P-26-4-PZ Planning & Zoning Staff Report (5-23-26)
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
226938 characters
1
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
City of Apache Junction
Development Services Department
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT
DATE:
June 23, 2026
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
THROUGH:
Rudy Esquivias, Development Services
Director
Sidney Urias, Development Services Deputy
Director
FROM:
Nicholas Leftwich, Principal Planner
CASE NUMBER:
P-26-4-PZ “Banyan Apartments”
OWNER:
Prestige Partners, LLC, C/O: Zach Pebler
3100 W. Ray Road #100
Chandler, AZ 85226
APPLICANT:
Banyan Residential, LLC
Represented by Nick Woods and Noel
Griemsmann of Snell & Wilmer LLP
REQUEST:
Proposed planned development rezoning of
approximately 6.7 net acres currently
zoned High Density Multiple-Family
Residential (“RM-2”) to High Density
Multiple-Family Residential by Planned
Development (“RM-2/PD”) with a new planned
development overlay to authorize an
amendment to the development plans
approved in Ordinance No. 1526 for the
development of a 146 unit, two and three-
story apartment complex.
LOCATION:
The subject site is located near the
southeast corner of N. Rennick Drive & W.
Virginia Street. (APN 101-13-108D)
2
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING DESIGNATION:
High Density Multiple-Family Residential
(“RM-2”)
SURROUNDING USES:
North: RM-2 (“High Density Multiple-Family
Residential”) & RS-20M (Medium Density
Single-Family Detached Residential)
residential properties;
South: B-2 “Old West Commercial” Arnold’s
Auto Center commercial property;
East: RVP (“Recreational Vehicle Park”)
Lost Dutchman RV Resort & MHP
(“Manufactured Home Park”) Apache Junction
Mobile Home Park;
West: RS-20M Single-Family Residences.
PROPOSALS
P-26-4-PZ is a proposal by Banyan Residential, LLC to rezone
approximately 6.7 net acres, currently zoned High Density
Multiple-Family Residential (“RM-2”), with a new planned
development (“PD”) to amend to the development plans approved in
Rezoning Case P-22-29-PZ through Ordinance No. 1526 with
modified site plans and architecture in order to facilitate the
development of a 146 unit, two and three-story apartment
complex. While the High Density Multiple-Family Residential “RM-
2” base zoning district would remain the same, the zoning
designation would become High Density Multiple-Family
Residential by Planned Development (“RM-2/PD”).
The applicant requests a planned development to allow a parking
requirement reduction from 317 parking spaces (the minimum
parking requirement for 146 units of the proposed distribution)
to 290 parking spaces, a reduction of 27 spaces, or an 8.5%
deviation.
BACKGROUND
Pinal County Assessor Parcel Number 101-13-108D is a vacant,
undeveloped parcel, approximately 6.7 net acres (6.9 gross
acres) that is located at the southeast corner of N. Rennick
Drive & W. Virginia Street. The property was previously rezoned
in September 2022 to High Density Multiple-Family Residential
“RM-2” from General Rural Low Density Single-Family Detached
3
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Residential “RS-GR” through Rezoning Case P-22-29-PZ and the
Ordinance No. 1526. This rezoning occurred as part of a
development proposal for a two-story, 124-unit multi-family
residential apartment complex, at a density of approximately 18
dwelling units an acre.
The Rezoning Case P-22-29-PZ was approved with conditions that
required the development of the property to be in accordance
with the plans included with the case and presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, with many of
the specifics of the site plan having been adjusted to respond
to neighborhood concerns expressed in the neighborhood and
public hearings.
Following the approval of the rezoning, the previous
applicant-developer cancelled their purchase of this property,
leaving it in a status with approved rezoning plans, but no
builder. However, Rezoning Ordinance No. 1526 included a
requirement (condition of approval #10) that the property would
begin the building permit process within two (2) years of the
approval of the rezoning effective date, and so, in order to
maintain the zoning entitlement of the property, the existing
property owner initiated the building permit process in 2023.
The project had been progressing through the building permit
planning and review process, while also being marketed to new
buyers, until eventually halting the planning efforts when a new
developer with a different idea for plans looked to acquire the
property.
At this time, Banyan Residential, LLC seeks to develop the
property with modifications to the site plans and architecture
of the project and has applied for Rezoning Case P-26-4-PZ to
receive City Council approval of the amended plan set and for
approval of their request for the noted parking reduction.
The applicant notes that this project will be subject to the
Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which
allows developers to offer affordable housing to residents
earning up to 60% of the area’s median income (AMI). Rental
rates are set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
4
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
June 21, 2026 Update:
Following the scheduling of Case P-26-4-PZ for the April 28,
2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing, the applicant
requested continuances of the public hearing in order to address
the concerns expressed in the April 28, 2026 staff report.
On June 11, the applicant submitted revised and updated site
plans, landscape plans, and building architecture plans that
have reduced the parking space deficit from an approximately 20%
deviation to an 8.5% deviation from the zoning ordinance’s
minimum parking requirement. The applicant has also provided a
revised traffic statement and parking study to support their
request.
These revised plans have rearranged some elements of the site to
provide more space for parking, most significantly by shrinking
the footprint of the smaller, east buildings (Building Types B
and C in the architecture plans), but retaining the overall unit
count by making these building types three-story buildings.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST
The applicant requests the use of a planned development (PD)
overlay to modify the minimum parking requirement from 317
parking spaces to 290 parking spaces, a reduction of 27 spaces,
or a 8.5% deviation. The minimum parking requirement has
increased by three (3) spaces since the prior staff report to
account for the change in the ratio of one-bedroom units to two-
or-more-bedroom units.
The Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance § 1-7-3 Parking Standards:
require the following:
• Each one-bedroom apartment shall provide 1.5 parking spaces
per dwelling unit. 38 of the 146 units are one-bedroom
units, resulting in a resident parking requirement of 57
parking spaces for these units.
• Each two or more-bedroom apartment shall provide two (2)
parking spaces per dwelling unit. The remaining 108 units
are of this classification, resulting in a resident parking
requirement of 216 parking spaces for these units.
• There is also an additional requirement for .3 parking
spaces per unit for guest parking, calculated from the
total 146 units, resulting in 44 guest parking spaces.
The total parking requirement is a minimum of 317 parking
spaces.
5
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
The applicant provides their rationale for this deviation in
their project narrative (Exhibit #1), in the included Planned
Development Findings of Fact, and with their Parking Study
(Exhibit #8). The revisions provided in the June 11, 2026
submittal have shrunk the deficit from approximately 20% to
8.5%, however planning staff still hold the previously noted
concerns that a shortage of parking spaces does not appear
appropriate at this site.
PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS
Relationship to General Plan:
The subject site is designated by the city’s General Plan as
part of the “Downtown Redevelopment Area”, and is categorized
for “Downtown Mixed Use,” which supports residential densities
between 10 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per
acre.
The proposed density of 21.8 units per net acre complies with
this General Plan designation and does not require a General
Plan Amendment.
6
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
Zoning/Site Context:
The subject site is located between several different zoning
districts and is uniquely situated as a large undeveloped parcel
bordering both commercial and residential properties. To the
south of the property is the B-2 “Old West Commercial” zone that
acts as a commercial corridor along Apache Trail. To the east of
the subject site is a Manufactured Home Park with a density of
10.9 units per acre and an RV Park with a density of 17.9 units
per acre. To the west of the subject site is an RS-20M
residential neighborhood with a density of 2.18 units per acre.
To the north of the subject site are both RS-20M residential
properties, and RM-2 multi-family residential properties, which
currently have the maximum allowable density of 22 units per
acre, but which are currently developed with four-plex
residences.
7
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
The proposed rezoning is not changing the underlying base zone,
but the new proposed development plan increases the density from
approximately 18.5 units per net acre to 21.7 units per net
acre, still within the maximum density of 22 dwelling units per
net acre that the High-Density Multiple Family Residential
“RM-2” zoning district allows.
June 21, 2026 Update:
The June 11, 2026 submittal does not change the density or unit
count, but it does increase the maximum height of the buildings
in east half of the property to 40’ 3.635”, with the addition of
a third story. While the maximum height of the RM-2 Zoning
District is 40’, the zoning ordinance permits an exemption of up
to 4’ above the maximum permitted building height for mechanical
screens/parapets in §1-6-2 Height Exceptions.
While this height change is complaint with the zoning ordinance
regulations, staff have noted concerns regarding the heights of
3-story buildings in the area and find their character
incongruent with the adjacent RV and MH parks to the east and
single-family residential lots to the west.
Infrastructure & Site Improvements:
The applicant will be required to connect to all necessary
services, including electricity through SRP, water through the
Arizona Water Company, and sewer connections.
The currently existing twenty-five foot (25’) utility easement
located on the north side of APN 101-13-108D shall be dedicated
as part of W. Virginia Street, as previously required in
Ordinance No. 1526 (Condition #7) and both the adjacent
half-street sections along W. Virginia Street and N. Rennick
Drive will be improved according to the Public Works Street
Standards, namely with curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
All other necessary and required on-site and off-site
improvements, including retention basins, dust-proof surfacing,
walls, and landscape buffers will be built at the time of
development.
Public Input:
The applicant sent out neighborhood meeting notification letters
to the property owners within a three-hundred (300’) radius, per
the standard requirements of a rezoning, notifying neighbors of
the proposed development and providing them contact information
to learn more about the project. The advertised neighborhood
8
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
meeting was held at the Apache Junction Multi-Generational
Center, 1035 N. Idaho Road, on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at
6:00 PM. Six members of the public attended and asked questions
regarding the site planning and concern with current issues of
trespassing on the vacant property.
Staff have received two e-mails from one of the neighbors to the
property noting concerns with the site configuration, and
additionally a letter from the Apache Junction Area Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors declining to support the project,
which have all been attached as part of the Public Participation
Report (Ex.6).
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
As noted previously, the planned development deviation requested
is for the approval of a parking reduction that we measure to be
27 spaces, being the shortfall of the 317 minimum parking spaces
required (per the calculations provided above) and the 290
resident parking spaces provided on their site plan. As required
by the Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance, a Planned Development
request may be approved by the City Council after consideration
has been given to three different criteria. The criteria are
outlined in the text below:
1. That a better design cannot be achieved by applying the
strict provisions of the underlying zoning district.
Applicant Response:
Yes, strict provisions would require Banyan to dedicate 23,000
square feet. of Site area to parking field, asphalt and
necessary providing increased retention, which would go largely
unused and create unnecessary heat island and stormwater runoff
impacts. By allowing a zoning deviation/ parking reduction, the
project can implement a more intentional site design and support
the City in achieving its inclusionary housing and environmental
stewardship goals.
2. 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.
Applicant Response:
The requested parking reduction will not negatively affect the
health, safety, or welfare of the residents. In fact, the zoning
deviation will allow Banyan to develop the Site in a way that
9
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
better meets the needs of its tenants, by providing more open
space and reducing heat impacts from large parking lots.
3. That strict adherence to the ordinance is not required to
ensure that property values of adjacent properties will not
be reduced.
Applicant Response:
The proposed parking reduction will not negatively affect the
valuation of the adjacent properties. In fact, the influx of
families will likely increase the commercial demand in the area,
thus increasing overall property values by increased economic
activity from residents.
Additionally, Banyan’s Proposed Site Plan is designed to provide
a minimum of one covered parking space per unit as a
corresponding offset to the requested parking reduction. In
summary, the reduction in parking will “right-size” the parking
areas to meet real world requirements of workforce families
(lower car ownership per household), allowing for the Project to
be economically viable (reducing construction and maintenance
costs) and will not negatively impact surrounding properties.
PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION
In review of the project proposal, the site context and the
proposed parking deviation, Staff is not supportive of the
proposed Rezoning by Planned Development Case P-26-4-PZ
respectfully recommends to the Commission a recommendation to
deny the zoning amendment and request for a zoning deviation to
the City Council. While the applicant has reduced the deficit of
the parking spaces to address our previously noted concerns, we
find the concerns are not wholly resolved and the increase in
building height undergone in order to shrink the building
footprints to provide the increase in spaces raises its own
concerns with neighborhood sensitivity and impact on the
neighboring area.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend the
approval of the case, Commissioners may recommend changes or
conditions of approval to the plans which they feel will improve
the development plan.
RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the
Apache Junction City Council the denial of the proposed Rezoning
10
Case P-26-4-PZ
June 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
by Planned Development Case P-26-4-PZ, a request by Banyan
Residential, LLC represented by Nick Woods and Noel Griemsmann
of Snell & Wilmer LLP to rezone Parcel 101-13-108D, currently
zoned High Density Multiple-Family Residential (“RM-2”), to High
Density Multiple-Family Residential by Planned Development (“RM-
2/PD”) to amend to approved plans of Ordinance No. 1526 and to
permit a parking reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________
Prepared by Nicholas Leftwich
Principal Planner
Attachments:
-Exhibit #1 - Project Narrative (Includes Ordinance No. 1526 and
plans approved in Zoning Case P-22-29-PZ for reference)
-Exhibit #2 - Proposed Site Plan 6/11/26
-Exhibit #3 – Aerial Map
-Exhibit #4 – Proposed Landscape Plan 6/11/26
-Exhibit #5 – Proposed Elevations & Floor Plans 6/11/26
-Exhibit #6 – Updated Public Participation Plan & Report
-Exhibit #7 – Traffic Statement 6/11/26
-Exhibit #8 – Parking Demand Study 6/11/26
-Exhibit #9 – Site Renderings 6/11/26
ALBUQUERQUE BOISE DALLAS DENVER LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES LOS CABOS ORANGE COUNTY
PHOENIX PORTLAND RENO SALT LAKE CITY SAN DIEGO SEATTLE TUCSON WASHINGTON, D.C.
Noel J. Griemsmann AICP
(602) 382-6824
ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
April 15, 2026
Mr. Nicholas Leftwich
Principal Planner
Planning and Zoning Division
City of Apache Junction
300 E Superstition Blvd.
Apache Junction, AZ 85119
Re:
Request to Amend the Conditions of Approval in Resolution 22-33/Ordinance No.
1526 for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of West Virginia Street and
Rennick Drive to Facilitate a Workforce Housing Focused Multifamily Development
Mr. Leftwich:
On behalf of Banyan Residential, LLC (“Banyan”), I am pleased to submit this formal application
requesting (i) the amendment of one (1) Condition of Approval and (ii) the removal of two (2) Conditions
of Approval contained in Resolution No. 22-33, related to the rezoning approved by Ordinance No. 1526,
for the property located at the southeast corner of West Virginia Street and Rennick Drive (Exhibit A),
otherwise known as Pinal County Assessor (“PCA”) Parcel No. 101-131-08D ( herein the “Site”).
A. Site Overview:
According to the PCA, the Site is approximately 7-acres in size and is currently zoned High Density
Multiple-Family Residential (“RM-2”) per the City’s Zoning Map (Exhibit B). The General Plan future
land-use designation of the Site is Downtown Mixed Use (Exhibit C).
The Site is currently undeveloped and vacant. The City’s Zoning Map shows that the properties
north of the Site are zoned Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential (“RS-20M”) and RM-2
(which is the same as Site). The property to the west is zoned RS-20M, the property to the east is zoned
Manufactured Home Park (“MHP”) and Recreational Vehicle Park (“RVP”), and the property to the south
is zoned Old West Commercial (“B-2”) (Exhibit B).
B. Proposed Development:
Consistent with the current zoning, Banyan proposes to develop the Site with a new multi-family
development, focused on “workforce1” appropriate rental rates. The proposed multifamily development
consists of a total of 146 residential apartment style units at a density of 21.8 du/ac based on the gross Site
area. Five (5) buildings are proposed with a mix of one bedroom, two bedroom, three-bedroom and four-
bedroom units, providing a mix of housing types to meet modern rental market needs. The buildings
themselves will be no greater than two stories at 27 feet in height (well below the 40 feet allowed in the
1 See Section E below for details.
Ex. 1 Project Narrative
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 2
zone). The building on the southeast corner of the Site is the primary resident amenity area and includes a
management office, clubhouse, fitness area, pool and spa, cabanas, and barbecue areas. (Exhibit F)
The Proposed Site Plan is more intentional in design and remains consistent with the current
applicable zoning standards. Following is a comparison table showing the development standards
previously approved, those included in the new proposed Site Plan, and those permitted under the current
applicable base zoning:
Development
Standards
Approved Site Plan
Proposed Site Plan
Base Zoning (RM-
2)2
Setbacks (min.)
Front
Side
Rear
20’
10’
20’
20’
10’
20’
20’
10’
20’
No. of Units
124
146
147
Density (max.)
18 DU/AC
21.8 DU/AC
22 DU/AC
Height (max.)
30’ (2 story)
27’ (2 story)
40’ (Up to 4 Stories)
Parking
236
(1.9 Spaces /DU)
248
(1.7 Spaces/DU)
328
For some case background, on September 20, 2022, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 1526
(Exhibit D) & Resolution 22-33 (Exhibit E), approving the rezoning of the Site from General Rural Low
Density Single-Family Detached Residential (“RS-GR”) to RM-2 for the development proposed in case P-
22-29-PZ. The approval of Resolution No. 22-33 was subject to the following ten (10) Conditions of
Approval, with our request noted below each for reference:
1.
The project shall be developed in accordance with the plans approved and
associated with case P-22-29-PZ and all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
city codes applicable to this case.
Request to modify Condition 1 to match current project proposal. See Section C of
this Narrative.
2.
Landscape, screening and irrigation improvements, planted within a minimum 10-
foot deep strip inside the net property line along the west and north perimeters of
the property along the street frontages, shall be provided in compliance with the
city's landscape and screening requirements contained in Apache Junction City
Code, Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning Ordinance, Article
2 As per City of Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance Section 1-5-2 Table 5-2
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 3
1-8, Landscape Regulations. All required trees shall be 24" box and all required
shrubs shall be 5-gallon in size.
No modifications requested.
3.
Street improvements including the installation of pavement, commercial driveway
entrances and the provision of sidewalk, curb, gutter, scuppers as applicable,
streetlights, undergrounding utilities as applicable, fire hydrants, landscaping
shall be required as part of this project, and subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
No modifications requested.
4.
The proposed development will not be age-restricted.
No modifications requested.
5.
All common areas and amenity areas within the proposed development and within
the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the development, including perimeter
walls and fences, and interior and exterior common area landscaping, shall be
maintained in good condition at all times by the property owner.
No modifications requested.
6.
All applicable permits shall be applied for and plans shall be designed to current
city codes prior to any lot grading or construction on the lots. Inclusively, all
applicable development fees, including public art fees, shall be paid at the time of
permit issuance. Development fees shall be paid on a per unit basis.
No modifications requested.
7.
The following right-of-way dedications shall be made:
a)
25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated on the south side of W. Virginia
Street.
b)
A 20 foot by 20 foot triangular corner cut-off visibility triangle shall be
dedicated as public right-of-way at the intersections of W. Virginia Street
and N. Rennick Drive.
No modifications requested.
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 4
8.
Parcels 101-13-1080 and 101-11-0210 shall be combined through the city's lot
combination process.
Since this is completed, we are requesting to delete Condition 8. See Section D of
this narrative.
9.
The south 76' of Parcel No. 101-13-1080, which shall be rezoned to B-2 "Old West
Commercial," shall be split off through a minor land division.
Since this is completed, we are requesting to delete Condition 9. See Section D of
this narrative.
10.
The subject property shall be substantially developed within two (2) years of the
rezoning effective date of Ordinance No. 1526, with a possible one (1) year time
extension at the discretion of the Development Services Director, or the
development plan approval may be subject to reversion by City Council legislative
action pursuant to Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development
Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-16 Administration, Section 1-16-6
(H) ( 1) (b) . For the purpose of this rezoning approval, substantial development
shall be evidenced by application for and receipt of valid building permits for
architecture, all necessary on-site and off-site engineering, and site grading.
No modifications requested.
The development proposed with Case No. P-22-29-PZ was approved contingent upon the
abovementioned ten (10) conditions; however, the previous applicant, EcoVista Development LLC, has not
pursued the proposed development, and as a result, the project proposed has not been constructed. Banyan
now seeks to undertake development of the Site and utilize the property in a manner consistent with its
prime location and prior approvals.
C. Amendment Request- Modification of Condition 1:
Banyan has undertaken a re-evaluation of the Site and proposes specific revisions to achieve a more
energy-efficient, cohesive, and livable development pattern. Banyan’s proposed site plan restructures the
previously approved site plan (Exhibit G) to increase usable open space, improve internal vehicular
circulation, and enhance overall Site functionality.
The previously approved Site Plan (Exhibit F) distributed 124 dwelling units across seventeen (17)
separate buildings, resulting in an overly fragmented development pattern across the Site and creating a
perception of increased Site coverage and density. As a result, the project was less attractive from a market
perspective given complexity in construction, increased energy costs due to more exposed wall planes, and
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 5
carried a higher risk that units could be difficult to sell or lease, potentially affecting the overall financial
viability of the project and leaving the risk of a prime Site being underutilized or, at worse, end up semi-
vacant.
From a practical standpoint, with good design, the Site only requires a total of five (5) buildings to
accommodate the proposed 146 dwelling units, thereby reducing building dispersion and creating larger,
more contiguous areas of open space. This revised configuration improves pedestrian and vehicular
circulation and establishes a clearer, more organized hierarchy across the Site, making it easier to navigate.
By reducing the number of exposed exterior wall planes, the units are more energy efficient which reduces
costs to future residents. In addition, the updated design utilizes building mass to screen views of surface
parking areas and to better fit the emerging built form of the area.
Beyond the practical, there is the reality that seventeen (17) standalone buildings would increase
the duplication of utility connections, service lines, and maintenance systems, making the project highly
inefficient from a sustainability, maintenance, and cost standpoint. Because of all these reasons, it is
appropriate to request to modify Condition 1, to allow Banyan to develop the Site as per their proposed
plans, and change Condition 1 to the following:
“The project shall be developed in accordance with the amended plans approved and associated
with case P-25-101-PDR and all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and city codes applicable to
this case.”
D. Removal of Conditions 8 & 9:
Based on our analysis of the Site’s parcel boundaries and review of the PCA GIS maps, the Site
has been combined into a single parcel and no longer consists of two separate parcels as referenced in
Condition 8. Accordingly, Condition 8 has been satisfied and is no longer applicable.
Similarly, Condition 9 required the southern seventy-six (76) feet of Parcel No. 101-13-1080 to be
rezoned to B-2 and separated through a minor land division. This action has also been completed. Therefore,
Banyan respectfully requests the removal of Conditions 8 and 9 from Resolution No. 22-33, as it is no
longer applicable to the Site and its proposed development.
E. LIHTC Program:
The proposed development will utilize the Section 42 LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit)
program, which allows for offsetting the cost of market-rate housing for community residents who need it
and qualify.
Banyan obtains and then sells federal tax credits to investors as part of their financing to develop
the project. As a result, Banyan places a fifteen (15)-year restriction on rental rates, ensuring they are
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 6
affordable to families with household incomes averaging to 60% of the area median income (AMI). The
LIHTC program is mainly utilized by residents that are seniors, people with disabilities, single parent
households, community service job holders (police officers, teachers, firefighters), and younger individuals
new to the workforce.
Rents are set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For
example, the rental rates for this area in 2025 were between $1,262 for a one (1) bedroom and $1,953 for a
four (4) bedroom, inclusive of utilities. Families must qualify to participate in the LIHTC program, which
uses a sliding scale of maximum income based on household size. Note that the maximum income per unit
is calculated at 1.5 persons per bedroom. For example, in 2025, a one (1) person household is limited to a
maximum income of $ 47,160 while a two (2) person household was limited to an income of $ 53,820 or
less. A household of three (3) is limited to $ 60,600, and a household of four (4) is limited to $ 67,320.
Banyan has developed two (2) workforce housing projects in Dallas and Austin. Their experience
in the market-rate and workforce housing space gives them a strong understanding of tenant needs and
enables them to deliver a higher-quality product than most affordable housing developers.
The long-term intent of the LIHTC program is to allow members of the community to save money
for a few years to accumulate enough to move up to home ownership, which is challenging when a
household is paying full market-rate rent. The Project's architecture is consistent with the surrounding area's
design standards, such that from an aesthetics perspective, there will be no distinguishable difference
between the Project and conventional market-rate development.
It's also important to note that Banyan typically retains ownership of their projects for
approximately 10 + years. Banyan operates their projects by hiring a third-party general contractor and
property management team. Using experienced third-party construction and property management teams
with long track records in regulated affordable housing ensures higher build quality, stronger oversight, and
long-term neighborhood stewardship than a newly created in-house operation. This long-term commitment
results in a higher investment both in the initial build quality of the project, but also in the long-term
maintenance which benefits Banyan, the residents, and the City.
F. Zoning Deviation Request:
As a LIHTC project, this development will provide housing exclusively to residents who qualify
under for the program. Typical residents under this program would include seniors, people with disabilities,
and lower income families, households who typically rely less on personal vehicles, have fewer vehicles
per household and utilize public transportation at a higher rate and therefore do not require the same level
of parking as market-rate developments.
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 7
Providing parking at the base level required under the zoning ordinance, which is approximately
328 spaces, would result in the Site being overparked by at least 80 spaces, based on Banyan’s experience
operating similar projects. These excessive parking spaces would occupy approximately 23,000 square feet
of land that would otherwise be unused, creating unnecessary heat island and stormwater runoff impacts,
while also adding to the overall financial burden of the project. In addition, the discouragement of additional
cars per household does reduce traffic impacts by reducing trips (for example, a two-person household
carpooling to/from workplaces vs maintaining two separate automobiles). Accordingly, a zoning deviation
is requested to allow a project of this nature to provide fewer parking spaces than required under RM-2
district. Below are the City’s required Findings of Facts along with our responses on how each part is
addressed by the project.
1.
Whether a better design can be achieved by not applying the strict provisions of the zoning
district.
Response: Yes, strict provisions would require Banyan to dedicate 23,000 square feet. of Site area
to parking field, asphalt and necessary providing increased retention, which would go largely
unused and create unnecessary heat island and stormwater runoff impacts. By allowing a zoning
deviation/ parking reduction, the project can implement a more intentional site design and support
the City in achieving its inclusionary housing and environmental stewardship goals.
2.
Whether adherence to the strict provisions of the zoning district is not required in order to
ensure health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the development.
Response: The requested parking reduction will not negatively affect the health, safety, or welfare
of the residents. In fact, the zoning deviation will allow Banyan to develop the Site in a way that
better meets the needs of its tenants, by providing more open space and reducing heat impacts from
large parking lots.
3.
Whether adherence to the strict provisions of the zoning district is not required in order to
ensure that property values of adjacent properties will not be reduced.
Response: The proposed parking reduction will not negatively affect the valuation of the adjacent
properties. In fact, the influx of families will likely increase the commercial demand in the area,
thus increasing overall property values by increased economic activity from residents.
Additionally, Banyan’s Proposed Site Plan is designed to provide a minimum of one covered
parking space per unit as a corresponding offset to the requested parking reduction. In summary, the
reduction in parking will “right-size” the parking areas to meet real world requirements of workforce
families (lower car ownership per household), allowing for the Project to be economically viable (reducing
construction and maintenance costs) and will not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 8
We are very excited to bring an opportunity for development of 152 workforce housing apartment
homes to the City of Apache Junction.
We look forward to discussing the project with you at your next available meeting date. In the
interim, please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Snell & Wilmer LLP
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP
Senior Urban Planner
This application narrative is supported by the following documents:
Exhibit A- Aerial Map
Exhibit B- Zoning Map
Exhibit C- General Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit D- Ordinance No. 1526
Exhibit E- Resolution 22-33
Exhibit F- Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit G- Approved Site Plan
Reduced to 146 units.
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 9
Exhibit A
Aerial Map
© 2024 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. All Rights Reserved.
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit:
Address:
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700, Phoenix, AZ 85004
Date:
SITE AERIAL MAP
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
SEC of W VIRGINIA ST & N RENNICK DR, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APN
101-131-08D
SIZE (AC)
6.9
OWNER
PRESTIGE PARTNERS LLC
JURISDICTION
APACHE JUNCTION
SITE
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 10
Exhibit B
Zoning Map
© 2024 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. All Rights Reserved.
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit:
Address:
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700, Phoenix, AZ 85004
Date:
SITE
ZONE: RM-2 (High Density
Multiple-Family Residential)
ZONING MAP
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
SEC of W VIRGINIA ST & N RENNICK DR, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
LEGEND
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 11
Exhibit C
General Plan
© 2024 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. All Rights Reserved.
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit:
Address:
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700, Phoenix, AZ 85004
Date:
SITE
DESIGNATION:
DOWNTOWN MIXED USE
LAND USE MAP
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
SEC of W VIRGINIA ST & N RENNICK DR, CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
LEGEND
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 12
Exhibit D
Ordinance No. 1526
1
Legal Descriptions and Zoning Conditions of Case
No. P-22-29-PZ Authorized under Ordinance No. 1526
2
A) The mayor and council passed Ordinance No. 1526 presented in
Case P-22-29-PZ on September 20, 2022, which approves the
rezoning of parcels 101-13-1080 and 101-11-0210 from RS-GR
“General Rural Low Density Single-Family Detached Residential”
to RM-2 “High Density Multiple-Family Residential” and B-2
“Old West Commercial.” The portions of the property rezoned
are legally defined as follows:
1. The southern 76’ of Parcel 101-13-1080, which is rezoned
to B-2 “Old West Commercial,” is legally described as:
That portion of the North Half of Section 20, Township 1
North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona, described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section
20;
Thence South 00°03'51" West (Basis of Bearings), along
the North-South mid-section line of said Section 20, a
distance of 1040.00 Feet to the Southeast corner of the
Beaty Subdivision, according to Book 9 of Maps, Page 40;
Thence continuing along said North-South mid-section line
South 00°03'51" West, a distance of 868.53 Feet to a
point, said point being the Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing along said North-South mid-section line
South 00°03'51" West, a distance of 76.00 Feet;
Thence North 89°56'00” West, a distance of 310.25 Feet to
the Easterly Right-Of-Way Line of Rennick Drive,
according to said Beaty Subdivision;
Thence North 00°03'51" East, along said Right-Of-Way
line, a distance of 76.00 Feet;
Thence South 89°56’00” East, a distance of 310.25 Feet to
the Point of Beginning.
2. The remainder of Parcel 101-13-1080 and Parcel 101-11-
0210, which are rezoned to RM-2 “High Density Multiple-
Family Residential,” are legally defined as follows:
3
Remainder of Parcel 101-13-1080
That portion of the North half of Section 20, Township 1
North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona, described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 20;
Thence South 00°03'51" West (Basis of Bearings), along the
North-South mid-section line of said Section 20, a distance
of 1040.00 feet to the Southeast corner of the Beaty
Subdivision, according to Book 9 of Maps, page 40, said
point being the Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing along said North-South mid-section line
South 00°03'51" West, a distance of 868.53 Feet;
Thence North 89°56'00” West, a distance of 310.25 Feet to
the Easterly Right-of-Way line of Rennick Drive, according
to said Beaty Subdivision;
Thence North 00°03'51" East, along said Right-of-Way line,
a distance of 869.14 Feet to the Southerly Right-of-Way
line of Virginia Street, according to said Beaty
Subdivision;
Thence South 89°49'14" East, along said Right-of-Way line,
a distance of 310.25 Feet to the Point of Beginning; and
Parcel 101-11-0210
That portion of the North half of Section 20, Township 1
North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Pinal County, Arizona, described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 20;
Thence South 00°03'51" West (Basis of Bearings), along the
North-South mid-section line of said Section 20, a distance
of 1040.00 feet to the Southeast corner of the Beaty
Subdivision, according to Book 9 of Maps, Page 40, said
Point being the Point of Beginning;
Thence south 89°37’09" East, a distance of 40.00 feet to
the East line of the West 40 feet of the Northeast quarter
of said Section 20;
Thence South 00°03'51" West, along said East line, a
distance of 775.47 feet;
4
Thence South 89°55’21" West, a distance of 40.00 feet to
the North-South mid-section line said section 20;
Thence north 00°03'51" east, along said mid-section line a
distance of 775.79 feet to the Point of Beginning.
B) The approval is subject to the following zoning conditions:
1. The project shall be developed in accordance with the
plans approved and associated with case P-22-29-PZ and
all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and city codes
applicable to this case.
2. Landscape, screening and irrigation improvements, planted
within a minimum 10-foot deep strip inside the net
property line along the west and north perimeters of the
property along the street frontages, shall be provided in
compliance with the city’s landscape and screening
requirements contained in Apache Junction City Code,
Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning
Ordinance, Article 1-8, Landscape Regulations. All
required trees shall be 24” box and all required shrubs
shall be 5-gallon in size.
3. Street improvements including the installation of
pavement, commercial driveway entrances and the provision
of sidewalk, curb, gutter, scuppers as applicable,
streetlights, undergrounding utilities as applicable,
fire hydrants, landscaping shall be required as part of
this project, and subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
4. The proposed development will not be age-restricted.
5. All common areas and amenity areas within the proposed
development and within the right-of-way immediately
adjacent to the development, including perimeter walls
and fences, and interior and exterior common area
landscaping, shall be maintained in good condition at all
times by the property owner.
6. All applicable permits shall be applied for and plans
shall be designed to current city codes prior to any lot
grading or construction on the lots. Inclusively, all
applicable development fees, including public art fees,
shall be paid at the time of permit issuance. Development
fees shall be paid on a per unit basis.
5
10.
7. The following right-of-way dedications shall be made:
a) 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated on the
south side of W. Virginia Street.
b) A 20 foot by 20 foot triangular corner cut-off
visibility triangle shall be dedicated as public
right-of-way at the intersections of W. Virginia
Street and N. Rennick Drive.
8. Parcels 101-13-1080 and 101-11-0210 shall be combined
through the city’s lot combination process.
9. The south 76’ of Parcel No. 101-13-1080, which shall be
rezoned to B-2 “Old West Commercial,” shall be split off
through a minor land division.
The subject property shall be substantially developed
within two (2) years of the rezoning effective date of
Ordinance No. 1526, with a possible one (1) year time
extension at the discretion of the Development Services
Director, or the development plan approval may be subject
to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant
to Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development
Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-16
Administration, Section 1-16-6(H)(1)(b). For the purpose
of this rezoning approval, substantial development shall
be evidenced by application for and receipt of valid
building permits for architecture, all necessary on-site
and off-site engineering, and site grading.
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 13
Exhibit E
Resolution 22-33
Thence South 89 °55'21" West, a distance of 40.00 feet to
the North-South mid-section line said section 20;
Thence north 00 °03'51" east, along said mid-section line a
distance of 775.79 feet to the Point of Beginning.
B) The approval is subject to the following zoning conditions:
1. The project shall be developed in accordance with the
plans approved and associated with case P-22-29-PZ and
all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and city codes
applicable to this case.
2. Landscape, screening and irrigation improvements, planted
within a minimum 10-foot deep strip inside the net
property line along the west and north perimeters of the
property along the street frontages, shall be provided in
compliance with the city's landscape and screening
requirements contained in Apache Junction City Code,
Volume II, Land Development Code, Chapter 1, Zoning
Ordinance, Article 1-8, Landscape Regulations. All
required trees shall be 24" box and all required shrubs
shall be 5-gallon in size.
3. Street improvements including the installation of
pavement, commercial driveway entrances and the provision
of sidewalk, curb, gutter, scuppers as applicable,
streetlights, undergrounding utilities as applicable,
fire hydrants, landscaping shall be required as part of
this project, and subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
4. The proposed development will not be age-restricted.
5. All common areas and amenity areas within the proposed
development and within the right-of-way immediately
adjacent to the development, including perimeter walls
and fences, and interior and exterior common area
landscaping, shall be maintained in good condition at all
times by the property owner.
6. All applicable permits shall be applied for and plans
shall be designed to current city codes prior to any lot
grading or construction on the lots.
Inclusively, all
applicable development fees, including public art fees,
shall be paid at the time of permit issuance. Development
fees shall be paid on a per unit basis.
4
7. The following right-of-way dedications shall be made:
a) 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated on the
south side of W. Virginia Street.
b) A 20 foot by 20 foot triangular corner cut-off
visibility triangle shall be dedicated as public
right-of-way at the intersections of W. Virginia
Street and N. Rennick Drive.
8. Parcels 101-13-1080 and 101-11-0210 shall be combined
through the city's lot combination process.
9. The south 76' of Parcel No. 101-13-1080, which shall be
rezoned to B-2 "Old West Commercial," shall be split off
through a minor land division.
10. The subject property shall be substantially developed
within two (2) years of the rezoning effective date of
Ordinance No. 1526, with a possible one (1) year time
extension at the discretion of the Development Services
Director, or the development plan approval may be subject
to reversion by City Council legislative action pursuant
to Apache Junction City Code, Volume II, Land Development
Code, Chapter 1 Zoning Ordinance, Article 1-16
Administration, Section 1-16-6 (H) ( 1) (b) .
For the purpose
of this rezoning approval, substantial development shall
be evidenced by application for and receipt of valid
building permits for architecture, all necessary on-site
and off-site engineering, and site grading.
5
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 14
Exhibit F
Proposed Site Plan
2
BLDG A
1
BLDG B
4
BLDG A
3
BLDG A
LEASING
5
BLDG B
N
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
69'-0"
69'-0"
69'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 27'-2"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 10'-10"
65'-0"
144'-0"
349'-10"
349'-10"
92'-0"
44'-0"
144'-0"
65'-0"
5'-0" MIN. TYP.
5'-6"
ADA PARKING AISLE WIDTH - TYP.
14'-0"
PARKING WIDTH - TYP.
9'-0"
18'-0"
349'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-9"
COVERED PARKING
LANDSCAPE ISLAND - 5'-0" MIN. TYP.
9'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
15'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 46'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-9"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 44'-8"
RENNICK DRIVE
VIRGINIA STREET
39
28
20
28
31
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
4/15/2026 8:42:15 AM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN | 04/15/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
1/32" = 1'-0"
2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SD
CONTACT INFORMATION
OWNER
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
2801 E CAMELBACK RD STE 450
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@BANYANRES.COM
PLANNER/ARCHITECT
KEPHART
901 E MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
480.270.3031
ANDYN@KEPHART.COM
BASE INFORMATION
ZONING SUMMARY:
EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RM2
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
PROPOSED DENSITY - 146 DWELLING UNITS / 6.7 NET ACRES = 21.8 DU/AC
TOTAL BUILDING SF:
1 BED
44
BUILDING A
42,850 SF
2 BED
48
BUILDING B
16,888 SF
3 BED
48
BUILDING C
3,263 SF
4 BED
12
63,001 GROSS SF
146 TOTAL UNITS
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS:
FIRST FLOOR BUILDING A FOOTPRINT
21,425 SF
FIRST FLOOR BUILDING B FOOTPRINT
8,444 SF
CLUBHOUSE FOOTPRINT
3,263 SF
TOTAL FOOTPRINT(MULTI-FAMILY AND CLUBHOUSE)
~77,759 SF(27%)
LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINT
~92,542 SF(31%)
PAVEMENT FOOTPRINT
~121,323 SF(42%)
USABLE OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED 50%
PROVIDED 59%
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 01
NORTH, RANGE 08 EAST, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20,
THENCE SOUTH 1040.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE EAST
40.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 775.47 FEET, THENCE WEST 40.00 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 92.74 FEET, THENCE WEST 310.25 FEET, THENCE NORTH
869.14 FEET, THENCE EAST 310.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
300,581 SQUARE FEET, 6.90 ACRES.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FIVE BUILDINGS WITH TWO LEVELS MULTI-FAMILY AND
SURFACE PARKING, DETACHED CLUBHOUSE.
STRUCTURES:
BUILDING ENTRANCES - REFERENCE LEGEND OVERHANGS AND
CANOPIES - REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE ELEVATIONS
BUILDING HEIGHT:
2 STORIES / 27'-5" TO TOP OF PARAPET.
CLUBHOUSE HEIGHT:
18'-1 1/8"
TRAFFIC / PARKING:
146
UNITS = 328 SPACES REQUIRED
MAX ALLOWED
= N/A
SURFACE PARKING PROPOSED (9'X18')
OPEN
238
ACCESSIBLE 10
COVERED
146
TOTAL
248 SPACES
BICYCLE PARKING
32 SPACES REQUIRED
32 SPACES PROVIDED
UTILITIES:
FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES PLEASE SEE
CIVIL SHEETS UL04 AND UL05.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN INFORMATION
APARTMENTS
TOTAL SF
:
59,738 SF
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
:
TYPE V-A
PROPOSED SPRINKLERS
:
NFPA 13R
CLUBHOUSE
TOTAL SF
:
3,263 SF
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
:
TYPE V-B
PROPOSED SPRINKLERS
:
NS
PRELIMINARY BUILDING INFORMATION
N RENNICK DR
W VIRGINIA ST
W APACHE TRL
N APACHE TRL
N THUNDERBIRD DR
W ROOSEVELT ST
N
PROJECT SITE
4/15/2026 8:42:15 AM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
SITE DATA | 04/15/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A02
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
RESUBMITTAL RESPONSE: IN RESPONSE TO THE LAST COMMENTS RECEIVED WE HAVE REVIEWED
THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND HAVE AMENDED/ADDED THE FOLLOWING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
WE HAVE REVISED THE BUILDING DESIGN TO OVERALL MORE CLOSELY RELATE TO THE
TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE SOUTHWEST, ARIZONA SPECIFICALLY, AND APACHE JUNCTION
IN PARTICULAR.
WE BEGAN BY CONDUCTING WHAT WE CALL A SITE STORY CONSISTING OF A STUDY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, ITS HISTORY, AND THE VERNACULAR AND CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE FOUND
THERE. OUR REVISED DESIGN ADAPTS THE TRADITIONAL FORMS OF APACHE JUNCTION (AND
GENERALLY ARIZONA) IN A MODERN WAY, UTILIZING THEM TO CREATE A 21ST CENTURY
ARCHITECTURE.
WE EXPLORED UTILIZING: HOODED WINDOWS, BATTERED WALLS, ARTICULATED PARAPETS,
CELEBRATED OVERFLOW SCUPPERS, HISTORIC AND TRADITIONAL DESERT COLORS AND STUCCO
FINISHES; ALL IN SUPPORT OF A TIMELESS AND ULTIMATELY MODERN SOLUTION UTILIZING AN
ADAPTATION OF VERNACULAR DESERT ARCHITECTURE.
NTS
VICINITY MAP
DN
UP
UNIT D1
UNIT A1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT D1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT A1
STO/UTIL STO/UTIL
STO/UTIL STO/UTIL
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
1/4" / 12"
100'-0"
102'-0"
102'-0"
102'-0"
101'-6"
101'-6"
1/4" / 12"
1" / 12"
A
G
1
2
5
D
B
C
E
F
3
4
UNIT C2
STO/UTIL
17'-8"
17'-8"
17'-8"
8'-0"
7'-0"
6'-0"
11'-8"
11'-8"
11'-8"
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT B2
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
STO/UTIL STO/UTIL
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
1/4" / 12"
H
J
N
K
L
M
6
7
8
9
10
17'-8"
6'-0"
11'-8"
4/15/2026 8:42:18 AM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
FLOOR PLANS | 04/15/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A03
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/16" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING TYPE A - FLOOR PLAN TYP. - SD
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING TYPE B - FLOOR PLAN TYP. - SD
STAMP
1R1S
1R1S
L
WH
W/D
DW
REF.
P
1R1S
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
L
1R1S
L
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
1R1S
1R1S
P
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
L
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
L
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
1R1S
1R1S
WH
W
D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
L
REF.
DW
L
UNIT A1 PLAN
4/15/2026 8:42:19 AM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
UNIT PLANS | 04/15/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A04
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
UNIT B1 PLAN
UNIT B2 PLAN
UNIT C1 PLAN
UNIT C2 PLAN
UNIT D1 PLAN
STAMP
Planning and Zoning Division
April 15, 2026
Page 15
Exhibit G
Approved Site Plan
UNIT MIX
BUILDING TYPES
1 BED
2BED
3BED
TOTAL
6.1 - (5) 6 UNIT
(2) 10
(4) 20
(0) 0
30
6.2 - (4) 6 UNIT
(3) 12
(2) 8
(1) 4
24
7.A - (1) 7 UNIT
(1) 1
(2) 2
(4) 4
7 (3 ADA UNITS)
9 - (7) 9 UNIT
(4) 28
(4) 28
(1) 7
43
TOTAL UNITS
51 58
15
124
41% 47%
12%
SITE DATA
GROSS SITE AREA :
±300,570 SF (6.90 AC - AFTER LOT SPLIT)
NET SITE AREA :
±291,800 SF (6.70 AC)
CURRENT ZONING :
RS-GR
PROPOSED ZONING :
RM-2
SETBACKS (BSL):
20' FRONT & REAR, 10' SIDE INTERIOR & STREET
BUILDING HEIGHT :
35' ALLOWED IN CURRENT ZONING, 30' PROPOSED
NO. OF STORIES :
2
DWELLING UNITS (DU) : 124
DENSITY :
18 DU/AC (GROSS SITE AREA)
LOT COVERAGE :
50% ALLOWED, ±38% PROPOSED (±110,511 SF)
AMENITIES :
OFFICE, CLUB, POOL, SPA, OUTDOOR KITCHEN
RENNICK DRIVE
ROOSEVELT STREET
SAN MARCOS DRIVE
VIRGINIA STREET
COFFEE
MICRO
ICE
K-3346-4
TOCCATA
SINKS
STAINLESS STEEL
WARM.
DRAWER
MICRO
MAIL
35025
77547
LOADING
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.A
(ADA)
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.4
3.4
3.5
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
2.A
(ADA)
3.A
(ADA)
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
BLDG
10
BLDG
12
BLDG
16
BLDG
2
BLDG
3
BLDG
8
BLDG
4
BLDG
14
BLDG
1
BLDG
5
BLDG
17
BLDG
15
BLDG
13
BLDG
9
BLDG
7
BLDG
11
2.1
2.2
BLDG
6
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2.1
2.2
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2.1
2.2
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2.1
2.2
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
1.1
2.2
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
3.3
3.3
2 C
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.2
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
3.3
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
3.3
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
1 C
1 C
2 C
GATE
GATE
20'-0"
20'-0"
28'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
28'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
28'-0"
28'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
20'
BSL
20'
BSL
10'
BSL
10'
BSL
76'-0"
SEPARATE PARCEL
AFTER LOT SPLIT
TO ZONING B-2
MONUMENT SIGN
MONUMENT SIGN
6' HIGH W.I.
VIEW FENCE
EXIT GATE
DOG RUN
REFUSE
ENCLOSURE
FIRE TRUCK TURN
RADIUS - TYP.
REFUSE
ENCLOSURE
6' HIGH W.I.
VIEW FENCE
EXIST. CMU FENCE
6' HIGH CMU
FENCE
4000
9274
33020
82414
=ONE RS20M
=ONE RS20M
=ONE RM2
=ONE MHP
=ONE B2
=ONE B2PD
=ONE RS20M
=ONE MHP
148'-0"
100'-3"
100'-3"
120'-3"
120'-3"
SPA
CLUBHOUSE
FITNESS
POOL
6' HIGH CMU
FENCE
U.G. STORM DRAIN
PIPE HEADWALL
U.G. STORM DRAIN
PIPE HEADWALL
100'-3"
24'-0"
24'-0"
REFUSE
ENCLOSURE
FIRE TRUCK TURN
RADIUS - TYP.
FIRE TRUCK TURN
RADIUS - TYP.
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
(DRIVEWAY - NOT A FIRE LANE)
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
FIRE LANE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
VIEW CORRIDOR
6' HIGH W.I.
VIEW FENCE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
4' FIRE ACCESS
GATE
GATE
2.2
1.1
2.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
3.3
1.2
1.1
2 C
1 C
1 C
PARKING
TOTAL PARKING: 223 SP REQUIRED, 236 SP PROVIDED
STALL SIZE :
90° : 9' x 18' / PARALLEL : 9' x 22'
LOADING ZONE 12'x35' : 1 REQUIRED, 1 PROVIDED
REQUIRED
PROVIDED
1 BEDROOM :
51 X 1.50 77 SP
51 GARAGE
26 ON-SITE
2 BEDROOM :
58 X 2.00 116 SP
86 GARAGE
30 ON-SITE
3 BEDROOM :
15 X 2.00
30 SP 30 GARAGE
223
223
VISITOR SPACES :
13
ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES:
1. THE (26) ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE ONE BEDROOM UNITS WILL BE MARKED ON
EACH STALL AS RESERVED FOR "TENANT PARKING".
2. THE (30) ON-SITE PARKING SPACES FOR THE 2ND PARKING SPACE FOR THE (30) 2.1 BEDROOM
UNITS WHICH HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE, WILL BE ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THOSE UNITS BY A UNIT
NUMBER ON THE STALL, AND BE THE CLOSEST PARKING SPACE TO EACH OF THOSE UNITS.
3. VISITOR PARKING SPACES WILL BE BE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE SITE AND MARKED "VISITOR".
R O N D E I T R I C K A R C H I T E C T S
r o n d e i t r i c k . c o m 6 0 2 . 5 7 7 . 7 1 7 1
A P A C H E J U N C T I O N , A R I Z O N A
T H E E N C L A 9 E
S E C R E N N I C K D R & V I R G I N I A S T
O N R E N N I C K
SITE PLAN
124 UNITS 69 AC GROSS
DATE : 6/6/22
SCALE : 1" = 40'
0'
20'
40'
80'
T<PICAL UNIT T<PE DESIGNATIONS
UNIT 3.3 (±1,630 sf)
3 BEDROOM UNIT OVER
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT 1.1 (±760 sf)
1 BEDROOM WITH
1 CAR GARAGE
UNIT 1.2 (±850 sf)
1 BEDROOM UNIT OVER
1 CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2.2 (±1,145 sf)
2 BEDROOM UNIT OVER
2 CAR GARAGE
UNIT 1.1 (±760 sf)
1 BEDROOM WITH
1 CAR GARAGE
UNIT 2.1 (±1,145 sf)
2 BEDROOM UNIT OVER
1 CAR GARAGE
BUILDING MODULE 1
BUILDING MODULE 2
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
PROJECT SUMMARY:
NET ACREAGE
6.69
AC
# OF UNITS
146
DU
NET DENSITY
22.0
DU/AC
PARKING
2.0
SP/DU
37-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 2-STORY WALK-UP
CLUBHOUSE
& LEASING
- PRIMARY AMENITY AREA
SECONDARY ENTRY
0 40
80
N
1
2
4
3
UNIT MIX
A1 - 1 BED
38
(696 SF)
B1 - 2 BED
48
(898 SF)
C1 - 3 BED
49
(1,069 SF)
D1 - 4 BED
11
(1,262 SF)
TOTAL
146
UNIT TYPE
# OF UNITS
UNIT SF
PRIMARY ENTRY
18-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
5
6
PARKING
OPEN
278
HANDICAP
12
*COVERED
146
*covered spaces part of open parking count.
TOTAL PROVIDED
290
REQUIRED
317 (8.5% DEVIATION)
TYPE
# OF SPACES
BUILDING A
BUILDING A
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
18-PLEX BLDG.
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
T
T
T
1
BLDG A
3
BLDG C
2
BLDG A
LEASING
6
BLDG B
N
5
BLDG B
4
BLDG B
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
69'-0"
69'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 10'-10"
COVERED PARKING
N RENNICK DRIVE
WEST VIRGINIA STREET
39
28
20
28
31
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
64'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 28'-4"
99'-0"
349'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-7"
99'-0"
64'-0"
99'-0"
64'-0"
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
64'-0"
104'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 62'-2"
92'-0"
44'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
15'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
349'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-2"
LANDSCAPE ISLAND - 5'-0" MIN. TYP.
9'-0"
ADA PARKING AISLE WIDTH - TYP.
14'-0"
18'-0"
PARKING WIDTH - TYP.
9'-0"
6'-0"
5'-0" MIN. TYP.
5'-8"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 65'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 28'-2"
6/10/2026 1:36:28 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
1/32" = 1'-0"
2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SD
PL
$SULO
/(*(1’
&RQWHQWPDLQWDLQHGE\WKH$SDFKH-XQFWLRQ*,6’LYLVLRQ
’,6&/$,0(57KLVPDSZDVSURGXFHGZLWKRXWEHQHIDQG LV QRW WKH LQWHQGHG XVH 7KH XVH RI WKL
SXUSRVHV RQO\ DQG WKH &LW\ RI $SDFKH -XQFWLR
H[SUHVVHGRULPSOLHGUHJDUGLQJWKHUHOLDELOL
$UF*,6:HE0DS
$SDFKH-XQFWLRQ0XQLFLSDO%RXQGDU\
$SDFKH-XQFWLRQ
&RXQW\%RXQGDU\
3DUFHOV
&LW\RI$SDFKH-XQFWLRQ
(SKHPHUDO:DVKHV
’RFXPHQWVE\4XDUWHU6HFWLRQ
m
&LW\ RI $SDFKH -XQFWLRQ
SYMBOL
BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
PALM TREES
ACACIA ANEURA
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
MULGA
CAESALPINIA MEXICANA
24" BOX, 1" CAL MIN
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
DESERT WILLOW
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
24" BOX HIGH BREAK MULTI 1.75" CAL
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
PISTACIA X 'RED PUSH'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
RED PUSH PISTACHE
PROSOPIS X `PHOENIX` TM
24" BOX MULTI, 1.5" CAL MIN
HYBRID MESQUITE
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'MILLENIUM'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
18 TRUNK FEET, MATCHING SKINNED
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
PLANT SCHEDULE
41
QTY
57
20
35
4
65
46
4
SHRUBS
BOUGAINVILLEA X 'LA JOLLA'
LA JOLLA BOUGAINVILLEA
ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII
GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS
EREMOPHILA HYGROPHANA 'BLUE
BELLS'
BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH
EREMOPHILA MACULATA `VALENTINE`
VALENTINE BUSH
EUPHORBIA LOMELII
LADY'S SLIPPER
JUSTICIA SPICIGERA
MEXICAN HONEYSUCKLE
LEUCOPHYLLUM LANGMANIAE 'RIO
BRAVO'
RIO BRAVO LANGMAN'S SAGE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'REPENS'
CREEPING ROSEMARY
RUELLIA BRITTONIANA
MEXICAN PETUNIA
RUELLIA PENINSULARIS
DESERT RUELLIA
TECOMA X `ORANGE JUBILEE`
ORANGE JUBILEE YELLOW BELLS
CACTUS
OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA
SANTA RITA PRICKLYPEAR
GROUNDCOVER
EREMOPHILA GLABRA `MINGENEW
GOLD`
OUTBACK SUNRISE EMU
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
TRAILING LANTANA
SUCCULENTS
AGAVE GEMINIFLORA
TWIN FLOWERED AGAVE
AGAVE VICTORIAE-REGINAE
QUEEN VICTORIA AGAVE
ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE
HESPERALOE FUNIFERA
GIANT HESPERALOE
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA `PERPA` TM
BRAKELIGHTS RED YUCCA
YUCCA PALLIDA
PALE LEAF YUCCA
YUCCA RUPICOLA
TWISTED LEAF YUCCA
TOPDRESS & INERT MATERIAL
DECOMPOSED GRANITE - 2" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3/4" SCREENED
COLOR: T.B.D.
BOULDERS - SURFACE SELECT
SIZE: 3X3', 2X2' 50/50 MIX
(SAME VENDOR AS DECOMPOSED GRANITE)
RB INDICATES ROOT BARRIER (AT ANY TREE TRUNK W/IN 6' OF U.G. UTILITY)
~91K SF TOTAL
~17 TOTAL
RIP-RAP / FRACTURED GRANITE - 3" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3" - 6" SCREENED
COLOR: TO MATCH DG, (and at all Roof Drain daylight)
CYNODON DACTYLON `MIDIRON`
MIDIRON BERMUDAGRASS ~1K SF TOTAL
(ALL SHRUBS TO BE 5 GAL MIN)
(ALL SHRUBS TO BE 1 GAL MIN)
(ALL SUCCULENTS TO BE 3 GAL MIN)
(ALL CACTI TO BE 3 PAD MIN)
REF.ICE
P O O L
RENNICK DRIVE
SAN MARCOS DRIVE
VIRGINIA STREET
ROOSEVELT ST
COVER
SHEET
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
PLP-00
1 OF 6
IRONWOOD DR.
N. IDAHO RD.
W. SUPERSTITION BLVD.
W. APACHE TRAIL
N. APACHE TRAIL
SITE
N. RENNICK DR.
W. BROADWAY AVE.
VICINITY MAP
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI-FAMILY
A P A C H E J U N C T I O N , A R I Z O N A
ARCHITECT |
KEPHART
2555 WALNUT STREET
DENVER COLORADO 80205
PHONE: 303 832 4474
CONTACT: ANDREW NORDHUS
EMAIL: ANDYN@KEPHART.COM
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT |
NORRIS DESIGN
901 E MADISON ST
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85034
PHONE: 602 254 9600
CONTACT: GREG ROWAN
EMAIL: GROWAN@NORRIS-DESIGN.COM
OWNER | DEVELOPER |
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
AND / OR ITS ASSIGNS
2801 E CAMELBACK RD STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
EMAIL: MFRIEDMAN@BANYANRES.COM
ENGINEER |
BOWMAN
2420 S. POWER RD.
SUITE 105 MESA, AZ 85029
PHONE: (480) 605-2400
CONTACT: HUNTER CALLENDER
EMAIL: HCALLENDER@BOWMAN.COM
5.
DAMAGE TO EXISTING LANDSCAPING, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, IRRIGATION
LINES, ELECTRICAL LINES, ETC. SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTORS
EXPENSE.
6.
ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN THE PLANS AND THE SITE CONDITIONS
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
7.
ALL QUANTITIES PROVIDED ARE FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
8.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FINISH GRADES IN
LANDSCAPED AREAS. HE SHALL DETERMINE, WITH THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR, THE EXTENT OF ROUGH GRADING AND/OR FINE GRADING TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY OTHERS.
9.
ALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS
PREPARED BY THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE
BUILDING(S) IN ALL CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR TO MEET ALL EXISTING
GRADES AT PROJECT BOUNDARIES. ROUGH GRADE SHALL BE 3" BELOW THE
TOP OF ADJACENT WALKS AND CURBS PRIOR TO RECEIVING DECOMPOSED
GRANITE.
10.
ADJACENT UNDISTURBED AREAS DAMAGED OR DISTURBED TO BE RESTORED
TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
11.
CONTRACTOR SHALL FINE GRADE ENTIRE LANDSCAPED AREA AS REQUIRED
FOR INSTALLATION OF PLANTING. ALL GRADES SHALL BE NEAT, RAKED
SMOOTH AND BE FREE OF DEBRIS PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.
12.
PRIOR TO SPREADING MATERIAL GROUNDCOVERS, ADJUST AND COMPACT
FINISH GRADES, APPLY WEED PRE-EMERGENT SURFLAN AS PER
MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. THEN SPREAD DECOMPOSED GRANITE,
RIVER RUN, OR MULCH AS INDICATED ON PLANS. DECOMPOSED GRANITE
SHALL BE WATERED, THEN COMPACTED WITH A SOD ROLLER TO A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 2" AFTER COMPACTION. PROVIDE A SECOND APPLICATION OF
THE PRE- EMERGENT SURFLAN AT THE END OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD
13.
ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 2" TOP DRESSING OF
DECOMPOSED GRANITE AS SPECIFIED IN THE TOPDRESS SCHEDULE.
PROVIDE SAMPLE OF SIZE AND COLOR FOR APPROVAL BY OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO DELIVERY.
14.
STAKE LOCATIONS OF ALL TREES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
OF ANY PLANT MATERIAL.
15.
ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WELL BRANCHED AND
DENSELY FOLIATED (WHEN IN-LEAF) AS IS TYPICAL FOR THE SPECIES. THEY
SHALL HAVE HEALTHY, WELL DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS (NOT POT
BOUND), A NORMAL HABIT OF GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY
STANDARDS, AND FREE OF ANY BRUISES, CUTS, OR OTHER ABNORMALITIES.
PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN
STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, LATEST EDITION, PUBLISHED BY THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMAN, AND THE ARIZONA
NURSERYMAN ASSOCIATION STANDARDS.
16.
ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANT MATERIAL MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES LOW WATER USE PLANT LIST.
17.
BACKFILL MIXTURES, EXCEPT AS NOTED, TO BE COMPRISED OF 75% NATIVE
SOIL AND 25% DECOMPOSED GRANULAR BARK MULCH AND 2 LBS.
DISPERSAL PER CUBIC YARD OF BACKFILL.
18.
ADD AGRI-FORM FERTILIZER TABLETS AT THE FOLLOWING RATES:
1 GALLON PLANT - 1 TABLET 15 GALLON PLANT - 4 TABLETS
5 GALLON PLANT - 2 TABLET BOXED TREE - 6 TABLETS (MIN.)
TABLETS TO BE PLACED NO DEEPER THAN 6' BELOW SOIL SURFACE.
19.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PLANTS SHOWN ON
PLANTING PLAN. DO NOT SUBSTITUTE PLANTS BY TYPE OR QUANTITY
WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
20.
THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY
SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT SATISFY THE INTENT OF
THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN BASED ON SIZE, SHAPE, EVIDENCE OF STRESS OR
IMPROPER CARE.
21.
PRIOR TO INITIATING THE 90-DAY MAINTENANCE PERIOD, COMPLETE ANY
INITIAL PUNCH LIST ITEMS, THEN OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. DETERMINE WITH
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THE START DATE FOR THE 90-DAY
MAINTENANCE PERIOD. CONTRACTOR TO THEN MAINTAIN LANDSCAPE
WHICH MAY INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING, PRUNING, AND REPLACEMENT
OF ANY MATERIAL THAT HAS DIED OR IS SHOWING EVIDENCE OF STRESS.
SUBMIT WRITTEN REQUEST FOR FINAL PUNCH LIST ONE WEEK PRIOR TO
END OF MAINTENANCE PERIOD.
22.
PROVIDE OWNER WITH A WRITTEN GUARANTEE OF ONE (1) YEAR FOR ALL
TREES AND 90 DAYS FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL DATED FROM START OF
MAINTENANCE PERIOD AGAINST DEFECTS INCLUDING DEATH AND
UNSATISFACTORY GROWTH. PROVIDE OWNER WITH WRITTEN
INSTRUCTIONS OUTLINING MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES TO BE ADOPTED IN
ORDER TO PROTECT GUARANTEE. INCLUDE WATERING SCHEDULE AND
FERTILIZER PROGRAM.
23.
INSTALL ALL SIDEWALKS PER A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS.
LANDSCAPE GENERAL NOTES :
24.
FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITIES BEFORE PLANTING TREES.
25.
A COUNTY DUST CONTROL PERMIT IS REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
RETAIN THIS PERMIT.
26.
ALL PLANT MATERIAL BETWEEN 3'-0" AND 10'-0" IN HEIGHT, WITHIN A SIGHT
VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, SHALL NOT EXCEED 1'-0" IN IT'S GREATEST
CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION PER CITY OF PHOENIX CODE, CHAPTER 31 -
SECTION 13.
27.
THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON THIS PROJECT.
28.
A 3' CLEARANCE AROUND ALL EDGES OF ALL TRANSFORMER PADS AND A
CLEAR OPERATIONAL AREA THAT EXTENDS 12 FEET IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT
OF ALL TRANSFORMERS IS TO BE MAINTAINED. REFER TO THE UTILITY
COMPANIES' DETAILS.
29.
A MINIMUM OF THREE FOOT (3') ACCESS TO AND CLEARANCE AROUND ALL
FIRE HYDRANTS PER MAG STANDARD DETAIL 362 IS TO BE MAINTAINED. A 3'
CLEARANCE FROM PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR FDCs.
1.
CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN PERMITS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES AND UTILITY
COMPANIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS SITE.
2.
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR
TO ANY INSTALLATION.
3.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT
NECESSARY TO INSTALL THE WORK INDICATED ON THE LANDSCAPE
DOCUMENTS. HE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CAREFUL SITE INSPECTION,
DETAILED REVIEW OF THE PLANS, AND
COORDINATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS ON-SITE PRIOR TO ANY
INSTALLATION. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
4.
PRIOR TO INITIATING THESE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR MUST SCHEDULE A PRE- CONSTRUCTION MEETING ON-SITE WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND/OR THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MUST BE PRESENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO RESOLVE ANY
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THESE LANDSCAPE
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE IMPACT THE INSTALLATION OF
ANY OF THESE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. THIS FIRST MEETING SHOULD BE
SCHEDULED TO OCCUR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING: ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, MASS GRADING,
AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
1.
INSTALLATION AND SURETY. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION, AS APPLICABLE. A SITE
INSPECTION MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION TO VERIFY PROPER INSTALLATION.
IT IS THE OWNER'S (OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE'S) RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGE AN
INSPECTION APPOINTMENT WITH THE PLANNING DIVISION. A SURETY BOND, CASH DEPOSIT OR
ASSURED LETTER OF CREDIT IN AN AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE THE INSTALLATION OF THE
LANDSCAPING WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION MAY BE PERMITTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE IN LIEU OF IMMEDIATE INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. THE
ALLOWABLE INSTALLATION PERIOD WILL NOT BE EXTENDED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION.
2.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE REASONABLY MAINTAINED AND ANY DEAD
PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPLACED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. MAINTENANCE
SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO REMOVAL OF DEBRIS, PRUNING, TRIMMING, WATERING OR
OTHER REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE AN ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
MAINTENANCE MUST ENSURE THAT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE
OBSTRUCTED BY ANY OF THE VEGETATION.
3.
OVERHEAD WIRES. UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD WIRES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH VOL. II, § 1-8-6(N).
4.
PLANTERS, PLANTING POTS AND RAISED PLANTERS. LANDSCAPE PLANTERS, PLANTING POTS
AND/OR RAISED PLANTERS SHALL BE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY(S), ALONG WALKWAYS, AND WITHIN PARKING AREAS, AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR. THE LANDSCAPE PLANTERS, AND/OR FLOWER BOXES SHALL BE APPROPRIATELY
SIZED AND ACCOMMODATE A MINIMUM OF TWO 5 GALLON SHRUBS PER 20 FEET OF PROPERTY
FRONTAGE.
5.
GROUNDCOVER. THE STREET FRONTAGE PLANTING STRIP SHALL INCLUDE VEGETATIVE GROUND
COVER (1-GALLON MIN) AND BE COVERED WITH INORGANIC MULCH SUCH AS CRUSHED
DECORATIVE ROCK, RIVER RUN AND/OR BOULDERS. AN IMPERVIOUS WEED BARRIER OR
PRE-EMERGENT CHEMICAL TREATMENT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE BARE GROUND PRIOR TO THE
PLACEMENT OF INORGANIC GROUND COVER MATERIALS.
6.
PLANTING STRIP. REQUIRED TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN A 10 FOOT WIDE
PLANTING STRIP ADJACENT TO AND PARALLEL WITH THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. NO TREES OR
SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
7.
RETENTION BASIN LANDSCAPING. RETENTION BASINS SHALL BE LANDSCAPED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH EXCEPTED ENGINEERING STANDARDS TO MANAGE EROSION.
8.
IRRIGATION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE SERVICED WITH A PERMANENT UNDERGROUND
AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGNED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE "MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR
LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION" BY THE ARIZONA CHAPTER, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF IRRIGATION
CONSULTANTS, WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE.
9.
CURBING. IN ORDER TO CONTROL STORM WATER FLOWS AND MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO PLANTINGS BY
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO VEHICULAR PARKING AND ACCESS
AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY 6 INCH VERTICAL CONCRETE CURBING, ANCHORED WHEEL STOP,
DECORATIVE BOLLARDS OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE.
10.
DESERT PLANTS. ALL TREES AND PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT
RECOMMENDED LOW WATER USING PLANT LIST OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA. FURTHERMORE, LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL
COMPLY WITH VOL. II, § 1-8-13 OF THIS CHAPTER. LIMITED TURF AREAS MAY BE ALLOWED FOR
ACCENT AREAS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE.
11.
INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED WITHIN THE SITE TRIANGLE AT
ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3 FEET IN HEIGHT AT MATURITY.
12.
LANDSCAPING IN UTILITY EASEMENTS. LANDSCAPING PLANTED IN UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY UTILITY COMPANY POLICY.
13.
IN NO CASE SHALL NEW UTILITY SERVICE EXTENSIONS FROM EXISTING SERVICE/TRANSMISSION
LINES TO A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT BE
EXEMPTED FROM THE UNDERGROUNDING REQUIREMENT. (PER ORD. 1402, PASSED 5-6-2014; ORD.
1545, PASSED 4-2-2024)
APACHE JUNCTION LANDSCAPE NOTES :
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
PLP-00
PG 1 OF 6
COVER SHEET, NOTES, LEGENDS, QTYS
PLP-01
PG 2 OF 6
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN - SOUTH
PLP-02
PG 3 OF 6
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN - NORTH
PLP-03 PG 4 OF 6 PRELIM. POOL ENLARGEMENT
PLP-04 PG 5 OF 6 PRELIM PLAYGROUND ENLARGEMENT
PLP-05
PG 6 OF 6
PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
SHEET INDEX:
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
PLP-02
PLP-01
KEY MAP:
n.t.s.
n.t.s.
ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING
THOSE LOCATED IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, SHALL
BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY, NEAT, CLEAN, AND
WEED-FREE CONDITION. AMERICAN NATIONAL
STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI) A300 STANDARD
PRACTICES FOR PRUNING, SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AND
SAFETY SHALL BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE
CRITERIA. THIS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE PROPERTY OWNER.
PROPOSED USE:
MF
APN
101-13-108D
GROSS AREA:
7.3 AC
NET AREA:
6.69 AC
ARCH:
84,633 SF BLDG S.F. (w/ 146 UNITS)
DENSITY:
22.0 DU/AC
LOT COVERAGE:
72,025 SF ARCH
(25%)
LANDSCAPE AREA:
~ 93,460 SF
32%
PAVEMENT AREA:
~ 121,323 SF
41%
ARCH FOOTPRINT AREA:
~ 72,025 SF
25%
USABLE OPEN SPACE
~ 16,090 SF
35%
PARKING PROVIDED: 290 SPACES
(2.0 SP/DU)
(278 OPEN SPACES & 12 ADA COMPLIANT SPACES)
(146 COVERED SPOTS)
BIKE PARKING REQUIRED: 32 (32 PROVIDED)
SITE PLAN DATA:
STREET FRONTAGE CALCS:
VIRGINIA ST = 348 LF, RQD TREES@ 30' O.C. = 13, PROVIDED = 14
RENNICK DR = 816 LF, RQD TREES@ 30' O.C. = 27, PROVIDED = 27
REQD OPEN SPACE LS CALCS = 1 TREE & 5 SHRUBS PER 1K S.F.
OPEN SPACE LIVE COVERAGE MIN. REQD = 50%, PROVIDED =59%
A R E A S :
·
TOTAL TURF AREA:
1,111 S.F. (.025 AC)
·
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA:
93,460 S.F. (w/ turf) (2.14 AC)
·
POOL AMENITY SPACE AREA:
7,283 S.F. (includes pool)
·
PLAYGROUND AMENITY SPACE:
1,408 S.F.
USABLE OPEN SPACE
103,262 S.F. (2.37 AC)
LANDSCAPE DATA:
NOTE: ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO MEET MIN. ANA STANDARDS.
22
P O O L
REF.ICE
OPEN SPACE (living grass)
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
20'
R.O.W.
20'
R.O.W.
6' CONC SIDEWALK
RB
FH
FH
FH
RB
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
BLDG 3
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 4
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
CLUBHOUSE &
LEASING
LIMIT OF WORK
RB
RB
RB
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE W/ RIP-RAP (ref civil)
6' PERIMETER
FENCE
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK
UG RETENTION STORAGE (ref civil)
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
CORN-HOLE ENTERTAINMENT FEATURE
2X2' CMU COLUMN W/ CAP (typ)
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE (typ)
PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE
BOULDER GROUPING
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE W/ RIP-RAP (ref civil)
STREET LIGHT
BOULDER
GROUPING
6' PEDESTRIAN
SIDEWALK
BIKE
PARKING
PED GATE
AUTOMATED VEHICULAR GATE
UG DRAINAGE
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY
CURB & GUTTER (ref civil)
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
BIKE PARKING
CORN-HOLE ENTERTAINMENT FEATURE
2X2' CMU COLUMN W/ CAP (typ)
LANDSCAPE OPENING
BBQ / OUTDOOR KITCHEN AMENITY
CONCRETE
POTS (typ)
2'X2' COLUMN (typ)
DRAIN INLET (typ)
S.V.T.
S.V.T.
CALL BOX
6' BENCH
REFUSE
PET
STATION
6" CONC. HEADER
2'X2' CMU COLUMN (typ)
6' HIGH SECURITY
FENCE (typ)
UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE PIPE
(ref civil plans)(typ)
BIKE PARKING
BIKE PARKING
T U R F
UG RETENTION
(ref civil)
BIKE PARKING
BIKE PARKING
DRAIN
INLET
ADA COMPLIANT RAMPS (typ)
TRASH ENCLOSURE
TRASH ENCLOSURES
6' MIN. HEIGHT
PERIMETER FENCE
6' MIN. HEIGHT
PERIMETER FENCE
POOL GATE(self closing &
latching w/ fob access)
ENTRY WALK TO TOT
PLAYGROUND AREA
SWING SET
ANCHORED
BENCHES X 2
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
SOFT SURFACE
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
6' PEDESTRIAN
SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK
26'
26'
26'
26'
COVERED PARKING
COVERED PARKING
COVERED PARKING
20'
20'
55'
26'
5' SIDEWALK
6'
9' typ
18' typ
18'
11'
9'
6' PEDESTRIAN WALK
FF&E BY OWNER
FF&E BY OWNER
ADA PAR
LANDSCAPE PLANTER
POOL GATE(self closing &
latching w/ fob access)
6' W.I. POOL FENCE
w/ SELF CLOSING &
LATCHING GATE
BIKE PKG
4' LANDSCAPE STRIP
R E N N I C K D R I V E
d e c k
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
e n t r y
L
L
t u r f
t u r f
e n t r y
e n t r y
L
L
PL
L
e n t r y
s p a
LS
L
e n t r y
L
e n t r y
e n t r y
ADA PARKING &
PATHWAY (typ)
SYMBOL
BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ACACIA ANEURA
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
MULGA
CAESALPINIA MEXICANA
24" BOX, 1" CAL MIN
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
DESERT WILLOW
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
24" BOX HIGH BREAK MULTI 1.75" CAL
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
PISTACIA X 'RED PUSH'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
RED PUSH PISTACHE
PROSOPIS X `PHOENIX` TM
36" BOX MULTI, 2 CAL MIN
HYBRID MESQUITE
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'MILLENIUM'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
PALM TREES
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
18 TRUNK FEET, MATCHING SKINNED
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
SHRUBS
BOUGAINVILLEA X 'LA JOLLA'
LA JOLLA BOUGAINVILLEA
ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII
GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS
EREMOPHILA HYGROPHANA 'BLUE
BELLS'
BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH
EREMOPHILA MACULATA `VALENTINE`
VALENTINE BUSH
EUPHORBIA LOMELII
LADY'S SLIPPER
JUSTICIA SPICIGERA
MEXICAN HONEYSUCKLE
LEUCOPHYLLUM LANGMANIAE 'RIO
BRAVO'
RIO BRAVO LANGMAN'S SAGE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'REPENS'
CREEPING ROSEMARY
RUELLIA BRITTONIANA
MEXICAN PETUNIA
RUELLIA PENINSULARIS
DESERT RUELLIA
TECOMA X `ORANGE JUBILEE`
ORANGE JUBILEE YELLOW BELLS
CACTUS
OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA
SANTA RITA PRICKLYPEAR
GROUNDCOVER
EREMOPHILA GLABRA `MINGENEW
GOLD`
OUTBACK SUNRISE EMU
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
TRAILING LANTANA
SUCCULENTS
AGAVE GEMINIFLORA
TWIN FLOWERED AGAVE
AGAVE VICTORIAE-REGINAE
QUEEN VICTORIA AGAVE
ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE
HESPERALOE FUNIFERA
GIANT HESPERALOE
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA `PERPA` TM
BRAKELIGHTS RED YUCCA
YUCCA PALLIDA
PALE LEAF YUCCA
YUCCA RUPICOLA
TWISTED LEAF YUCCA
TOPDRESS & INERT MATERIAL
DECOMPOSED GRANITE - 2" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3/4" SCREENED
COLOR: T.B.D.
BOULDERS - SURFACE SELECT
SIZE: 3X3', 2X2' 50/50 MIX
(SAME VENDOR AS DECOMPOSED GRANITE)
RB INDICATES ROOT BARRIER (AT ANY TREE TRUNK W/IN 6' OF U.G. UTILITY)
RIP-RAP / FRACTURED GRANITE - 3" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3" - 6" SCREENED
COLOR: TO MATCH D.G.
CYNODON DACTYLON `MIDIRON`
MIDIRON BERMUDAGRASS
LANDSCAPE
PLAN - SOUTH
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET PLP-02
PLP-01
2 of 6
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
NORTH
0
20
10
40
SCALE 1" = 20'
(REF PLP-03)
enlargement
(REF PLP-04)
enlargement
L A N D S C A P E P L A N
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
20'
R.O.W.
6' SIDEWALK
6'
6'
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
FH
FH
FH
FH
RB
RB
4' LS STRIP
5' SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK
NOT-A-PART
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
BLDG 5
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 6
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
LIMIT OF WORK
25'
4' LS
Strip
ADA PARKING (TYP)
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
DRAIN INLET
6' PERIMETER FENCE
2'X2' CMU COLUMN
AUTOMATED FIRE &
VEHICULAR EXIT GATE (secondary)
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION TO
VIRGINIA AND PED GATE
ADA COMPLIANT RAMPS (typ)
UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE (ref civil)
6' PEDESTRIAN WALK
PED SIDEWALK
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
BIKE PARKING
S.V.T.
STEEL EDGE
BOULDER GROUPING
STEEL EDGE
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE (ref civil)
UNDERGROUND
DRAINAGE (ref civil)
2'X2' CMU COLUMN
UNDERGROUND
DRAINAGE (ref civil)
DRAIN INLET
UG DRAINAGE
2'X2' CMU COLUMN
w/ VINE ESPALIER
BIKE PARKING
BIKE PARKING
UG RETENTION
CATCH BASIN
DRAIN INLET
TRASH ENCLOSURE W/ SCREENING (typ)
6' MIN. HEIGHT
PERIMETER FENCE
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
56'
23'
LANDSCAPE LIMIT-OF-WORK
26'
FIRE/
EXIT
ONLY
26'
26'
26'
26'
9' typ
18' typ
18'
11'
COVERED PARKING (typ)
COVERED PARKING (typ)
COVERED
PARKING
RB
RB
FH
UTILITY
RB
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY (typ)
STREET LIGHT
FRACTURED GRANITE @ CORNER
FRACTURED GRANITE @ CORNER
4' LANDSCAPE STRIP
4' LANDSCAPE STRIP
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION TO
VIRGINIA AND PED GATE
R E N N I C K D R I V E
V I R G I N I A S T R E E T
P
T
P
P
P
P
P
L
L
e n t r y
L
e n t r y
e n t r y
L
L
L
e n t r y
SYMBOL
BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
TREES
ACACIA ANEURA
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
MULGA
CAESALPINIA MEXICANA
24" BOX, 1" CAL MIN
MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS
36" BOX, 2" CAL MIN
DESERT WILLOW
PARKINSONIA X `DESERT MUSEUM`
24" BOX HIGH BREAK MULTI 1.75" CAL
DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
PISTACIA X 'RED PUSH'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
RED PUSH PISTACHE
PROSOPIS X `PHOENIX` TM
36" BOX MULTI, 2 CAL MIN
HYBRID MESQUITE
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 'MILLENIUM'
24" BOX, 1.75" CAL MIN
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
PALM TREES
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
18 TRUNK FEET, MATCHING SKINNED
CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
SHRUBS
BOUGAINVILLEA X 'LA JOLLA'
LA JOLLA BOUGAINVILLEA
ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII
GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS
EREMOPHILA HYGROPHANA 'BLUE
BELLS'
BLUE BELLS EMU BUSH
EREMOPHILA MACULATA `VALENTINE`
VALENTINE BUSH
EUPHORBIA LOMELII
LADY'S SLIPPER
JUSTICIA SPICIGERA
MEXICAN HONEYSUCKLE
LEUCOPHYLLUM LANGMANIAE 'RIO
BRAVO'
RIO BRAVO LANGMAN'S SAGE
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'REPENS'
CREEPING ROSEMARY
RUELLIA BRITTONIANA
MEXICAN PETUNIA
RUELLIA PENINSULARIS
DESERT RUELLIA
TECOMA X `ORANGE JUBILEE`
ORANGE JUBILEE YELLOW BELLS
CACTUS
OPUNTIA SANTA-RITA
SANTA RITA PRICKLYPEAR
GROUNDCOVER
EREMOPHILA GLABRA `MINGENEW
GOLD`
OUTBACK SUNRISE EMU
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS
TRAILING LANTANA
SUCCULENTS
AGAVE GEMINIFLORA
TWIN FLOWERED AGAVE
AGAVE VICTORIAE-REGINAE
QUEEN VICTORIA AGAVE
ALOE X `BLUE ELF`
BLUE ELF ALOE
HESPERALOE FUNIFERA
GIANT HESPERALOE
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA `PERPA` TM
BRAKELIGHTS RED YUCCA
YUCCA PALLIDA
PALE LEAF YUCCA
YUCCA RUPICOLA
TWISTED LEAF YUCCA
TOPDRESS & INERT MATERIAL
DECOMPOSED GRANITE - 2" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3/4" SCREENED
COLOR: T.B.D.
BOULDERS - SURFACE SELECT
SIZE: 3X3', 2X2' 50/50 MIX
(SAME VENDOR AS DECOMPOSED GRANITE)
RB INDICATES ROOT BARRIER (AT ANY TREE TRUNK W/IN 6' OF U.G. UTILITY)
RIP-RAP / FRACTURED GRANITE - 3" MIN. DEPTH
SIZE: 3" - 6" SCREENED
COLOR: TO MATCH D.G.
CYNODON DACTYLON `MIDIRON`
MIDIRON BERMUDAGRASS
SWING SET
ANCHORED
BENCHES X 2
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
SOFT SURFACE
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
23'
BIKE PKG
e n t r y
LANDSCAPE
PLAN - NORTH
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET PLP-01
PLP-02
3 of 6
NORTH
0
20
10
40
SCALE 1" = 20'
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
PLAYGROUND
EMENITY SPACE
MATCHLINE - SEE PLP-01
(REF PLP-04)
enlargement
L A N D S C A P E P L A N
P O O L
REF.ICE
OPEN SPACE (living grass)
FH
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
NOT-A-PART (n.i.c.)
BLDG 3
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
CLUBHOUSE &
LEASING
19.4'
33.6'
20'
40'
22.4'
24'
4.9'
92'
75'
8'
8'
20.5'
14.8'
6' PERIMETER
FENCE
CORN-HOLE ENTERTAINMENT FEATURE
2X2' CMU COLUMN W/ CAP (typ)
BIKE
PARKING
PED GATE
AUTOMATED VEHICULAR GATE
BIKE PARKING
CORN-HOLE ENTERTAINMENT FEATURE
2X2' CMU COLUMN W/ CAP (typ)
BBQ / OUTDOOR KITCHEN AMENITY
CONCRETE
POTS (typ)
2'X2' COLUMN (typ)
6' BENCH
REFUSE
PET
STATION
6" CONC. HEADER
2'X2' CMU COLUMN (typ)
T U R F
DRAIN
INLET
6' MIN. HEIGHT
PERIMETER FENCE
POOL GATE(self closing &
latching w/ fob access)
26'
FF&E BY OWNER
FF&E BY OWNER
LANDSCAPE PLANTER
POOL GATE(self closing &
latching w/ fob access)
6' W.I. POOL FENCE
w/ SELF CLOSING &
LATCHING GATE
ADA PARKING &
PATHWAY (typ)
P O O L
REF.ICE
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
BLDG 3
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 4
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
BLDG 5
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 6
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
CLUBHOUSE &
LEASING
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
4 of 6
PLP-03
AMENITY / POOL
INTENT EXHIBIT
NORTH
0
10
5
20
SCALE 1" = 10'
SUBJECT AREA
AMENITY AREA / POOL INTENT ENLARGEMENT
RB
RB
RB
RB
RB
20'
R.O.W.
6' CONC SIDEWALK
RB
ADA PARKING & PATHWAY
6' HIGH SECURITY
FENCE (typ)
2'X2' CMU COLUMN
w/ VINE ESPALIER
BIKE PARKING
ENTRY WALK TO TOT
PLAYGROUND AREA
SWING SET
ANCHORED
BENCHES X 2
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
SOFT SURFACE
AT GRADE 6"
CONC HEADER
56'
23'
BIKE PKG
P
e n t r y
e n t r y
L
P O O L
REF.ICE
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
BLDG 3
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 4
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 1 40 PLEX
2-STORY BLDG
BLDG 5
12 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
BLDG 6
18 PLEX
3-STORY BLDG
CLUBHOUSE &
LEASING
R E N N I C K D R I V E
R E N N I C K D R I V E
V I R G I N I A S T R E E T
d e c k
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
e n t r y
L
L
L
L
e n t r y
L
t u r f
t u r f
e n t r y
e n t r y
e n t r y
e n t r y
L
L
L
L
PL
L
e n t r y
s p a
LS
L
e n t r y
e n t r y
e n t r y
e n t r y
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
5 of 6
PLP-04
PLAYGROUND
AMENITY EXHIBIT
PLAYGROUND AMENITY ENLARGEMENT
NORTH
0
10
5
20
SCALE 1" = 10'
SUBJECT AREA
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER DEVELOPER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEC of N. Rennick Dr. & W. Virginia St., Apache Junction, Arizona
HS/JJ
GR
JUNE 11, 2026
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE PKG
BANYAN APACHE JUNCTION MULTI FAMILY
901 EAST MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
P 602.254.9600
R
CONTACT: MAX FRIEDMAN
2801 E CAMELBACK RD
STE 450
PHOENIX AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@
BANYANRES.COM
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
(revised)
6 of 6
PLP-05
ELEVATIONS
6'-0"
ELEVATION
SEE PLAN
WALL BODY, 8"x8"x16" CMU BLOCK -
STUCCO FINISH PAINTED TO MATCH
ARCHITECTURE (COLOR TBD)
WALLCAP, 8"x4"x16" CMU BLOCK. SEE
MATERIAL SCHEDULE
FINISH GRADE
POOL FENCE, SEE DETAIL 2/LA-203
GROUT SOLID
REBAR - PER STRUCTURAL
TOPDRESS - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS
REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING
COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 95%
STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NOTES:
1.
ALL REINFORCEMENT AND CONNECTIONS TO BE APPROVED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2.
WATERPROOF ALL MASONRY SURFACES BELOW GRADE.
3.
ANY CMU BLOCK NOT EXPOSED, OR BELOW GRADE MAY BE A NON-DECORATIVE UNIT
4
1
2
3
CMU INTERIOR PERIMETER WALL
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
5'-9"
METAL PERIMETER FENCE
SELF-CLOSING, SELF-LATCHING
PEDESTRIAN GATE
CODE COMPLIANT, ELECTRONIC
KEY-FOB READER BY OWNER.
COORDINATE WITH ELEC FOR
POWER SUPPLY
2 STANDARD SELF CLOSING GATE
HINGES
BRUSHED ALUMINUM HANDLE;
PUSH BAR ON INTERIOR SIDE OF
GATE
FINISH GRADE
1
2
3
4
5
6
PEDESTRIAN GATE
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
5
1
3
2
4
6
3'-0"
1
2
3
4
5
6' PLASTIC-WOOD BENCH WITH
CAST ALUMINUM FRAME
SURFACE MOUNT
CONCRETE
1
2
3
6' BENCH
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
2'-6"
6'-0"
1
3
2
ELEVATION
DESIGN INTENT
STREETSIDE 5-LOOP BIKE
RACK WITH 7-BIKE CAPACITY;
POWDER COATED FINISH
(COLOR TBD)
SURFACE MOUNT
FINISH GRADE
1
2
3
STREETSIDE 5-LOOP BIKERACK
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
3'-0"
5'-6"
1
1'-3"
TYP.
2
3
ELEVATION
2"
O.D.
DESIGN
INTENT
6
7
CAST CONCRETE BAG TOSS
BOARD
HONED FINISH WITH TEXTURED
SIDES
SURFACE MOUNT
1
2
3
BAG TOSS GAME
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
1'-0"
3"
3"
9"
4'-1"
1'-0"
DESIGN INTENT
SIDE ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
1
2
3
32'
2
5
6'-0"
3
6' FOOT WROUGHT IRON VIEW
FENCE
6' TALL DUAL PANEL SLIDING
GATE ON SINGLE TRACK
ELECTRIC GATE MOTOR
1
2
3
SLIDING VEHICULAR GATE AT SOUTH ENTRANCE
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
1
SHADE STRUCTURE
BUILT-IN GRILL
STONE COUNTERTOP
TILE BACKSPLASH
SINK
1
2
3
4
5
OUTDOOR KITCHEN
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
ELEVATION
18'-8"
17'-0" O.C.
4
2
1
5
DESIGN INTENT
3
6/10/2026 1:36:28 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
COVER SHEET | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A00
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BUILDING A - RENNICK FACING PERSPECTIVE
1
BLDG A
3
BLDG C
2
BLDG A
LEASING
6
BLDG B
N
5
BLDG B
4
BLDG B
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH - MIN 24'-0" - TYP.
26'-0"
69'-0"
69'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 10'-10"
COVERED PARKING
N RENNICK DRIVE
WEST VIRGINIA STREET
39
28
20
28
31
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
64'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 28'-4"
99'-0"
349'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-7"
99'-0"
64'-0"
99'-0"
64'-0"
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
64'-0"
104'-0"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 62'-2"
92'-0"
44'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
15'-0"
DRIVE AISLE
18'-6"
349'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 38'-2"
LANDSCAPE ISLAND - 5'-0" MIN. TYP.
9'-0"
ADA PARKING AISLE WIDTH - TYP.
14'-0"
18'-0"
PARKING WIDTH - TYP.
9'-0"
6'-0"
5'-0" MIN. TYP.
5'-8"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 65'-10"
DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE
+/- 28'-2"
6/10/2026 1:36:28 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
1/32" = 1'-0"
2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SD
CONTACT INFORMATION
OWNER
BANYAN INTERESTS, LLC
2801 E CAMELBACK RD STE 450
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
240.620.6298
MFRIEDMAN@BANYANRES.COM
PLANNER/ARCHITECT
KEPHART
901 E MADISON STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
480.270.3031
ANDYN@KEPHART.COM
BASE INFORMATION
ZONING SUMMARY:
EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - RM2
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
PROPOSED DENSITY - 146 DWELLING UNITS / 6.69 NET ACRES = 22.0 DU/AC
TOTAL BUILDING SF:
BUILDING A (2x)
42,660 SF
1 BED
38
BUILDING B (3x)
18,921 SF
2 BED
48
BUILDING C (1x) 19,632 SF
3 BED
49
CLUBHOUSE
3,420 SF
4 BED
11
84,633 GROSS SF
146 TOTAL UNITS
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS:
FIRST FLOOR BUILDING A FOOTPRINT (2x)
21,570 SF
FIRST FLOOR BUILDING B FOOTPRINT (3x)
6,307 SF
FIRST FLOOR BUILDING C FOOTPRINT (1x)
6,544 SF
CLUBHOUSE FOOTPRINT
3,420 SF
TOTAL FOOTPRINT(MULTI-FAMILY AND CLUBHOUSE)
~72,025 SF (25.1%)
LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINT
~93,460 SF (32.6%)
PAVEMENT FOOTPRINT
~121,323 SF(42.3%)
OPEN SPACE LIVE COVERAGE:
* SEE LANDSCAPE PLP-00 FOR USABLE OPEN SPACE CALCULATION.
REQUIRED 50%
PROVIDED 59%
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 01 NORTH,
RANGE 08 EAST, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20,
THENCE SOUTH 1040.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE EAST
40.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 775.47 FEET, THENCE WEST 40.00 FEET,
THENCE SOUTH 92.74 FEET, THENCE WEST 310.25 FEET, THENCE NORTH
869.14 FEET, THENCE EAST 310.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
300,581 SQUARE FEET, 6.90 ACRES.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
TWO BUILDINGS WITH TWO LEVELS, FOUR BUILDINGS
WITH THREE LEVELS MULTI-FAMILY AND SURFACE PARKING,
DETACHED CLUBHOUSE.
DESIGN INTENT: THE BUILDING DESIGN INTENTS TO ELICIT
TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE SOUTHWEST, ARIZONA
SPECIFICALLY, AND APACHE JUNCTION IN PARTICULAR.
WE BEGAN BY CONDUCTING WHAT WE CALL A SITE STORY
CONSISTING OF A STUDY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ITS HISTORY, AND
THE VERNACULAR AND CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE FOUND
THERE. THE PROJECT DESIGN ADAPTS THE TRADITIONAL FORMS OF
APACHE JUNCTION (AND GENERALLY ARIZONA) IN A MODERN WAY,
UTILIZING THEM TO CREATE A 21ST CENTURY ARCHITECTURE.
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER ELEMENT: HOODED WINDOWS,
BATTERED WALLS, ARTICULATED PARAPETS, CELEBRATED
OVERFLOW SCUPPERS, HISTORIC AND TRADITIONAL DESERT
COLORS AND STUCCO FINISHES. THE DESIGN IS A TIMELESS AND
ULTIMATELY MODERN SOLUTION UTILIZING AN ADAPTATION OF
VERNACULAR DESERT ARCHITECTURE.
STRUCTURES:
BUILDING ENTRANCES - REFERENCE LEGEND OVERHANGS AND
CANOPIES - REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE ELEVATIONS
BUILDING HEIGHT:
2 STORIES: 27'-5 3/4" TO TOP OF PARAPET. (BUILDING A)
3 STORIES: 36'-3 5/8" TO TOP OF PARAPET. (BUILDING B) (BUILDING C)
CLUBHOUSE: 18'-1 1/8"
TRAFFIC / PARKING:
146
UNITS = 317 SPACES REQUIRED
MAX ALLOWED = N/A
SURFACE PARKING PROPOSED (9'X18')
OPEN
278
ACCESSIBLE 12
TOTAL
290 SPACES
COVERED
146
*COVERED SPACES PART OF OPEN PARKING COUNT.
BICYCLE PARKING
32 SPACES REQUIRED
32 SPACES PROVIDED
UTILITIES:
FOR LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES PLEASE SEE
CIVIL SHEETS UL04 AND UL05.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN INFORMATION
APARTMENTS
TOTAL SF
:
81,213 SF
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
:
TYPE V-A
PROPOSED SPRINKLERS
:
NFPA 13R
CLUBHOUSE
TOTAL SF
:
3,420 SF
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE
:
TYPE V-B
PROPOSED SPRINKLERS
:
NS
PRELIMINARY BUILDING INFORMATION
N RENNICK DR
W VIRGINIA ST
W APACHE TRL
N APACHE TRL
N THUNDERBIRD DR
W ROOSEVELT ST
N
PROJECT SITE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
RM-2 REQUIRED
PROVIDED
MAXIMUM DENSITY
MAXIMUM HEIGHT (MAIN STRUCTURE)
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK (MAIN)
MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK (MAIN)
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK (MAIN)
VEHICLE PARKING
22 UNITS/AC (NET)
22 UNITS/AC (NET)
40 FT
36'-3 5/8"
50%
25%
20 FT
+/- 38 FT
10 FT
10 FT
20 FT
+/- 62 FT
317 SPACES
290 SPACES
6/10/2026 1:36:28 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
SITE DATA | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A02
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
NTS
VICINITY MAP
22
DN
UP
UNIT D1
UNIT A1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT C1
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT D1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT B1
UNIT A1
STO/UTIL STO/UTIL
STO/UTIL STO/UTIL
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
1/4" / 12"
100'-0"
102'-0"
102'-0"
102'-0"
101'-6"
101'-6"
1/4" / 12"
1" / 12"
A
G
1
2
5
D
B
C
E
F
3
4
UNIT C2
STO/UTIL
17'-8"
17'-7 1/2"
17'-8"
8'-0"
7'-0"
6'-0"
11'-8"
11'-8"
11'-8"
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT B2
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
1/4" / 12"
H
J
N
K
L
M
6
7
8
9
10
17'-8"
UNIT B2
99'-6"
99'-6"
100'-0"
1/4" / 12"
P
Q
T
U
R
S
11
12
13
14
UNIT D2
UNIT A1
UNIT B2
UNIT C1
UNIT A1
UNIT B2
99'-6"
99'-6"
100'-0"
100'-0"
99'-6"
99'-6"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
6/10/2026 1:36:31 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
FLOOR PLANS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A03
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 BUILDING TYPE A - FLOOR PLAN TYP. - SD
1/16" = 1'-0"
2 BUILDING TYPE B - FLOOR PLAN TYP. - SD
STAMP
1/16" = 1'-0"
3 BUILDING TYPE C - FLOOR PLAN TYP. - SD
1R1S
1R1S
L
WH
W/D
DW
REF.
P
1R1S
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
L
1R1S
L
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
1R1S
1R1S
P
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
L
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
L
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
UNIT A1 PLAN
6/10/2026 1:36:32 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
UNIT PLANS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A04
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
UNIT B1 PLAN
UNIT B2 PLAN
UNIT C1 PLAN
STAMP
1R1S
1R1S
WH
W
D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
P
WH
W/D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
L
REF.
DW
L
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
W
D
1R1S
1R1S
1R1S
REF.
DW
UNIT C2 PLAN
UNIT D1 PLAN
UNIT D2 PLAN
6/10/2026 1:36:33 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
UNIT PLANS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A05
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
6/10/2026 1:36:43 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG A - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A06
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/16" = 1'-0"
3 INTERNAL ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 INTERNAL ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A, ENLARGED LEFT - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 INTERNAL ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A, ENLARGED RIGHT - SD
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
9,785 SF
1,938 SF 20%
7,847 SF 80%
3
0 SF
1
2
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
6/10/2026 1:36:53 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG A - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A07
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/16" = 1'-0"
3 STREET FACING ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 STREET FACING ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A, ENLARGED RIGHT - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 STREET FACING ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A, ENLARGED LEFT - SD
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
10,124 SF
2,043 SF 21%
8,081 SF 79%
3
0 SF
2
1
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG A - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET A1: 125'-3 3/4"
PARAPET A2: 127'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - MECH SCREEN: 131'-5 3/4"
BLDG A - T.O. ROOF: 122'-5 9/32"
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
6/10/2026 1:37:07 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG A - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A08
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 LEFT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 RIGHT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1
2
1,984 SF
216 SF
11%
1,768 SF 89%
0 SF
- RIGHT ELEVATION
1,981 SF
248 SF 13%
1,733 SF 87%
0 SF
BUILDING MATERIALS - LEFT ELEVATION
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
BLDG B - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET B: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
BLDG B - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG B - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET B: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
BLDG B - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
6/10/2026 1:37:13 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG B - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A09
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE B - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 LEFT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE B - SD
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1
2
- LEFT ELEVATION
4,009 SF
836 SF 21%
3,173 SF 79%
0 SF
BUILDING MATERIALS - FRONT ELEVATION
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
2,452 SF
90 SF 04%
1,890 SF 77%
472 SF
19%
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
BLDG B - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET B: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
BLDG B - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG B - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
PARAPET B: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
BLDG B - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG B - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 REAR ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE B - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 RIGHT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE B - SD
6/10/2026 1:37:18 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG B - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A10
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1
2
- RIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING MATERIALS - REAR ELEVATION
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
4,009 SF
836 SF 21%
3,173 SF 79%
0 SF
2,461 SF
180 SF 07%
1,809 SF 74%
472 SF
19%
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
BLDG C - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG C - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
PARAPET C: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG C - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
PARAPET C: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
6/10/2026 1:37:23 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG C - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A11
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1
2
- LEFT ELEVATION
4,009 SF
836 SF 21%
3,173 SF 79%
0 SF
BUILDING MATERIALS - FRONT ELEVATION
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
2,461 SF
180 SF 07%
2281 SF 93%
0 SF
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FRONT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE C - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 LEFT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE C - SD
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
BLDG C - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG C - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
PARAPET C: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1: 100'-0"
BLDG C - LEVEL 1 PLATE: 109'-1 1/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2: 110'-9 7/8"
BLDG C - LEVEL 2 PLATE: 119'-11"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3: 121'-7 3/4"
BLDG C - LEVEL 3 PLATE: 130'-8 7/8"
BLDG C - T.O. ROOF: 133'-2 7/8"
PARAPET C: 136'-3 5/8"
BLDG C - MECH. SCREEN: 140'-3 5/8"
6/10/2026 1:37:29 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
BLDG C - ELEVATIONS | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A12
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STAMP
4'
0'
8'
16'
32'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1
2
- RIGHT ELEVATION
BUILDING MATERIALS - REAR ELEVATION
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
4,317 SF
908 SF 21%
3,409 SF 79%
0 SF
2,461 SF
180 SF 07%
1,809 SF 74%
472 SF
19%
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 RIGHT ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE C - SD
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 REAR ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE C - SD
6/10/2026 1:37:29 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A13
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BUILDING B & C - INTERNAL SITE PERSPECTIVE
6/10/2026 1:37:43 PM
Autodesk Docs://225084_Banyan Apache Junction/225084_ApacheJunction_Apartments_Arch.rvt
ARCHITECTURAL EXHIBIT | 06/11/26 | KA# 225084
APACHE JUNCTION
A14
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
Zoning Group
Nick Wood, Esq
Attorney
Mike Maerowitz, Esq
Attorney
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP
Sr. Urban Planner
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
Maggie Dellow, AICP
Urban Planner
Simran Shah
Assistant Planner
Sarah Schiele
Planner Technician
Banyan- Rennick & Virginia
Formal Application
Ex. 6 Public Participation Plan & Report
Zoning Group
Nick Wood, Esq
Attorney
Mike Maerowitz, Esq
Attorney
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP
Sr. Urban Planner
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
Maggie Dellow, AICP
Urban Planner
Simran Shah
Assistant Planner
Sarah Schiele
Planner Technician
Banyan- Rennick & Virginia
Public Participation Plan
ALBUQUERQUE BOISE DALLAS DENVER LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES LOS CABOS ORANGE COUNTY
PHOENIX PORTLAND RENO SALT LAKE CITY SAN DIEGO SEATTLE TUCSON WASHINGTON, D.C.
Banyan- Rennick & Virginia
SEC W Virginia St & Rennick Dr.
Public Participation Plan
January 8, 2026
Prepared for:
Banyan Residential LLC
Max Friedman, Partner
2381 Rosecrans Ave Suite 425
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:
Snell & Wilmer LLP
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP, Senior Urban Planner
Simran B. Shah, Assistant Urban Planner
One East Washington Street, Suite 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 2
Index
Description
Page No.
A. Project Description…………………………………………………………………………………
3
B. Public Participation Process…………………………………………….…………………….
5
Pre Application Meeting………………………………………………………………….
5
Public Hearing Application……………………………………………………………...
5
Public Notification & Input……………………………………………………………...
5
Citizen Contact……………………………………………………………………………….
5
Staff & Public Comments………………………………………………………………...
5
C. Implementation of Public Participation Plan……………………………….………….
6
Public Notification Map………………………………………………………………….
6
Public Notification List……………………………………………………………………
6
Public Notification Notice……………………………………………………………….
6
D. Public Participation Final Report ……………………………………………………………
6
E. Site Posting…………………………………………………………………………………………….
6
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 3
A. Project Description:
This Public Participation Plan is being submitted on behalf of Banyan Residential LLC (“Banyan”), in
association with an application for an approximate 7 gross-acre property located at the southeast corner
of West Virginia Street and Rennick Drive in City of Apache Junction (the “City”), otherwise known as Pinal
County Assessor (“PCA”) Parcel No. 101-131-08D (the “Site”) (Image 1). The Site is currently zoned High
Density Multiple-Family Residential (“RM-2”) per the City’s Zoning Map (Image 2). The General Plan land-
use designation of the Site is Downtown Mixed Use (Image 3).
Consistent with the current zoning, Banyan proposes to develop the Site with a new multi-family
development, focused on “workforce” affordable rental rates. The proposed multifamily development
consists of a total of 152 residential apartment style units at a density of 22 du/ac based on the gross Site
area. Five (5) buildings are proposed with a mix of one bedroom, two bedroom, three-bedroom and four-
bedroom units, providing a mix of housing types to meet modern rental market needs. The buildings
themselves will be no greater than two stories at 27 feet in height (well below the 40 feet allowed in the
zone). The building on the southeast corner of the Site is the primary resident amenity area and includes
a management office, clubhouse, fitness area, pool and spa, cabanas, and barbecue areas.
Image 1: Aerial Map
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 4
Image 2: Zoning Map
Image 3: General Plan Designation Map
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 5
B. Public Participation Process:
1. Pre-Application Meeting: On Tuesday November 25th Banyan met with Nicholas Leftwhich
the Senior Planner at City of Apache Junction Development Services for the Pre Application
meeting to discuss the Site and the initial review comments issued by the Planning staff.
2. Public Hearing Application: The City of Apache Junction notifies all property owners within
300 feet of the Site with a notification letter and posts a publication in newspaper throughout
the City. The development team posts a public hearing sign on the Site. The City has not
scheduled a public hearing date at this time, and the development team will update this public
participation plan upon formal submittal.
3. Public Notification & Input: A public notification was mailed out on December 23, 2025,
informing of the application and providing details for an in-person neighborhood meeting.
Recipients of the letter and any other interested parties are invited to attend the meeting,
where they may share their feedback on the project and ask any questions. See Section C of
this plan.
The notification list consists of property owners within 400 feet of the Site. Communication
with these parties will remain ongoing throughout the process and will occur through verbal,
written, and electronic correspondence. Additionally, Snell & Wilmer LLP has made
themselves available to the public via phone and email and will meet with members of the
public individually upon request.
The neighborhood meeting was held at:
Date: January 7, 2026
Time: 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Location: Multi-Gen Center, Multi-Purpose Room B114
1035 N. Idaho Road, Apache Junction, AZ 85119
4. Citizen Contact: At this time, we have not received any written public input (emails or letters)
or any telephonic correspondence regarding this application. Any correspondence received
from neighboring property owners will be made part of the case file. Please see Exhibit D for
a summary of the neighborhood meeting.
5. Staff & Public Comments: At this time, no staff comments have been issued and no public
comments have been received. Banyan remains sensitive to the importance of neighborhood
involvement and to building relationships with property owners, residents, business owners,
and other interested parties. Although the City’s mandatory notification area is 300 feet, we
have notified property owners within 400 feet in order to gather additional feedback and help
make this project successful. The applicant will continue to be responsive to all individuals
and will make a diligent effort to address comments expressed by interested parties. The
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 6
applicant will remain available to the public via phone and email and will meet with the public
individually upon request.
C. Implementation of Public Participation Plan:
1. Public Notification Map: Exhibit A identifies the Public Notification Map of the properties
located within 400 feet of the Site that received notification for the first neighborhood
meeting.
2. Public Notification List: Exhibit B identifies all property owners located within 400 feet of the
Site who received notification for the first neighborhood meeting.
3. Public Notice: Please see Exhibit C.
4. Neighborhood meeting: Please see Exhibit D for a summary of the neighborhood meeting.
D. Public Participation Final Report:
Additional information such as the following will be provided with the formal submittal:
1. Dates and locations of all meetings where citizens were invited to discuss the proposal.
2. Content, dates mailed, and number of mailings, including examples of letters, meeting
notices, newsletters, and other publications.
3. The location of residents, property owners, and interested parties receiving notices,
newsletters, or other publications.
4. The number of people that participated in the process.
5. Summary of concerns, issues, and problems expressed during the process including the
substance of the concerns, issues, and problems and how the concerns were addressed or
resolved.
E. Site Posting:
The applicant is responsible for the sign posting, not less than 15 days prior to the first public
hearing date, a sign on the subject property providing notice of the nature of request, date, time, and
place of the scheduled hearing. The size, format, placement, and procedure shall be described by the
Development Services Department.
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 7
Exhibit A
Notification Map
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 8
Exhibit B
Notification List
D V ARNOLD REALTY LLC
PO BOX 807
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85117-7402
ERNST JACK
26439 BELL ARBOR RD
WEST HARRISON , IN 47060-0885
BAGBY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC
34554 N BELL RD
SAN TAN VALLEY , AZ 85142-2881
ERNST JACK
26439 BELL ARBOR RD
WEST HARRISON , IN 47060-0885
LUKE & SARAH INVESTMENTS LLC 2
9842 E EL PASO ST
MESA , AZ 85207-7535
PARRA JESUS CAMPOS
300 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
CASTELAN NOE PAREDES
289 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120--544
BREIT SKYHAVEN MHC LLC
800 W APACHE TRL 1
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-8512
RYAN JERRY
322 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
PETE DAVID EDWARD & HICKEY
BREANNE ELISA TRS
325 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120--544
MAHONEY MATTHEW & PAULA
10421 E EMELITA AVE
MESA , AZ 85208-8725
OROURKE COLLEEN & ZINKIEWITZ
RICHARD
347 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0544
SOULLIERE MATTHEW L
384 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
GRAY GHOST HOLDINGS LLC
411 S HONEYSUCKLE LN
GILBERT , AZ 85296-6230
MIERNICKI-NOJUNAS JENNIFER &
NOJUNAS MATTHEW
406 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
ASTON DAISY & COREY
407 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120--542
SWANTY DUSTIN & PULSIFER NICKOLE
440 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
ANDERSON DOUG C & ERICA J
435 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0542
FITCH SHERRI LYN
466 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120--542
LODICE TIMOTHY P TR
590 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
EISENTRAUT ARNE L
980 W VIRGINIA ST
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0543
HARTWIG ELIZABETH F
519 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0543
SAN MARCOS 24 LLC
PO BOX 628
GILBERT , AZ 85299-9062
WILSON L ONEAL
503 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
TJND HOLDINGS LLC
8220 E PALM LN
MESA , AZ 85207-7971
MAYNARD MICHAEL K & STEPHANIE E
535 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0543
SAN MARCOS 24 LLC
PO BOX 628
GILBERT , AZ 85299-9062
MUNCY ANTHONY & CASSANDRA
527 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
TIMOTHY PAUL LODICE FAMILY TRUST
590 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
WEIGELT KLAUS-DIETER
555 N THUNDERBIRD DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0543
SAN MARCOS 24 LLC
PO BOX 628
GILBERT , AZ 85299-9062
LODICE TIMOTHY P TR
590 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
LODICE TIMOTHY P TR
590 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0541
SAN MARCOS 24 LLC
PO BOX 628
GILBERT , AZ 85299-9062
SILL LUCINDA S TRUST
MAIL RETURN
, -
LOST DUTCHMAN OWNER LLC
17W220 22ND ST STE 220
OAKBROOK TERRACE , IL 60181-1447
, -
POGUE TAYLOR
110 N RENNICK DR
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0543
FRANCIS & SONS I LLC
16414 N 91ST ST STE 102
SCOTTSDALE , AZ 85260-0157
CVP-APACHE JUNCTION HOLDING LLC
2188 SW PARK PL
PORTLAND , OR 97205-5110
PRESTIGE PARTNERS LLC
3100 W RAY RD STE 101
CHANDLER , AZ 85226-6247
DUAL ALPHA PROPERTIES LLC
MAIL RETURN
, -
D V ARNOLD REALTY LLC
870 W APACHE TRL
APACHE JUNCTION , AZ 85120-0540
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 9
Exhibit C
Notice Letter
Snell & Wilmer | One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004
SWLAW.COM
Michael T. Maerowitz
Partner
O 602.382.6494
mmaerowitz@swlaw.com
December 23, 2025
Re: Condition Modification (Zoning Amendment) Notification for the Site Located at the Southeast
Corner of West Virginia Street and Rennick Drive
Dear Property Owner/ Resident,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, on behalf of Banyan Residential LLC (“Banyan”), we have
recently filed a condition modification request (the “Application”) with the City of Apache Junction for the
approximately 7-acre property located at the southeast corner of West Virginia Street and Rennick Drive
(Exhibit A), otherwise known as Pinal County Assessor Parcel No. 101-131-08D (the “Site”).
The Site, which is currently vacant, was previously zoned RM-2 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential)
and B-2 (Old West Commercial) via Zoning Case P-22-29-PZ approved by the City Council in September of
2022 by Ordinance No. 1526 (the “Approved Zoning Case”). The Approved Zoning Case was subject to ten
(10) conditions of approval. In order to now accommodate Banyan’s proposed multi-family development
of the Site, the purpose of the Application is to modify approval condition #1 and to remove approval
conditions #8 and #9 attached to the Approve Zoning Case, more specifically identified as follows:
Approval Condition #1: “The project shall be developed in accordance with the plans approved and
associated with case P-22-29-PZ and all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and city codes
applicable to this case.”
Banyan is proposing to modify this condition to allow for a redesign of the site plan associated
with the Approved Zoning Case in order to increase usable open space and improve overall Site
functionality.
Approval Condition #8: “Parcels 101-13-1080 and 101-11-0210 shall be combined through the
city’s lot combination process.”
Approval Condition #9: “The south 76’ of Parcel No. 101-13-1080, which shall be rezoned to B-2
“Old West Commercial,” shall be split off through a minor land division.”
These conditions have since been fully satisfied and completed. They are therefore no longer
applicable to the Site.
We would like to invite you to a neighborhood meeting to discuss the Application and Banyan’s proposed
development of the Site with a multi-family development consisting of 152 new residential units (Exhibit
B).
We have scheduled the neighborhood meeting as follows:
December 23, 2025
Page 2
Neighborhood Meeting
Date:
Time:
Location:
Wednesday, January 7, 2026
6:00 p.m to 8:00 p.m.
Apache Junction Multi-Gen Center (Room B114)
1035 N Idaho Rd, Apache Junction, AZ 85119
Please feel free to contact me or Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP, Senior Urban Planner, at (602) 382-6824 or
via e-mail to ngriemsmann@swlaw.com should you have any questions regarding this proposal, wish to
express your thoughts, and/or request reasonable assistance with respect to this notice.
The City of Apache Junction Planner assigned to this case is Nicholas Leftwich. Mr. Leftwich can be reached
at (480)-474-8575 or via e-mail to planning@apachejunctionaz.gov . This planner can answer your
questions regarding the City review processes, as well as the staff position once their report is complete.
You may also make your opinions known on this case by writing to the City Planning and Zoning Division,
300 E Superstition Boulevard, Apache Junction, AZ 85119, referencing “Banyan- APN 101-131-08D”. Your
letter will be made part of the case file.
Please be advised that meetings and hearings before the City of Apache Junction Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the City Council, will be scheduled at a future date yet to be determined. You will receive
subsequent notice identifying the date and location of the meeting/hearings when they have been
scheduled.
Again, I would be happy to answer any questions or discuss any comments that you may have regarding
this proposal. Thank you for your attention to this letter.
Sincerely,
Snell & Wilmer
Michael T. Maerowitz
December 23, 2025
Page 3
Exhibit A
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 10
Exhibit D
Neighborhood meeting summary
A. Meeting Date and Location
The neighborhood meeting for Banyan’s formal application for the property located at the
southeast corner of Rennick & Virginia Street (the “Project”) was held on Wednesday, January 7,
2026, from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. The neighborhood meeting took place in-person at Multi-
Generational Center located at 1035 N Idaho Rd, approximately 0.6 miles from the Project site.
B. Notification
The notification letter (Exhibit A of the Public Participation Plan) for the neighborhood meeting
was mailed on December 23, 2025, via first-class mail to the property owners within 400 feet of
the Project site (as per the list generated by the Pinal County Assessor’s GIS system) (Exhibit B
of the Public Participation Plan). A total of forty (40) notice letters were mailed. Please note, there
were no registered neighborhood organizations within this area.
C. Notification Area Map (400 Foot Buffer Tool, Pinal County Assessor GIS)
D. Neighborhood Meeting
Nine (9) members of the development team staffed the neighborhood meeting. The meeting was
conducted as an informal presentation. Poster boards illustrating the Project were displayed around
the meeting room, allowing the attendees to review each board while a representative of Banyan
discussed the specifics of the Project. Attendees were encouraged to discuss project questions and
comments directly with the Banyan representative and members of the development team.
Six (6) members of the public signed in to attend the neighborhood meeting (Exhibit C of the
Public Participation Plan).
The meeting attendees expressed excitement and enthusiasm for the proposed multi-family
development proposed along Rennick & Virgina. Specifically, meeting attendees wanted to
discuss what type of tenants could be expected at the future development. Attendees expressed
interest in site layout, traffic and landscaping plans displayed. The development team explained
that the proposed development could expect the same level of quality tenants found at other
Banyan projects throughout the state. Attendees also expressed that the current vacant lot has been
a home to unauthorized occupancy and other activities that contribute to safety concerns in the
area, and they would welcome the Site being developed and taken care of.
Lastly, attendees inquired about the justification for proposing a new site plan rather than
proceeding with development under the previously approved site plan. The development team
explained that many elements of the approved Site Plan resulted in an overly fragmented
development pattern, duplication of utility connections and service lines, and additional
maintenance systems, which is inefficient from sustainability, maintenance, and cost standpoint.
Members of the development team stayed for a total of two (2) hours.
E. Summary
Six (6) members of the public participated in the neighborhood meeting for the Project. Attendees
expressed great enthusiasm and excitement for the Project, expressing that future development
would help bring in good families to the community, help develop a vacant lot which is currently
an unsafe space.
The applicant’s representative will continue to pursue public outreach efforts and will remain
responsive to adjacent property owners and interested individuals.
Page 1 of 4
April 23, 2026
Page 2 of 4
A. Project Community Outreach Update Summary
To further supplement our Public Participation Report dated January 8, 2026, Banyan
Residential, LLC (“Banyan”) has undertaken additional proactive and ongoing community
outreach effort for the proposed Banyan – Rennick & Virgina Development (the “Project”), with
a focus on direct engagement with immediately adjacent property owners and the surrounding
community. These outreach efforts have included (i) in-person meetings, (ii) follow-up
communication, and (iii) coordination of potential mitigation measures in response to
community feedback. The purpose of this Addendum is to provide an update on those efforts,
which will continue throughout the review and approval process.
B. Adjacent Property Owner Outreach (Rennick Drive)
Direct outreach has been conducted with the seven (7) properties located across Rennick
Drive from the Project site:
•
300 N. Rennick Dr
•
322 N. Rennick Dr
•
350 N. Rennick Dr
•
384 N. Rennick Dr
•
406 N. Rennick Dr
•
440 N. Rennick Dr
•
466 N. Rennick Dr
Summary of Engagement by Property
•
300 N. Rennick Dr
Category: General discussion / no formal requests
Initial discussion occurred. Resident expressed general understanding of the
development and interest in potential project-related opportunities. No specific
mitigation requests have been made to date.
•
322 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Limited engagement / no specific requests
Engagement has been limited at resident request due to personal circumstances. No
mitigation requests have been identified at this time.
•
350 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Requesting mitigation (landscaping, wall, screening)
Multiple discussions have occurred. Resident has requested enhanced landscaping, a
block wall, and screening measures to address privacy and visual buffering.
•
384 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Initial engagement / non-responsive to follow-up
Page 3 of 4
Initial contact was made; however, the resident has not responded to multiple follow-up
attempts and has not identified specific mitigation requests.
•
406 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Not home / non-responsive
Multiple outreach attempts have been made. Property appears intermittently
unoccupied, and no contact has been established to date.
•
440 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Requesting mitigation (security, wall, gate)
Constructive engagement has occurred. Resident has expressed concerns related to
security and privacy and is coordinating on potential block wall and landscaping buffer
improvements.
•
466 N. Rennick Dr
Category: Requesting mitigation (wall, gate, screening)
Engagement has occurred. Resident has expressed concerns regarding buffering and
security and is coordinating on potential wall, gate, and screening improvements.
Mitigation Measures Under Evaluation
In response to feedback received, Banyan has retained a contractor to evaluate potential
mitigation improvements in coordination with immediately adjacent property owners.
The measures under discussion are located on the adjacent homeowners’ properties and are
intended to provide screening and buffering between the existing residences and the proposed
development. These measures may include:
•
Installation of block walls along property frontages
•
Addition of rolling gates or access control features
•
Enhanced landscaping buffers, including tree height, density, and placement
•
Sightline screening strategies
Field measurements have been authorized at select properties, and the contractor is preparing
preliminary design concepts and cost estimates.
Banyan anticipates continuing coordination with adjacent property owners to review these
options and refine solutions based on individual preferences. The applicant is committed to
working collaboratively with residents to implement reasonable, site-specific screening and
privacy enhancements, where feasible.
Page 4 of 4
C. Broader Community and Business Outreach
In addition to adjacent property outreach, Banyan has engaged with members of the
surrounding community, including local businesses and workforce stakeholders.
Feedback from these discussions has been generally supportive, particularly with respect to:
•
The need for additional workforce housing opportunities in Apache Junction
•
The ability for local employees to live closer to their place of employment
•
The redevelopment of a currently vacant and underutilized site
•
The potential for increased local economic activity
As of the date of this report, Banyan has received 34 letters of support through its neighborhood
outreach efforts.
D. Conclusion
Banyan’s outreach efforts demonstrate a consistent and good-faith approach to community
engagement, including direct coordination with adjacent property owners and responsiveness to
site-specific concerns.
The applicant remains committed to continuing outreach, refining mitigation strategies, and
maintaining open communication with both neighboring residents and the broader community
as the project proceeds through the review process.
Public Participation Report
January 8, 2026
Page 11
Exhibit E
Sign-in Sheets
Outlook
Re: [External] Banyan – Apache Junction Apartments case (APN 101-131-08D)
From Matthew Mahoney <mattmahoney@ymail.com>
Date Tue 2/3/2026 5:48 PM
To
Nicholas Leftwich <nleftwich@apachejunctionaz.gov>
Cc
ngriemsmann@swlaw.com <ngriemsmann@swlaw.com>; mmaerowitz@swlaw.com <mmaerowitz@swlaw.com>
1 attachment (3 MB)
P-26-4-PZ-Traffic Statement.pdf;
DATE: February 3, 2026
RE: Banyan – Apache Junction Apartments (Case P-26-4-PZ) Formal Design & Traffic Comments for
Staff Report and Public Record
To: Nicholas Leftwich, City of Apache Junction Planner
CC: Michael T. Maerowitz / Noel J. Griessmann
Dear Mr. Leftwich,
Thank you for your detailed response regarding the Banyan project and for providing the Traffic Statement
summary. I appreciate the transparency and your confirmation that my previous comments have been added
to the file. After reviewing the traffic data and the updated project application (P-26-4-PZ), I would like to
update the public record with this letter to reflect my specific concerns regarding the proposed design and
the requested density increase.
As a resident directly adjacent to the western boundary of this project, I am formally requesting that
the City deny the increase in density from 18 DU/AC to 22 DU/AC unless the site plan is substantially
revised to protect the existing neighborhood.
I want to be clear: I am not anti-development, but poor design leads to substantial, permanent impacts. A
perfect example is the new car wash on Apache Trail between N. Rennick Road and Thunderbird Drive.
Because the exit—and the high-decibel dryers—were positioned to face the residential area rather than
Apache Trail, neighbors are now subjected to constant noise. I am writing to ensure we do not repeat such
design oversights with this project.
Based on the Traffic Statement (P-26-4-PZ) and the proposed site plan, I have the following concerns:
Misleading Traffic Impact: The developer’s report claims a "minimal" 4.3% impact by comparing
project traffic to Apache Trail. This is misleading. This project dumps 976 daily trips onto Rennick
Drive, which is a single-lane residential road with no centerline. Adding nearly 1,000 trips a day to a
single-lane frontage is a massive surge in volume, not a "minimal" one.
Infrastructure vs. Bottlenecks: While the developer may be required to add sidewalks and curbs,
these improvements do not change the width of the right-of-way. If the road is still effectively single-
lane for traffic flow, adding a sidewalk does not solve the bottleneck of 152 units' worth of cars trying
to exit in the morning.
Safety and Peak Hours: The report projects 50 vehicles exiting during the AM peak hour. Expecting
this volume to navigate a single-lane residential road—which currently lacks curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks—without a traffic light is a significant safety risk. I look forward to hearing from Public Works
as they assess this situation.
Request for Site Inversion: The previous developer’s site plan was much more sensitive to the
neighborhood. Since this new plan identifies Rennick Drive as the "Main Access," the city should
require the residential buildings (1 and 2) to be moved to the interior. Using the western edge for
parking or a single-story clubhouse would provide a necessary buffer for our single-story homes.
The developer is seeking a density increase for their own interest. The City should only grant this if the
design is modified to respect the "Local Street" reality of Rennick Drive and the privacy of the existing
neighborhood.
Please ensure this letter is added to the formal case file and provided to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council for their consideration.
Respectfully,
Matthew Mahoney
350 N. Rennick Drive
480-239-6057
mattmahoney@ymail.com
On Feb 3, 2026, at 12:56, Nicholas Leftwich <nleftwich@apachejunctionaz.gov> wrote:
Hello Mr. Mahoney, yes, I received your e-mail and have added it to the case file. We received the formal project
application (P-26-4-PZ) after the neighborhood meeting was held and you had seen the project, so the project and its
documents are actually still under review by staff at this time, but there is a traffic study summary available which I have
attached here. The findings are still under review for analysis by our city traffic engineer.
-The traffic statement provides a simplified Trip Generation table on page 3 (the fourth page including the cover sheet)
with the more detailed data being provided in Attachment C, the last page of this packet.
-The project has not yet been approved at the proposed development density of 22 dwelling units an acre (DU/AC),
which is up from the previously approved 18 DU/AC. The applicant, Banyan Residential, is a different developer, new to
the site, applying for a zoning amendment to the approved plans which limited the density to 18 DU/AC, rather than the
maximum allowable 22 DU/AC in the current "RM-2" "High Density Multiple Family Residential" zoning district. Whether
or not the actual development conditions will support the proposed increased density is still a matter under review.
Under the previous plan, and as would be required again of this new developer, the developer must improve both
Rennick and Virginia with improved street infrastructure (pavement, sidewalks, curbs, etc.), because the site does
currently lack the necessary level of street infrastructure, as you noted. Whether additional lanes are necessary, and the
exact design of the street improvements are items under review as Public Works assesses the level of service on Rennick
and Virginia. We understand that these are concerns shared by you and your neighbors, as traffic and the provision of
appropriate infrastructure were concerns expressed by the neighborhood at prior public hearings, and these noted
concerns (and any communications sent to us like your e-mail) will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council as part of the context and information in our report on the project.
-Regarding the planning rationale for the original rezoning, that was rooted in the General Plan Land Use Designation of
the property as approved by the city's 2020 General Plan, which included the property as part of the Downtown Mixed
Use area designated to facilitate commercial, mixed-use, and higher density residential growth opportunities. The
property is surrounded by a variety of zoning categories, with commercial to the south, the exact same "RM-2" High
Density Multi-Family Residential already being in place on San Marcos Drive to the north, and the Lost Dutchman RV
Resort and Apache Junction Manufactured Home Park to the east, which are also considered higher-density residential
uses. However, with the single-family residential property to the west and this property being on the very edge of this
Downtown Mixed Use area, when the original rezoning proposal was made we tried to work with the previous developer
to determine how the project could better harmonize with the lower density neighborhood to the west. The developer
of that time reorganized the site plan to provide more view corridors and align the site entrances in a way that they
found to best mitigate impact along Rennick and Virginia. We are working with the new developer to make them aware
of this context and neighborhood concerns.
The previous developer and the current developer selected this site out of their own interest in its location. Many of the
available parcels along our arterials are indeed being considered for development, but they are typically designated for
commercial use, however there are several properties being rezoned or planned for multi-family residential uses as well.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. If you have a statement you would like to provide to the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council, those who make the zoning decisions, please send it to me so that I may
include it in the staff report. Thank you,
Nicholas Leftwich
Principal Planner
Development Services
City of Apache Junction
300 E. Superstition Blvd
Apache Junction, AZ 85119
(480)-474-8575
nleftwich@apachejunctionaz.gov
Hours: Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm; closed on Fridays
Developers/applicants are encouraged to conduct a property search of their own on available public websites and procure a survey and appraisal. The city
disclaims any and all liability for any accidental, negligent, or inadvertent omission of information in city files.
From: Matthew Mahoney <mattmahoney@ymail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 10:46 AM
To: Planning <planning@apachejunctionaz.gov>
Subject: Fwd: [External] Banyan – Apache Junction Apartments case (APN 101-131-08D)
Hello Mr. Leftwich,
Did you get my last email? Please see below. I sent it on the 22nd of January.
Thank you for your time,
Matt Mahoney
Begin forwarded message:
From: Matthew Mahoney <mattmahoney@ymail.com>
Subject: Banyan – Apache Junction Apartments case (APN 101-131-08D)
Date: January 22, 2026 at 09:23:49 MST
To: planning@apachejunctionaz.gov
Dear Mr. Leftwich,
Thank you for your continued work on the Banyan – Apache Junction Apartments case
(APN 101-131-08D).
As a resident directly adjacent to the site, I am trying to better understand the planning
and technical basis for the proposed development, particularly as it relates to access,
traffic, and street compatibility. Before the City Council meeting at which this project will
be considered, I would appreciate any information you can share regarding the
following:
- Whether a traffic impact study was prepared for this project, and if so, a copy or
summary of its findings.
- The projected daily and peak-hour trip generation associated with the proposed 152
units.
- How Rennick Drive, a single-lane residential street without sidewalks or traffic controls,
was determined to be appropriate for this level of density.
- The planning rationale for rezoning this specific parcel to high density, particularly
given the availability of sites along major arterials elsewhere in the city.
My intent is not to revisit the rezoning decision itself, but to understand the data and
assumptions that support the current proposal so I can provide informed input moving
forward.
Thank you for your time and assistance. I appreciate any information you’re able to
provide.
Sincerely,
Matthew Mahoney
350 N. Rennick Drive
480-239-6057
To:
Max Friedman
Banyan Residential
From:
Shelly Sorensen, PE, PTOE
Job Number: 25.5917
Project Number: P-25-101-PDR
RE:
Banyan Apartments
Traffic Impact Statement
Date: June 10, 2026
INTRODUCTION
Lōkahi, LLC (Lōkahi) has prepared a
Traffic Impact Statement for the
proposed Banyan Apartments
development, located on the
southeast corner of Virginia Street
and Rennick Drive in Apache
Junction, Arizona. See Figure 1 for
the vicinity map.
The proposed development
consists of a two and three-story
apartment complex with 146
dwelling units. See Attachment A
and Figure 2 for the site plan.
The objective of this Traffic
Impact Statement is to analyze
the proposed development’s traffic related impacts on the adjacent roadway network.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
06/10/26
2
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The approximately 6.9-acre site is located on Pinal County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 101-
13-108D. The Apache Junction Zoning Districts App reports that the site is zoned for High
Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-2). The site is currently undeveloped. It is bordered by
Virginia Street to the north, a mechanic to the south, an RV and mobile home park to the east,
and Rennick Drive to the west. See Attachment B for detailed parcel information.
Rennick Drive is a north-south unmarked roadway that provides one (1) through lane in each
direction of travel in the vicinity of the proposed development. According to the City of Apache
Junction General Plan 2020, Rennick Drive is classified as a local street within the study area.
There is a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph).
Virginia Street is an east-west unmarked roadway that provides one (1) through lane in each
direction of travel in the vicinity of the proposed development. According to the City of Apache
Junction General Plan 2020, Virginia Street is classified as a local street within the study area.
There is a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
San Marcos Drive is a north-south unmarked roadway that provides one (1) through lane in
each direction of travel in the vicinity of the proposed development. San Marcos Drive exists for
an approximate 1,000-foot segment between Superstition Boulevard at its northern terminus
and Virginia Street at its southern terminus. Approximately 1,000 feet south of Superstition
Boulevard, San Marcos Drive shifts 90 degrees clockwise and becomes Virginia Street. There is
an unposted speed limit of 25 mph.
Apache Trail is located one-tenth (0.1) of a mile south of the proposed development, generally
runs east-west and provides three (3) lanes in each direction of travel with a raised, landscaped
median. According to the City of Apache Junction General Plan 2020, Apache Trail is a ‘6 Lanes
Plus Turn Lanes – Major Arterial’. According to the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) Transportation Data Management System, there is a 2024 annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volume of 18,992 vehicles per day (vpd) along Apache Trail, just south of Rennick Drive.
There is a posted speed limit of 40 mph.
3
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Banyan
Apartments
development consists
of a two and three-
story apartment
complex with 146
dwelling units.
The proposed
development will be
accessible via two (2)
proposed access
points, one (1)
proposed full access
driveway along Rennick
Drive, will serve as the main access point for the site, is approximately 730 feet north of Apache
Trail (centerline to centerline). The second proposed full access point is located on the north
site of the site at the intersection of Virginia Street and San Marcos Drive. This will serve as an
emergency access for the site.
TRIP GENERATION
The trip generation for the proposed Banyan Apartments development was calculated utilizing
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitled Trip Generation Manual, 12th
Edition. The ITE rates are based on studies that measured the trip generation characteristics for
various types of land uses. The rates are expressed in terms of trips per unit of land use type.
This publication is considered to be the standard for the transportation engineering profession.
ITE Land Use Code 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) was used to calculate the trip
generation for the proposed Banyan Apartments development:
ITE Land Use 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
“Low-rise multifamily housing is a residential building with two or three floors (levels) of
residences. – Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition
See Table 1 for trip generation calculations below.
Figure 2 – Site Plan
4
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Table 1 – Trip Generation – Banyan Apartments
The proposed Banyan Apartments development is anticipated to generate 942 weekday trips,
with 64 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 77 trips occurring during the PM peak
hour.
See Attachment C for detailed trip generation calculations.
RIGHT TURN LANE ANALYSIS
Turn lanes or auxiliary lanes, allow vehicles exiting a roadway to slow to a reduced speed to
execute a turn without impeding the main flow of traffic. The following sections apply the turn
lane requirements found in the City of Apache Junction Engineering Design Guidelines and
Policies to determine if turn lanes are required at any of the proposed driveways.
Section 10-3-6 (C) states the following regarding right turn lanes:
“right-turn lanes shall be provided on major arterial streets at all street intersections, and
at driveways where warranted”.
Per the City of Apache Junction, Rennick Drive and Virginia Street are classified as local streets,
not major arterial streets. Therefore, no right turn lanes are required on Rennick Drive or Virgina
Street per Section 10-3-6 (C). Additionally, a turn lane would not be necessary due to both the
low volumes on the existing roadways and the low volumes proposed by the development.
SUMMARY
The proposed Banyan Apartments development is located at the southeast corner of Virginia
Street and Rennick Drive in Apache Junction, Arizona.
The proposed Banyan Apartments development consists of a two and three-story apartment
complex with 146 dwelling units.
Access
The proposed site will be accessible via one (1) full access driveway along Rennick Drive,
approximately 730 feet north of Apache Trail (centerline to centerline). A secondary access
driveway along Virginia Street is provided for emergency purposes only.
5
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Trip Generation
The proposed development is anticipated to generate 942 weekday trips, with 64 trips
occurring during the AM peak hour and 77 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.
Roadway Capacity
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Transportation Data Management System
indicated a 2025 AADT of 22,959 vpd along Apache Trail, between Ironwood Drive and SR 88
Highway. Conservatively assuming general traffic flow will be utilizing Apache Trail to gain
access to and from the site. The 942 daily trips generated by the proposed development would
represent an approximate 4.1% increase in average weekday traffic along Apache Trail.
Turn Lane Warrant
The proposed primary access point is located along Rennick Drive, which is a local street.
According to the City of Apache Junction Engineering Design Guidelines and Policies a turn lane
would not be required for the proposed driveway and is therefore not recommended.
In conclusion, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is anticipated to
result in minimal traffic-related impacts on the existing roadway network and the surrounding
area.
A
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSED SITE PLAN
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
PROJECT SUMMARY:
NET ACREAGE
6.69
AC
# OF UNITS
146
DU
NET DENSITY
22.0
DU/AC
PARKING
2.0
SP/DU
37-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 2-STORY WALK-UP
CLUBHOUSE
& LEASING
- PRIMARY AMENITY AREA
SECONDARY ENTRY
0 40
80
N
1
2
4
3
UNIT MIX
A1 - 1 BED
38
(696 SF)
B1 - 2 BED
48
(898 SF)
C1 - 3 BED
49
(1,069 SF)
D1 - 4 BED
11
(1,262 SF)
TOTAL
146
UNIT TYPE
# OF UNITS
UNIT SF
PRIMARY ENTRY
18-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
5
6
PARKING
OPEN
278
HANDICAP
12
*COVERED
146
*covered spaces part of open parking count.
TOTAL PROVIDED
290
REQUIRED
317 (8.5% DEVIATION)
TYPE
# OF SPACES
BUILDING A
BUILDING A
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
18-PLEX BLDG.
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
T
T
T
B
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT B –PINAL COUNTY ASSESSOR
A S S E S S O R
PA R C E L S E A R C H
PARCEL DETAILS
Comparable properties
Tax Information
Parcel Map Viewer
Tax Year Chart
Property Address Location
Share this parcel
Print Details
PROPERTY INFORMATION
PARCEL NUMBER
101-13-108D
S/T/R
20/01N/08E
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 01 NORTH, RANGE 08 EAST, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, THENCE SOUTH 1040.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE EAST
40.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 775.47 FEET, THENCE WEST 40.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 92.74 FEET, THENCE WEST 310.25 FEET, THENCE NORTH 869.14
FEET, THENCE EAST 310.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 300,581 SQUARE FEET, 6.90 ACRES.
SUBDIVISION
N/A
UNIT
N/A
BLOCK
N/A
LOT
N/A
PHASE
N/A
CABINET
N/A
SLIDE
N/A
OWNER INFORMATION
PRIMARY OWNER
PRESTIGE PARTNERS LLC
NAME 2
N/A
IN C/O
N/A
TAX BILL MAILING ADDRESS
3100 W RAY RD STE 101 CHANDLER, AZ 85226
PROPERTY ADDRESS(LOCATION)
PARCEL ALERT LIST
NEW SEARCH
NO
DATE OF RECORDING
09/22/2023
SALE AMOUNT
Not Given
DOCUMENT(S)
2023-070576
VALUATION INFORMATION
Previous year valuations are subject to change as prescribed in the Arizona Revised Statutes. All changes in value may not be reflected in this data.
For updated/correct figures, please refer to the Treasurer's Office website.
Tax Year: 2027
TAX AREA CODE:
4308
USE CODE:
0004
PARCEL SIZE
6.90
SIZE INDICATOR
Acres
FULL CASH VALUE
$2,254,358.00
LIMITED VALUE(LVP)
$1,376,781.00
ASSESSED FCV
$338,154.00
ASSESSED LPV
$206,517.15
LAND LEGAL CLASS
02RL-Vacant Land / Non-Profit Imp
IMPR. LEGAL CLASS
-
IMPROVEMENTS
IMP
ITEM
CONST YEAR
GRND FLR PERIM
STORIES
TOTAL SQ. FT.
0
0
0
0
0
ATTACHED PERSONAL PROPERTY
No Personal Property Listed
EXEMPTIONS
DISCLAIMER
THE DATA PRESENTED ON THIS WEBSITE IS DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE USED FOR INFORMATIONAL
USE ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGAL DOCUMENT FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE PROPERTIES. THE PINAL COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS DATA.
WIDOW
No
WIDOWER
No
SENIOR FREEZE
No
C
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT C –TRIP GENERATION
Banyan - Apache Junction Apartments
Trip Generation Calculations (12th Edition)
(One to Three Levels) (Not Close to Rail Transit)
Rate
% In
% Out
Rate
% In
% Out
Rate
% In
% Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
220
146
Dwelling
Units
6.21
50%
50%
0.41
24%
76%
0.52
62%
38%
907
454
453
60
14
46
76
47
29
Average
220
146
Dwelling
Units
2.46
50%
50%
0.13
24%
76%
0.08
62%
38%
359
180
179
19
5
14
12
7
5
Minimum
220
146
Dwelling
Units
12.50
50%
50%
0.73
24%
76%
1.04
62%
38%
1,825
913
912
107
26
81
152
94
58
Maximum
Equation
% In
% Out
Equation
% In
% Out
Equation
% In
% Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
220
146
Dwelling
Units
T=5.63(X)+120.45
50%
50%
T=0.35(X)+12.93
24%
76%
T=0.48(X)+7.35
62%
38%
942
471
471
64
15
49
77
48
29
Equation
Land Use
ITE
Code
Qty
Unit
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Land Use
ITE
Code
Qty
Unit
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Standard Deviation
1.87
0.10
0.13
Number of Studies
28
51
61
Average Size
208
219
215
R2
0.70
0.81
0.83
To:
Max Friedman
Banyan Residential
From:
Shelly Sorensen, PE, PTOE
Job Number: 25.5917
RE:
Banyan Apartments
Parking Demand Study
Date: June 10, 2026
INTRODUCTION
Lōkahi, LLC (Lōkahi) has prepared a
Parking Demand Study for the
proposed Banyan Apartments
development, located on the
southeast corner of Virginia Street
and Rennick Drive in Apache
Junction, Arizona. See Figure 1 for
the vicinity map.
The proposed development consists
of a two and three-story apartment
complex with 146 dwelling units. The
proposed development is a low-
income housing tax credit (LIHTC)
development. See Attachment A and
Figure 2 for the site plan.
The objective of this Parking Demand Study is to analyze the parking demand needs specific to
the proposed development to avoid providing an overabundance of parking. Providing too
much parking can inefficiently allocate resources (both public and private) and contradict the
principles of fostering walkable communities. The study will also examine the impact of
alternative transportation options and vehicle ownership trends in the area on parking demand.
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
06/10/26
2
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Banyan Apartments
development consists of a two and
three-story apartment complex with
146 dwelling units.
The 146 dwelling units will be
composed of the following unit
breakdown:
38 one-bedroom units
48 two-bedroom units
49 three-bedroom units
11 four-bedroom units
The proposed development will be a LIHTC development, renting only to households earning no
more than 60% of the Pinal County Area Median Income.
PROVIDED PARKING
The proposed development will provide 290 vehicle parking spaces, 278 of which will be first-
come, first-serve spaces and 12 of which will be reserved for handicapped users.
REQUIRED PARKING BY CODE
The required number of parking spaces by land use type is identified within Table 7-1: Number of
Parking Stalls Required of Article 1-7-3 of the City of Apache Junction’s City Code.
The required parking for the proposed breakdown of 146 dwelling units is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Required Vehicle Parking by Code
Figure 2 – Site Plan
3
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
The proposed Banyan Apartments development will provide 290 parking spaces, which
represents a deficit of 27 (8.5%) parking spaces compared to the 317 parking spaces required by
the Code.
ITE PARKING DEMAND
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitled Parking Generation, 6th Edition
is utilized to estimate parking demand based on research and experiences of transportation
engineering and planning professionals.
The parking demand was evaluated using two ITE land use codes (LUC): ITE LUC 217 –
Multifamily Housing – 1 BR (Low-Rise) and ITE LUC 220 – Multifamily Housing – 2+ BR (Low-Rise).
AVERAGE PARKING DEMAND
The average weekday and Saturday ITE peak period of parking demand calculations for General
Urban/Suburban locations are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. ITE does not provide
Saturday data for LUC 217, so weekday rates were used for the Saturday parking demand
calculations.
Table 2 – ITE Parking Demand (Average Rate – Weekday)
Table 3 – ITE Parking Demand (Average Rate – Saturday)
4
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Based on ITE Parking Generation, 6th Edition, the average weekday and Saturday peak parking
demand for the proposed Banyan Apartments development is 174 and 164 parking spaces,
respectively. The proposed development provides 290 parking spaces, representing a surplus of
116 (66.7%), 126 (76.8%), and parking spaces for the average weekday and Saturday parking
demand, respectively.
COMPARABLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The parking requirements of other municipalities were evaluated for the proposed development
as a form of comparison.
Using the parking requirements found in Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading of the City of
Phoenix’s Zoning Ordinance, the required parking is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Parking Requirements (City of Phoenix)
The proposed Banyan Apartments development will provide 290 parking spaces, which
represents a surplus of 71 (32.4%) parking spaces compared to the 219 parking spaces required by
the City of Phoenix.
ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
Infrastructure to support alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking) may contribute
to reducing vehicle dependency and parking demand. Continuous sidewalks are provided within
the greater study area. While admittedly this is not a transit rich environment, the site is close to
both existing retail and employment opportunities, as well as future planned development. The
study area is considered bikeable with some bicycle infrastructure provided along Apache Trail.
Modern electric bikes and scooters further extend the range of residents to services and
employment opportunities, reducing some automobile travel needs and parking.
STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
Apache Junction Study Area
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) provides the Arizona Demographics map
viewer, which graphically displays selected population and housing data for any block group
subset of the state of Arizona based on Census 2020 and the American Community Survey (ACS)
5-year 2018-2022.
1.5
Per
146
Dwelling
Units
219
219
each dwelling unit
Total
Dwelling Unit, Multi-Family
Use
Rate
Quantity
Units
Parking Stalls
5
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
The standard report from the Apache Junction study area was selected. See Figure 3 for the
Apache Junction study area boundaries and Attachment C for the Apache Junction
Demographics Report.
Based on the demographics of the Apache Junction study area, 85.5% of the population drives to
work alone and 14.5% of the population walks to work. Additionally, 5.9% of the population does
not have a vehicle.
If a relationship is considered between the Apache Junction study area demographics and the
resident demographics, it is assumed that some portion of the total residents of the proposed
Banyan Apartments do not own a vehicle and will utilize alternative modes of transportation for
travel, thus reducing the parking demand for household units.
LOWER-INCOME HOUSING CONSIDERATION
As previously mentioned, the proposed Banyan Apartments is a LIHTC development, renting
only to households earning no more than 60% of the Pinal County Area Median Income. The high
cost of automobile ownership and operation further stress such households, which often offset
such costs by sharing one vehicle for the household, seeking nearby employment opportunities
to allow for alternative means for one or more household unit members as well as use of transit
or bicycle options.
Figure 3 – Apache Junction Study Area
6
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
Beyond the anecdotal, there is real world research into the needs of lower income households
as to the parking requirements. According to a study entitled Residential Parking in Station Areas:
A Study of Metro Denver by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) of Denver, Colorado,
income-restricted properties have a lower parking utilization rate than market-rate properties.
The study states the following:
“In market-rate properties, 1.23 parking spaces per unit are provided, but only 0.74 parking
spaces per unit are used.
Income-restricted properties provide 0.72 parking spaces per unit, but residents use only 0.36
parking spaces per unit …
Market-rate properties provide … a 60 percent utilization rate…
Income-restricted properties provide … a 50 percent utilization rate”
While metro Denver does have more transit overall, this regional study provides confirmation
that lower income yields less car ownership.
The proposed Banyan Apartments development is proposing 290 parking spaces for 146
dwelling units, which is a rate of 1.98 spaces per dwelling unit – higher than the rates of 1.23 for
market-rate properties and 0.72 for income-restricted properties. As mentioned above, the
utilization rates for market-rate and income-restricted properties are 60% and 50%, respectively.
Conservatively using a 60% utilization rate, the proposed Banyan Apartments development will
experience a parking demand of just 174 parking spaces.
See Attachment D for the RTD parking study.
Additionally, according to the National Equity Atlas, households living below 200% – or twice –
the poverty level are much more likely to lack access to a vehicle, with 19% of these individuals
owning zero vehicles. See Attachment E for the National Equity Atlas’ report on Car access.
In consideration of the RTD parking study and the National Equity Atlas’ report, Car access, the
income-restricted nature of the proposed Banyan Apartments is anticipated to foster a tenant
mix with less dependency on and access to personal vehicles. This is anticipated to lower the
parking demand for the development.
7
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
CONCLUSION
The proposed development consists of a two and three-story apartment complex with 146
dwelling units. The analysis presented in this Parking Demand Study demonstrates that the
proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand.
Provided Parking
290 unreserved parking spaces,
o Twelve (12) of which are reserved for handicapped users.
Parking Requirement – Apache Junction
Per Article 1-7-3 of the City of Apache Junction City Code, 317 parking spaces are required.
ITE Parking Generation, Average Parking Demand Analysis
Weekday peak parking demand: 174 parking spaces (surplus of 66.7% or 116 spaces)
Saturday peak parking demand: 164 parking spaces (surplus of 76.8% or 126 spaces)
The ITE Parking Generation results indicate that the parking supply of 290 parking spaces is
adequate for the proposed Banyan Apartments development, exceeding the weekday and
Saturday peak parking demands.
Demographic Trends
National studies indicate that income levels directly relate to car ownership, which affects
parking demand. Additionally, it is understood that parking utilization rates for market-rate and
low-income properties are 60% and 50%, respectively, indicating that the parking supply for the
proposed Banyan Apartments is adequate.
Demographic trends including lower vehicle ownership rates among low-income individuals
further support the adequacy of the parking supply. National and local data, including Apache
Junction demographics, indicate that 14.5% of residents in the area utilize alternative modes of
transportation and 5.9% do not own a vehicle. Additionally, the availability of nearby pedestrian
bicycle infrastructure, along with the proximity to commercial centers, is expected to reduce
vehicle dependency among residents.
Conclusion
By aligning parking supply with actual demand, the proposed development avoids over-parking,
which can lead to inefficient resource allocation and conflicts with the goal of creating
sustainable, walkable communities. This study confirms that the 290 proposed parking stalls is
appropriate and effective for the proposed development, ensuring that the development meets
residents' needs while supporting the broader objectives of sustainable urban design and
resource efficiency.
A
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT A - SITE PLAN
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
01
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
PROJECT SUMMARY:
NET ACREAGE
6.69
AC
# OF UNITS
146
DU
NET DENSITY
22.0
DU/AC
PARKING
2.0
SP/DU
37-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 2-STORY WALK-UP
CLUBHOUSE
& LEASING
- PRIMARY AMENITY AREA
SECONDARY ENTRY
0 40
80
N
1
2
4
3
UNIT MIX
A1 - 1 BED
38
(696 SF)
B1 - 2 BED
48
(898 SF)
C1 - 3 BED
49
(1,069 SF)
D1 - 4 BED
11
(1,262 SF)
TOTAL
146
UNIT TYPE
# OF UNITS
UNIT SF
PRIMARY ENTRY
18-PLEX BLDG. (TYP.)
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
5
6
PARKING
OPEN
278
HANDICAP
12
*COVERED
146
*covered spaces part of open parking count.
TOTAL PROVIDED
290
REQUIRED
317 (8.5% DEVIATION)
TYPE
# OF SPACES
BUILDING A
BUILDING A
BUILDING C
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
BUILDING B
18-PLEX BLDG.
- 3-STORY WALK-UP
T
T
T
B
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT B – APACHE JUNCTION CITY
CODE
C
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT C – APACHE JUNCTION
DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT
The selected block group has a population of 782 with a minority*
population of 115 or 14.71%.
The selected block group has 523 total households.
About the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5 year Estimates
The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey that uses continuous, multi-year sampling to produce estimates for a variety of geographical areas, the
smallest being the Census Block Group. MAG uses the 5-year estimates because they provide increased statistical reliability for less populated areas and small population
groups. ACS is a sample, meaning that it is not a full census of the population. For the 5 year estimates, surveys are collected from a sample population over the 5 year
period. These surveys are then used to create estimates for the whole population. And, because it is an estimate of the whole population, there is a degree of uncertainty in
the results. This degree of uncertainty is reflected in the margins of error that are calculated and reported along with the results of the survey. The margins of error are
calculated at the 90 percent confidence level, meaning that users of the data can be 90 percent confident that the range reflected in the margin of error contains the true value.
The margins of error are not reported on this web site, but are available from the Census at http://factfinder.census.gov/or are available upon request from MAG. More
information on the methodology of the American Community Survey is available at http://www.census.gov/acs/.
* Minority population is defined as the population that is of any race other than non-hispanic white.
The selected block group Demographic Report
Age
Name
Total
Percent
Total
782
N/A
Under 5 years
0
0.0%
5 to 9 years
0
0.0%
10 to 14 years
5
0.6%
15 to 19 years
9
1.2%
20 to 24 years
0
0.0%
25 to 34 years
28
3.6%
35 to 44 years
14
1.8%
45 to 54 years
59
7.5%
55 to 59 years
23
2.9%
60 to 64 years
119
15.2%
65 to 74 years
223
28.5%
75 to 84 years
225
28.8%
85 years and over
77
9.8%
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Total Population
0
50
100
150
200
250
Population
85 years and over
75 to 84 years
65 to 74 years
60 to 64 years
55 to 59 years
45 to 54 years
35 to 44 years
25 to 34 years
20 to 24 years
15 to 19 years
10 to 14 years
5 to 9 years
Under 5 years
Age Group
Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 2
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
Race and Ethnicity
Name
Total
Percent
Total
782
N/A
Hispanic
0
0.0%
White, Non-Hispanic
667
85.3%
Black, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
Native American, Non-
Hispanic
0
0.0%
Asian, Non-Hispanic
103
13.2%
Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
Two or More, Non-Hispanic
12
1.5%
Other Race, Non-Hispanic
0
0.0%
0%
85.3%
13.2%
1.5%
Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Asian, Non-Hispanic
Two or More, Non-Hispanic
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Total Population
Race and Ethnicity
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 3
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Ability to Speak English
Name
Total
Percent
Speak Only English
668
85.4%
Speak Other Languages
114
14.6%
Speak English "very well"
98
N/A
Persons with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP)
16
N/A
Speak English "well"
16
N/A
Speak English "not well"
0
N/A
Speak English "not at all"
0
N/A
Veterans Status
Name
Total
Percent
Civilian Population 18 years
and over
768
N/A
Civilian veterans
117
15.2%
Male
96
N/A
Female
21
N/A
18 to 34 years
0
0.0%
35 to 54 years
31
26.5%
55 to 64 years
0
0.0%
65 to 74 years
23
19.7%
75 years and over
63
53.8%
Universe: Civilian Population 18 years and over
0%
26.5%
19.7%
53.8%
18 to 34 years
35 to 54 years
65 to 74 years
75 years and over
85.4%
14.6%
Speak Only English
Speak Other Languages
Ability to Speak English / Veterans Status by Age
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 4
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
3.6%
4.3%
30.9%
28.1%
6.5%
21%
5.6%
Less than 9th Grade
9th-12th, no diploma
High School Graduate or Equivalent
Some College
Associates Degree
Bachelors Degree
Graduate or Professional Degree
Educational Attainment
Name
Total
Percent
Population 25 and over
768
100.0%
Less than 9th Grade
28
3.6%
9th-12th, no diploma
33
4.3%
High School Graduate or
Equivalent
237
30.9%
Some College
216
28.1%
Associates Degree
50
6.5%
Bachelors Degree
161
21.0%
Graduate or Professional
Degree
43
5.6%
Universe: Population Age 25 Years and Over
Educational Attainment
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 5
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of Households
$200,000 or more
$150,000 to $199,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$10,000 to $14,999
Less than $10,000
Income Groups
Household Income (In 2023 inflation-adjusted
dollars)
Name
Total
Percent
Total Households
523
N/A
Median Household Income
$ 47,938
N/A
Less than $10,000
48
9.2%
$10,000 to $14,999
21
4.0%
$15,000 to $24,999
108
20.7%
$25,000 to $34,999
38
7.3%
$35,000 to $49,999
63
12.0%
$50,000 to $74,999
80
15.3%
$75,000 to $99,999
111
21.2%
$100,000 to $149,999
44
8.4%
$150,000 to $199,999
0
0.0%
$200,000 or more
10
1.9%
Universe: Households
Households
Name
Total
Percent
Total Households
523
N/A
Average Household Size
2
N/A
Family Households
(Families)
203
38.8%
Married-couple family
197
N/A
Female Householder, no
spouse present
6
N/A
with own children under
18 years
0
N/A
Nonfamily Households
320
61.2%
Householder living alone
297
N/A
Universe: Households
Household Income and Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 6
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months
Name
Total
Percent
Persons for whom poverty
status is determined
782
N/A
Persons with income below
poverty level
97
12.4%
Persons with income below
150% of poverty level
263
33.6%
Persons with income below
200% of poverty level
295
37.7%
Universe: Persons for whom poverty status is
determined
Persons with income
below 200% of poverty
level
Persons with income
below 150% of poverty
level
Persons with income
below poverty level
0
100
200
300
Population
Poverty Status for Families in the Past 12 Months
Name
Total
Percent
Total Families
203
N/A
Families with income below
poverty level
15
7.4%
Married-couple family
15
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Female householder, no
spouse present
0
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Male householder, no
spouse present
0
N/A
with related children
under 18 years
0
N/A
Universe: Families
Poverty Status
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 7
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Commuting to Work
Name
Total
Percent
Workers 16 years and over
159
N/A
Car or Truck - drive alone
136
85.5%
Car or Truck - carpool
0
0.0%
Public Transportation
0
0.0%
Bicycle
0
0.0%
Walked
23
14.5%
Other means (taxicab,
motorcycle, etc.)
0
0.0%
Worked at home
0
0.0%
Universe: Workers age 16 years and over
85.5%
0%
14.5%
Car or Truck - drive alone
Car or Truck - carpool
Walked
Modes of Transportation
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 8
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
17.6%
31.4%
47.2%
0%
3.8%
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations
Service occupations
Sales and office occupations
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations
Universe: Civilian employed population 16 years and
over
Occupation
Name
Total
Percent
Civilian employed population
16 years and over
159
N/A
Management, business,
science, and arts occupations
28
17.6%
Service occupations
50
31.4%
Sales and office occupations
75
47.2%
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance occupations
0
0.0%
Production, transportation,
and material moving
occupations
6
3.8%
Occupation
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 9
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
44%
18.4%
37.6%
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Vacant Units
Housing
Name
Total
Percent
Per Sq Mile
Housing Units
838
N/A
2.4
Occupied Housing Units
523
62.4%
1.5
Owner-Occupied
369
44.0%
1.0
Renter-Occupied
154
18.4%
0.4
Vacant Units
315
37.6%
0.9
Median Housing Value
$ 31,000
N/A
N/A
Median Rent
$
N/A
N/A
Universe: Housing Units
Housing
Name
Total
Percent
Total Housing Units
838
N/A
1, detached
133
15.9%
1, attached
31
3.7%
2 to 9
36
4.3%
10 or more
0
0.0%
Mobile Home
583
69.6%
Boat, RV, van, etc.
55
6.6%
Universe: Housing Units
Occupancy, Tenure, Value, and Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 10
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
American Community Survey 2019-2023 5yr Estimates
Vehicles Available
Name
Total
Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units
523
N/A
No vehicles available
31
5.9%
One vehicles available
334
63.9%
Two vehicles available
101
19.3%
3 or more vehicles available
57
10.9%
Universe: Occupied Housing Units
5.9%
63.9%
19.3%
10.9%
No vehicles available
One vehicles available
Two vehicles available
3 or more vehicles available
Vehicles Available
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2019 - 2023
Page: 11
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
MAG provides the data within these pages as a public resource of general information for use "as is." MAG provides
this information with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be accurate, correct or complete and any
conclusions drawn from such information are the sole responsibility of the user. Further, MAG makes no warranty,
representation or guaranty as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the spatial or
database information provided herein. While every effort has been made to ensure the content, sequence, accuracy,
timeliness, or completeness of materials presented within these pages, MAG assumes no responsibility for errors or
omissions, and explicitly disclaims any representations and warranties, including, without limitation, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. MAG shall assume no liability for:
Any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided, regardless of how caused; or
1.
Any decision made or action taken or not taken by viewer in reliance upon any information or data furnished
hereunder.
2.
Availability of MAG Map Server is not guaranteed. Applications, servers, and network connections may be unavailable
at any time for maintenance or unscheduled outages. Outages may be of long duration. Users are cautioned to create
dependencies on these services for critical needs.
THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND/OR ANY OTHER TYPE WHETHER
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. In no event shall MAG become liable to users of these data, or any other party, for any
loss or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, time, money or
goodwill, arising from the use or modification of the data.
To assist MAG in the maintenance and/or correction of the data, users should provide MAG with information
concerning errors or discrepancies found in using the data. Please use the e-mail contact address at the bottom of the
affected web page.
Please acknowledge the Maricopa Association of Governments as the source when Map Server data are used in the
preparation of reports, papers, publications, maps, or other products.
To provide comments or report problems please contact: Jason Howard, GIS Program Manager
Legal Disclaimer
Page: 12
Report Generated: 4/13/2026
D
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT D – RTD PARKING STUDY
December 2020
Residential Parking
in Station Areas:
A Study of Metro Denver
Revised January 2021
1
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to those who offered their thoughtful consultation on this research:
• Andy Taylor, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Brad Calvert, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Cassie Slade, Fox Tuttle Hernandez
• Chris Nevitt, City and County of Denver
• Geoffrey Chiapella, Denver Regional Council of Governments
• Isabelle Lockwood, AMLI Residential
• Jeff Tranguch, Regional Transportation District
• Jennie Rodgers, Enterprise Community Partners
• Jeremiah Simpson, Kimley-Horn
• Karl Barton, American Planning Association – Colorado Chapter
• Kasia Hart, Metropolitan Area Planning Council
• Laura Rossbert, Shopworks Architecture
• Laurie Huff, Regional Transportation District
• Michael Leccese, Urban Land Institute – Colorado Chapter
• Phoebe Fooks, Apex Design
• Scott Rathbun, Apartment Appraisers and Consultants
• Tim Fredregill, Milender White
• Travis Liska, North Central Texas Council of Governments
• Trey Warren, Front Range Land & Development
• Wes Marshall, University of Colorado at Denver
RTD Staff
The following RTD staff advanced this research.
• Charlie Stanfield, Transportation Planner
• Chessy Brady, AICP, Transit-Oriented Development Manager
• John Hersey, AICP, LEED AP ND, Senior Transit-Oriented Development Associate
and Project Lead
For further information, please contact TOD@RTD-Denver.com.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6
Guidance ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Count & Confirmation ................................................................................................................ 6
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Findings........................................................................................................................................... 9
Resident Income ...................................................................................................................... 10
Bundled Parking ....................................................................................................................... 11
Neighborhood Transit Quality ................................................................................................. 12
Transit Pass Provision .............................................................................................................. 13
Proximity to Transit .................................................................................................................. 14
Core vs Suburbs ....................................................................................................................... 15
Transit-Oriented Development Typology ............................................................................... 15
Property Age ............................................................................................................................. 17
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3
Executive Summary
In late 2019 and early 2020, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) of Metro Denver,
Colorado, surveyed property managers, counted parking supply and demand, and
analyzed findings from 86 station-area developments. Per RTD’s analysis of peak parking
demand, market-rate properties provide 40 percent more parking than residents use, and
income-restricted properties provide 50 percent more parking than residents use.
Providing an excessive amount of parking at station-area properties across Metro Denver
affects residents’ welfare and the economic vitality of the region, which the State of
Colorado enabled RTD to promote.1 As parking increases development costs, developers
may pass on costs to residents in the forms of higher rent, fewer units, and reduced
services.2 In aggregate, increased costs for unnecessary parking contribute to a higher
cost of living across Metro Denver, which recently experienced the second greatest rate
of gentrification in the country.3 From the perspective of the transit agency, which
particularly benefits from the patronage of low-income passengers, fewer income-
restricted units near existing service threatens the agency’s fiscal solvency and
satisfaction of its mandate.
RTD intends this research to prompt discussion about more appropriate parking provision
for properties in transit-rich neighborhoods. RTD, municipalities, and development
partners who have a role in promoting the region’s economic welfare should prefer
station-area affordable housing in disposition guidelines, zoning regulations, and funding
requirements. In addition, developers should rely on findings like those presented here
to make the case to municipalities and financial partners to tailor expectations for parking
demand to a multimodal environment. RTD hopes that this research effort will help to
foster a more affordable, connected, and competitive Metro Denver region.
1 State of Colorado, “Colorado Revised Statutes §32-9-102(1)a”
2 A parking space in a structured parking facility costs approximately $25,000 in Metro Denver in 2020.
3 National Community Reinvestment Coalition, “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
At market-rate properties, 40% of parking
spaces go unused at peak, while income-
restricted properties provide 50% more
parking than used.
4
Background
RTD provides fixed-route transit service for the eight-county Metro Denver region – one
of the nation’s largest service areas, covering 2,342 square miles and including more than
three million residents. In 2019, before COVID-19-related service adjustments, RTD
operated nearly 44 million miles of regular fixed-route service with a fleet of 66
commuter-rail and 201 light-rail trains, more than one thousand local- and regional-
service buses, and nearly 400 special-service vehicles. RTD provided more than 100
million trips in 2019.4
In 2004, residents within RTD’s service area approved a sales-tax increase to fund
FasTracks, the nation’s largest transit expansion at that time. Between 2015 and 2020,
RTD opened seven new rapid transit services, including the University of Colorado A Line
between Denver Union Station and Denver International Airport and the Flatiron Flyer
bus rapid transit service between Denver Union Station and Boulder. Since 2005, an
outsized amount of development has occurred near rapid-transit stations: 43 percent of
all multifamily development and 55 percent of all office development in Metro Denver has
occurred within a half-mile of RTD rapid-transit stations, which together account for only
0.6 percent of land area in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood and Boulder metropolitan
statistical areas.
4 Regional Transportation District, “Facts and Figures”
5
Despite impressive growth in Metro
Denver’s station-area development,
transit ridership has not followed.
Between 2015 and 2018, ridership
decreased from 103 million to 98
million, and recent RTD research
suggests that the type of development
more than simply total development
may play a role. In 2017 and 2018,
RTD surveyed 1,340 residents of 35
station-area apartments and found a
compelling relationship between low-
income
households
and
transit
service.5 6
In other words, co-locating income-restricted housing and high-frequency transit service
benefits both low-income households and the transit agency. Reducing parking supply at
station-area developments reduces development cost, helping residents to reduce
housing and transportation costs and RTD to increase ridership on its expansive transit
network.7
RTD strives to support development opportunities that increase ridership or enhance
transit investments across the District through station design and close coordination with
local jurisdictions and developers. RTD plays a proactive role in facilitating transit-
supportive development around transit stations, managing and conducting research to
support transit-oriented development, sharing information with both public and private
sector partners, and providing planning assistance to help local jurisdictions connect
constituents to transit service.
5 Travel Behaviour and Society, “Comparing the travel behavior of affordable and market-rate housing residents in
the transit-rich neighborhoods of Denver, CO”
6 TransitCenter, “Transit-Oriented Development is More Transit-Oriented When It’s Affordable Housing”
7 Center for Neighborhood Technology, “Housing and Transportation Affordability Index”
Co-locating income-restricted housing and
high-frequency transit service benefits both
low-income households and transit agencies.
RTD research shows:
•
61 percent of low-income households
have no car, while 93 percent of market-
rate households have at least one car.
•
63 percent of low-income households
ride the bus once a week or more, while
88 percent of market-rate households
ride the bus once a week or less.
•
57 percent of low-income households
ride the train once a week or more, while
73 percent of market-rate households
ride the train once a week or less.
6
Methodology
RTD’s research into station-area developments’ parking provision and utilization relied on
results of an electronic survey of property managers and counts of properties’ parking
facilities during peak demand.
Guidance
In summer 2019, RTD consulted several planning, parking, and development practitioners
to better understand similar research efforts, nuances, and pressing issues facing each
discipline. In particular, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) in Greater Boston
and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in the Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex offered lessons learned from their similar work to understand and inform
station-area parking supply.
Survey
After speaking with these agencies, RTD drafted an electronic survey in Google Forms for
managers of residential properties to understand each property’s general characteristics,
parking programs, and transportation amenities.
RTD tracks station-area development in Metro Denver, logging development type, size,
and location among other features. RTD used that database to develop a universe of
properties for this study, prioritizing rental apartment buildings within a 10-minute walk
of a bus rapid transit or train station with at least 50 units that opened or were
substantially renovated within five years of transit service opening.8 That filter identified
120 properties, and RTD relied on contact information provided by transportation
management associations or property websites to contact managers of those properties
between fall 2019 and spring 2020 to explain the research and distribute the online
survey. Of 111 property managers who received the survey, RTD received 99 responses.
Count & Confirmation
Learning from MAPC and NCTCOG and taking advantage of a State-mandated stay-at-
home order in April 2020, RTD counted parking utilization at 104 properties in April 2020
on a Tuesday through Thursday between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., avoiding Friday through
8 RTD did not survey or count condominiums. A State construction defects law has limited condominium
development, thus mitigating the benefit of studying this product type, and surveying individual condo-unit
owners proved prohibitively challenging.
7
Monday because utilization is typically lower on those days. RTD again followed up with
property managers after these counts to clarify questions raised in the field and further
detail survey responses.
In the two weeks following Labor Day 2020, RTD verified April daytime counts with
nighttime counts of 19 properties (approximately 22 percent of the 86 analyzed
properties) on a Tuesday through Thursday between 9 p.m. and midnight to verify
consistency between the counting time periods. Utilization from the smaller nighttime
counts nearly matched that of the daytime counts: 63 percent utilization by day in April;
62 percent utilization by night in September.
Analysis
RTD both received a survey from and counted parking utilization at 94 properties, of
which 86 properties in 11 municipalities were more than 80 percent leased at the time of
the count (Figure 1). RTD analyzed these 86 properties’ parking provision and utilization
patterns related to resident income, property age, property transportation policies, and
location features.
8
Figure 1: Map of Properties Analyzed
9
Findings
Most significant, the analysis found that all 86 properties provide 42 percent more parking
on average than residents use at peak demand, and income-restricted properties provide
50 percent more parking than used – well above the 5 to 15 percent considered optimal
parking management.9 This over-supply comes at a substantial cost: approximately
$25,000 per parking space in a Metro Denver parking structure, which are typical of
station-area developments that make efficient use of high-value land.
While excessive parking at any station-area property would fail to complement the
neighborhood’s intrinsic multimodal alternatives and increase residents’ cost of living, the
cost of excessive parking often jeopardizes affordable housing. Thus, the unnecessary
cost of housing cars instead of families often limits or effectively prohibits affordable
housing in station areas and limits transit access for reliable transit users.
Excessive parking particularly affects the viability of low-income housing, whose
developers have few financial sources to afford inefficient costs. The City and County of
Denver estimates that the region lacks 100,000 homes, and the Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority reports that annual demand for competitive low-income housing tax
credit capital was over-subscribed by 219 percent in 2020. Not surprising, the National
Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) ranked Metro Denver as the second fastest
gentrifying region in the country between 2013 and 2017.
Table 1: Selection from NCRC’s “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
City
Total
Tracts
Eligible
Tracts
Gentrifying
Tracts
Rate of
Gentrification
San Francisco-Oakland
975
131
41
31.3%
Denver
619
80
22
27.5%
Boston
1003
75
16
21.3%
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
1215
81
17
21.0%
New Orleans
392
64
13
20.3%
Austin
350
56
11
19.6%
New York City
4515
362
70
19.3%
Reproduced from “Gentrification and Displacement 2020”
Excess parking is particularly inappropriate in transit-rich neighborhoods. Not only does
it effectively prohibit affordable housing, but it unnecessarily increases development cost,
9 Urban Land Institute, “Shared Parking”
10
reduces project savings, and obstructs access to transit and, by extension, to economic
opportunity for a growing number of low-income households.
Resident Income
Table 2 details the number of parking spaces available and utilized on a per-unit basis at
all 86 properties analyzed, separated by their inclusion of market-rate, mixed-income,
and income-restricted units. Residents of income-restricted properties use less parking
than residents of market-rate residents, suggesting that municipalities and developers
should have different standards for parking demand at market-rate and income-restricted
properties in station areas.
Summarized in Figure 2, the 65 analyzed market-rate properties provide an average of
1.23 parking spaces per unit, but residents use at peak demand only 0.74 parking spaces
per unit– a 60 percent utilization rate. Sixteen income-restricted properties provide an
average of 0.72 spaces per unit, but residents use only 0.36 parking spaces per unit – a
50 percent utilization rate.
Table 2: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Property by Resident Income
Resident
Income
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
86
25,333
30,478
1.20
0.70
58%
Market Rate
65
19,850
24,462
1.23
0.74
60%
Mixed Income
5
985
845
0.86
0.49
57%
Income Restricted
16
1,587
1,135
0.72
0.36
50%
In market-rate properties, 1.23 parking
spaces per unit are provided, but only 0.74
parking spaces per unit are used.
Income-restricted properties provide 0.72
parking spaces per unit, but residents use
only 0.36 parking spaces per unit.
11
Figure 2: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Property by Resident Income
Bundled Parking
Nearly an even split of properties include (45) or do not include (41) a parking space in
a tenant’s lease, otherwise known as bundling or unbundling parking, respectively.
Although one may expect an additional parking fee at unbundled properties to result in
lower parking demand, prompting developers to reduce supply, properties with
unbundled parking provide more parking per unit and have higher utilization rates than
their bundled-parking counterparts. This unexpected finding for higher supply and
utilization at unbundled properties may be explained by resident income at these
properties; 38 of 41 unbundled properties are market-rate properties, thus
accommodating a higher-income tenant, who is more likely than a lower-income tenant
to own a vehicle. Developers of market-rate apartments with unbundled parking likely
anticipate a high demand for parking from higher-income tenants.
Table 3: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Bundled Parking
Bundled
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
45
9,851
11,580
1.18
0.66
56%
Market Rate
27
7,892
10,147
1.29
0.73
57%
Mixed Income
4
901
751
0.83
0.48
58%
Income Restricted
14
1,058
682
0.64
0.33
50%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
All Properties
Market Rate
Mixed Income
Income Restricted
Spaces per Unit
Utilization
Provision
50%
Util.
Rate
57%
Util.
Rate
60%
Util.
Rate
60%
Util.
Rate
12
Table 4: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Unbundled Parking
Unbundled
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
41
11,241
13,330
1.19
0.74
63%
Market Rate
38
10,947
13,042
1.19
0.75
63%
Mixed Income
1
84
94
1.12
0.56
50%
Income Restricted
2
210
194
0.92
0.45
49%
Neighborhood Transit Quality
The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s (CNT) All Transit (AT) compiles transit stop,
route, and frequency information in more than 300 regions, including Metro Denver. RTD
used properties’ AT scores to approximate their neighborhoods’ levels of transit service
and separated scores into quartiles of transit quality. (Tables 5 through 8)
One may expect quartiles to relate inversely to parking utilization – the better the transit
quality, the lower the need to own and park a vehicle – and that expectation holds true.
After accounting for single-property outliers, resident income continues to correlate with
parking utilization. Rates of parking supply and demand are higher at market-rate
properties and lower at income-restricted properties than average in each quartile, and
income-restricted properties exhibit the lowest per-unit utilization (0.31) across all
quartiles.
However, parking utilization across all properties in all quartiles is neither as distinct
among the quartiles nor as related to neighborhood transit quality as one may expect.
For example, the lowest per-unit utilization occurs in the second lowest quartile, not the
highest quartile. It is surprising that neighborhood transit quality does not play a more
significant role in parking provision or utilization. Municipalities and developers may better
consider neighborhood transit quality when determining parking provision, as the transit
agency may consider transit-supportive land uses in station areas when determining
provision of transit services to neighborhoods.
Table 5: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Lowest Quartile
Lowest
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
21
6,429
7,067
1.10
0.66
60%
Market Rate
19
6,018
6,911
1.15
0.69
60%
Mixed Income
1
266
126
0.47
0.24
52%
Income Restricted
1
145
30
0.21
0.19
90%
13
Table 6: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Low Quartile
Low
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
23
5,277
6,028
1.14
0.72
63%
Market Rate
15
4,283
5,351
1.25
0.80
64%
Mixed Income
2
194
199
1.03
0.53
52%
Income Restricted
6
800
478
0.60
0.31
52%
Table 7: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in High Quartile
High
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
22
6,129
8,015
1.31
0.73
56%
Market Rate
17
5,761
7,617
1.32
0.75
56%
Mixed Income
1
129
158
1.22
0.51
42%
Income Restricted
4
239
240
1.00
0.50
50%
Table 8: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties in Highest Quartile
Highest
Quartile
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
20
4,587
5,332
1.16
0.70
60%
Market Rate
14
3,788
4,583
1.21
0.73
60%
Mixed Income
1
396
362
0.91
0.62
68%
Income Restricted
5
403
387
0.96
0.44
46%
Transit Pass Provision
RTD’s Neighborhood EcoPass (NEco) Program allows managers with at least 40 units to
purchase monthly transit passes at significant discount and provide those passes to
tenants to encourage their transit use. Of the 86 properties analyzed, managers at only
eight properties provide Neighborhood EcoPasses, translating to slightly lower parking
provision and utilization (1.15 and 0.64 parking spaces per unit, respectively) compared
to the majority of properties (1.18 and 0.71 parking spaces per unit, respectively).
Although few station-area properties participate in the NEco Program, this finding
suggests nonetheless that RTD should encourage municipalities and developers to
consider reductions in parking provision on condition of participation in NEco and other
transportation-demand management programs.
14
Table 9: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties with Neighborhood EcoPasses
With
NEco
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
8
1,330
1,532
1.15
0.64
56%
Market Rate
4
1,011
1,273
1.26
0.72
57%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
4
319
259
0.81
0.42
51%
Table 10: Parking Provided and Utilized per Unit at Properties without Neighborhood EcoPasses
Without
NEco
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
78
21,092
24,910
1.18
0.71
60%
Market Rate
61
18,839
23,189
1.23
0.74
60%
Mixed Income
5
985
845
0.86
0.49
57%
Income Restricted
12
1,268
876
0.69
0.35
50%
Proximity to Transit
The distance between property and station may play a small role in parking supply and
demand. Twenty-nine (29) properties lying less than 0.3 miles from a station provide
0.17 fewer parking spaces per unit and residents of those properties utilize 0.10 fewer
parking spaces per unit compared to 57 properties between 0.3 and 0.5 miles from a
station. In other words, for every 30 units, a property within a five-minute walk of a
station provides five fewer parking spaces and its residents use three fewer parking
spaces than a comparable station-area property farther away.
Table 11: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties less than 0.3 Miles from Station
<0.3 mi.
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
29
6,670
7,086
1.06
0.63
60%
Market Rate
19
5,380
6,334
1.18
0.71
61%
Mixed Income
4
589
483
0.82
0.40
48%
Income Restricted
6
701
269
0.38
0.23
59%
15
Table 12: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties between 0.3 and 0.5 Miles from Station
0.3 mi. - 0.5 mi.
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
57
15,752
19,356
1.23
0.73
59%
Market Rate
46
14,470
18,128
1.25
0.75
60%
Mixed Income
1
396
362
0.91
0.62
68%
Income Restricted
10
886
866
0.98
0.47
48%
Core vs Suburbs
Of the 86 properties analyzed, 45 are in Denver, where relatively sophisticated parking
requirements may influence properties’ provision of 0.04 fewer parking spaces per unit,
compared to their suburban counterparts.10
Table 13: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Located in Denver
Denver
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
45
10,217
11,801
1.16
0.68
59%
Market Rate
27
8,081
10,109
1.25
0.75
60%
Mixed Income
3
609
614
1.01
0.59
58%
Income Restricted
15
1,527
1,078
0.71
0.35
49%
Table 14: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties not Located in Denver
Non-Denver
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
41
12,205
14,641
1.20
0.72
60%
Market Rate
38
11,769
14,353
1.22
0.73
60%
Mixed Income
2
376
231
0.61
0.32
52%
Income Restricted
1
60
57
0.95
0.65
68%
Transit-Oriented Development Typology
In 2015, the City and County of Denver’s Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan
classified all 29 stations in the city into five typologies: Downtown, Urban Center, General
Urban, Urban, and Suburban. Of 45 analyzed properties in all five Denver typologies, the
five properties in the Downtown typology near Union Station – arguably the region’s most
transit-oriented and walkable environment – exhibit the lowest parking provision (0.96
10 Denver Zoning Code allows for alternative parking ratios (Art. 10.4.5.2) and parking reductions (Art. 10.4.5.3).
16
parking spaces per unit) among the five typologies but the highest parking utilization
(0.76 parking spaces per unit), despite all five requiring an additional for parking fee (i.e.,
unbundling). Four market-rate properties where residents use 0.77 parking spaces per
unit on average significantly influence the high utilization rate. Income-restricted
properties in the Urban and General Urban typologies exhibit the lowest rates of parking
supply (0.58 and 0.54 parking spaces per unit, respectively) and parking demand (0.28
and 0.29 parking spaces per unit, respectively).
Table 15: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Downtown Typology
Downtown
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
5
1,592
1,522
0.96
0.76
79%
Market Rate
4
1,485
1,396
0.94
0.77
82%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
1
107
126
1.18
0.59
50%
Table 16: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Urban Center Typology
Urban Center
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
15
3,862
4,844
1.25
0.74
59%
Market Rate
12
3,616
4,586
1.27
0.76
60%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
3
246
258
1.05
0.50
48%
Table 17: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Urban Typology
Urban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
6
1,176
1,243
1.06
0.47
44%
Market Rate
2
537
874
1.63
0.70
43%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
4
639
369
0.58
0.28
48%
Table 18: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver General Urban Typology
General Urban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
15
3,083
3,601
1.17
0.65
55%
Market Rate
7
2,055
2,761
1.34
0.74
55%
Mixed Income
3
609
614
1.01
0.59
58%
Income Restricted
5
419
226
0.54
0.29
53%
17
Table 19: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties per Denver Suburban Typology
Suburban
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
4
504
591
1.17
0.73
62%
Market Rate
2
388
492
1.27
0.81
64%
Mixed Income
0
-
-
-
-
N/A
Income Restricted
2
116
99
0.85
0.43
51%
Property Age
Property age does not clearly affect parking supply or demand. In terms of parking
provision, whereas the 22 properties built before 2010 and the 38 properties built after
2015 have higher per-unit supply (1.21 and 1.28 parking spaces per unit, respectively),
the 26 properties built between 2010 and 2015 offer only 1.01 parking spaces per unit,
which may reflect financing constraints during the Great Recession.
Table 20: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built before 2010
Pre-2010
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
22
6,420
7,771
1.21
0.74
61%
Market Rate
16
5,398
7,175
1.33
0.81
61%
Mixed Income
2
662
488
0.74
0.47
64%
Income Restricted
4
423
189
0.45
0.22
49%
Table 21: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built between 2010 and 2014
2010-2014
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
26
5,959
6,014
1.01
0.67
66%
Market Rate
19
5,367
5,593
1.04
0.70
67%
Mixed Income
1
110
105
0.95
0.51
53%
Income Restricted
6
482
316
0.66
0.37
56%
Table 22: Parking Provided and Utilized at Properties Built after 2015
2015-2019
Properties
Units
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Provided
Per Unit
Spaces
Utilized
Per Unit
Percent
Utilized
All Properties
38
8,713
11,125
1.28
0.70
55%
Market Rate
30
8,074
10,421
1.29
0.72
56%
Mixed Income
2
213
252
1.18
0.53
45%
Income Restricted
6
426
452
1.06
0.49
46%
18
Recommendations
Together, RTD’s ridership and parking research encourage changes to parking policy in
Metro Denver, and several planning and development partners have the opportunity to
drive that change for mutual benefit.
RTD
Understanding that low-income households utilize transit more and demand parking less
than higher income neighbors, RTD should amend its policy for joint development (i.e.,
redevelopment of agency property) to prefer income-restricted housing in order to
increase ridership, which market-rate housing is less likely to accomplish. Considering
income-restricted properties’ relatively low parking demand, RTD should negotiate with
developers to share parking between transit patrons and residents and encourage
municipalities to recognize lower parking demand at income-restricted housing, either by
right or through variances from unduly high minimum parking requirements.
While promoting affordable housing through redevelopment of RTD parking facilities may
be a laudable goal, RTD’s limited property holdings in station areas as well as competition
for maintaining or expanding parking for transit patrons minimize the potential impact of
that effort and so invites collaboration from municipalities.
Municipalities
Municipalities could expand the impact of co-locating income-restricted housing in station
areas by amending local zoning or issuing variances from parking requirements to
encourage affordable housing in station areas through context-sensitive parking
requirements. The City and County of Denver exemplifies several leading practices: the
zoning code allows reducing minimum parking requirements by 25 percent for all
properties within 0.25 miles of a station; the Dedicated Affordable Housing Fund and
other funding sources prioritize financial support to transit-rich neighborhoods; recently
published recommendations for transportation demand management complement
significant station-area investments; and the proposed Affordable Housing Zoning
Incentive would reduce parking requirements citywide (coincidentally consistent with
RTD’s expansive bus network in the region’s core).
19
Developers and Financial Partners
Developers and their financial partners should consider and expand on this research to
make data-driven, evidence-based decisions about development that will attract residents
who prefer a transit-oriented lifestyle and other amenities that reduced or deferred
project costs can support. Relevant for income-restricted housing that relies on low-
income housing tax credits, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority has shown
interest in considering revisions to its qualified allocation plan in order to increase funding
for non-parking transportation resources. The Colorado Chapter of the Urban Land
Institute also has expressed support to advance these findings among members.
Financial partners play a significant role in Denver’s transit-oriented affordable housing
landscape, with many of them, as well as the City and County of Denver, the Colorado
Housing and Finance Authority, and state agencies, investing in the Denver Region
Transit-Oriented Development Fund to provide low-interest loans to affordable-housing
developers in transit-rich neighborhoods. In addition, Mile High Connects provides a
forum for government, funders, and advocates to identify and secure broad community
benefits through station-area development.
20
Conclusion
An analysis of peak-hour parking demand at 86 leased-up apartment buildings across
Metro Denver found utilization ranging from 60 percent at market-rate properties to 50
percent at income-restricted properties.
Those low utilization rates represent substantial and unnecessary additional development
cost, which developers may pass on to residents through higher rents, fewer units, and
reduced services. In the second fastest-gentrifying region in the country, that cost
particularly burdens low-income households, who are more likely to use transit than
parking. Backed by these findings, planning and development partners should tailor
parking requirements to station-area developments’ unique mobility landscape in order
to achieve shared goals for enhanced public welfare and economic vitality.
Planning and development partners should
tailor parking requirements for station-area
development’s unique mobility landscape.
21
Appendix
RTD Residential Property Parking Survey
(Created and distributed with Google Forms)
The RTD Residential Property Parking Survey is designed to understand current parking
demand at residential properties near train and bus rapid transit stations to inform future
parking supply provided in transit-served areas. RTD will aggregate and anonymize your
response and others and publish findings on our website. Your participation is voluntary
and the survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please contact [Name] at
[Name]@RTD-Denver.com for further information. Thank you!
Property Information
1. How many units are there in the property? (E.g., 100 units)
2. How many of those total units are leased? (E.g., 85 units)
3. How many of those total units are income-restricted? (E.g., 40 units)
4. How many studio apartments are in the property?
5. How many one-bedroom apartments are in the property?
6. How many two-bedroom apartments are in the property?
7. How many three-bedroom apartments are in the property?
8. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate studio apartment?
9. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate one-bedroom apartment?
10. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate two-bedroom apartment?
11. What is the average monthly rent for a market-rate three-bedroom apartment?
Parking Information
12. How many parking spaces are available at the property for passenger vehicles?
13. Is parking for passenger vehicles included (i.e., bundled) in a tenant’s lease? Mark
only one oval.
a. Yes Skip to question 14
b. No Skip to question 17
c. Other:
14. How many parking spaces are provided in the lease? (Please express in terms of
per unit, per bedroom, etc. E.g., 1 space per unit)
15. Can a tenant receive additional parking beyond what is guaranteed in its lease?
Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
16. Can the tenant decline to use parking in order to reduce the lease payment? Mark
22
only one oval.
a. Yes Skip to question 18
b. No Skip to question 18
c. Other:
17. What is the monthly cost of reserving a parking space? (If applicable, please
specify different costs for covered or uncovered parking, for first, second, or third
spaces, etc. E.g., “$75 for first covered, $50 for first uncovered; $100 for each
additional covered or uncovered”)
18. Is there a waitlist for parking spaces? Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
19. In addition to parking for tenants, does the property provide parking for any of
the following users? Check all that apply.
a. N/A - the property does not provide parking for any other user
b. Property management
c. Visitors
d. Car sharing
e. Nearby business employees
f. Nearby retail customers
g. Nearby residents
h. General public - hourly
i. General public - daily
j. Other:
20. Do you think tenants are parking off-site? Mark only one oval.
a. Yes
b. No
c. Other:
21. If you do think tenants park off-site, where and why?
22. Does the property provide any of the following to tenants? Check all that apply.
a. RTD pass subsidy
b. RTD service info (e.g., schedules and maps)
c. Shuttle service
d. Carshare membership subsidy
e. Bikeshare membership subsidy
f. Bike parking - uncovered
g. Bike parking - covered
h. Bike parking - secured (e.g., in a locker or locked room)
i. Bike maintenance equipment
j. Other:
23. Do you hear from tenants any recurring comments or complaints about parking
or transportation in/around the property?
23
Contact Information
24. Property Name
25. Property Address - Street & City
26. Property Management Company
27. Property Manager Name
28. Property Manager Phone Number
29. Property Manager Email Address
Thank you!
30. Thanks for your help! RTD may follow up with questions. Please feel free to provide
additional comment below.
E
Banyan Residential
Banyan Apartments
ATTACHMENT E – CAR ACCESS REPORT
(NATIONAL EQUITY ATLAS)
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
02
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
CLUBHOUSE BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
B
B
A
A
CH
B
C
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
03
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BUILDING B & C ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
KEY MAP - NTS
B
B
A
A
CH
B
C
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
04
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BUILDING A ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
B
B
A
A
CH
B
C
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
05
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STREET SCENE LOOKING SOUTH | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
A
A
N RENNICK DR.
W VIRGINIA ST.
W ROOSEVELT ST.
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
06
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
ARCHITECTURE CHARACTER STUDY -BUILDING A | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
MATERIAL LEGEND
STUCCO - SW6086 SAND DUNE OR EQUAL
CMU
STUCCO - SW2854 CARIBBEAN CORAL OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2831 CLASSICAL GOLD OR EQUAL
STUCCO - SW2812 ROOKWOOD JADE OR EQUAL
BATTERED WALLS
ARTICULATED PARAPETS
RAISED PARAPETS
HOODED WINDOW TRIM
SOUTHWEST COLOR SCHEME
FOR STUCCO & METAL ACCENTS
RENNICK STREET FACING SOUTH
RENNICK STREET FACING NORTH
1/16" = 1'-0"
STREET FACING ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
11’8”
RESIDENTIAL JULIET &
TRADITIONAL BALCONY
DETAILS
11’8”
11’8”
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
9,785 SF
1,938 SF 20%
7,847 SF 80%
0 SF
BUILDING MATERIALS
STUCCO
:
CMU BLOCK - STACKED
:
TOTAL FACADE AREA
:
OPENINGS
:
10,124 SF
2,043 SF 21%
8,081 SF 79%
0 SF
STREET FACING
INTERNAL FACING
TERRACED LEVEL
VEGAS OVERFLOW
ELEMENTS
MASSING BREAK
(17’8” DEPTH)
1/16" = 1'-0"
INTERNAL ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE A - SD
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
07
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STREET SCENE LOOKING EAST | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
A
A
N RENNICK DR.
W VIRGINIA ST.
W ROOSEVELT ST.
135’
466
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
08
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STREET SCENE LOOKING EAST | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
A
A
N RENNICK DR.
W VIRGINIA ST.
W ROOSEVELT ST.
135’
350
KEY MAP - NTS
BANYAN - APACHE JUNCTION APARTMENTS
LP
09
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
STREET SCENE LOOKING NORTHEAST | KA#225084 | DATE 06/11/2026
KEY MAP - NTS
A
A
N RENNICK DR.
W VIRGINIA ST.
W ROOSEVELT ST.
135’
466