Ex. 6 P-26-4-PZ-Public Participation Plan
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
35107 characters
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