident Paula Mahoney urges strict site-plan conditions as Apache Junction planners continue two rezoning cases

The Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission on April 28 approved continuances for two rezoning cases and heard a public comment urging strict, enforceable conditions for a nearby multiunit development.

Vice Chair Barker moved that the commission continue case P-26-6-PZ to May 12, 2026; the motion carried on a 6-0 roll-call vote. Later the commission voted 6-0 to continue case P-26-4-PZ to May 26, 2026.

Resident Paula Mahoney, who identified her address as 350 North Renick Drive, read a prepared statement from her husband, Mr. Leftwich, about the second case. Mahoney said the couple "accept the development of this property," but asked that the final site design be kept compatible with their single-story neighborhood. She identified an "updated 146 unit plan" and warned that poor site planning can create permanent disruptions, citing a nearby car-wash exit as an example that generates continuous noise for adjacent homes.

Mahoney asked the commission to condition any approval on four points. First, she urged the commission to "lock in" the primary access point exactly where it appears on the site plan, at the southern portion of Renick Drive, to prevent neighborhood streets from becoming cut-through routes. Second, she asked for infrastructure improvements, including appropriate sidewalks, to manage increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Third, she requested a 6-foot solid block wall and a mature, dense landscape buffer along the western boundary to screen two-story apartments from single-story homes and to reduce solar heat gain on western-facing walls. Fourth, she said the PD approval should be a binding agreement that prevents future design changes that would alter the entrance location or reduce neighborhood buffers.

"If the developer is granted the flexibility of an RM-2/PD zoning, the city must demand strict adherence to this layout in return," Mahoney read into the record.

Commissioners did not debate or vote on conditions during the April 28 meeting; both cases were continued to the dates requested by the applicants. The record shows no staff presentation or applicant comment at this session for either case.

Other business: the commission approved the meeting agenda and the March 24, 2026 minutes earlier in the session; set a regular meeting for May 12, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers (300 East Superstition Boulevard); and heard a short director's report announcing a building expo Saturday from 8 a.m. to noon at City Center behind the Rusty Buckle.

Votes at a glance: Vice Chair Barker moved both continuance motions. Roll-call results as recorded in the meeting were unanimous each time: Commissioner Kelly — yes; Chairman — yes; Vice Chair Barker — yes; Commissioner Gage — yes; Commissioner Starr — yes; Commissioner Mykland — yes. The motions to continue were recorded as approved and the cases rescheduled to May 12 (P-26-6-PZ) and May 26 (P-26-4-PZ).

Next steps: Both cases will return to a future Planning and Zoning Commission agenda on the dates indicated; the commission did not set or adopt any binding conditions at this meeting.