Apache Junction approves downtown B3 zoning revamp, cargo container rules in split votes

Downtown Zoning Overhaul Wins Unanimous Approval; Cargo Container Rules Pass Despite Staff Warnings on Enforcement

The Apache Junction Planning Commission unanimously endorsed a major revision to downtown zoning regulations on July 27, 2021, capping months of collaborative workshopping to position the city's core for retail, dining, and entertainment-driven development. The vote cleared the way for city council review on August 17. However, a companion code amendment legalizing residential cargo containers passed by only 5-2, with two commissioners expressing alarm that staff's own enforcement data—documenting 25+ unpermitted containers already in neighborhoods—signals the new rules may exacerbate rather than solve code compliance problems.

The meeting also reviewed a complex multi-developer state land annexation project running three weeks behind schedule against a hard November 12 deadline, with staff now pushing all submission dates back two weeks.

Key Speeches

"I am just delighted at the results and I know it was hard, hard work and I certainly appreciate it and I believe that people who live in this city in the future will appreciate how their downtown area will eventually be." — Peter Heck, praising the downtown zoning effort

"We're people are going to do it whether it's legal or not if they want one bad enough they put them in and they'll get caught or not at least now we make it to where there's an avenue for them to do it legally." — Larry (Planning Director), responding to enforcement concerns about cargo containers

"We're already probably two or three that our cargo containers are showing up on these small lots and now we're going to go after well we already are going after them but now they'll be allowed to do it the smaller size and they're going to have to get a permit and they're gonna have to be painted." — Larry, on the expected surge in container applications

Timeline

Case AM-1-21: Downtown Zoning Bulk and Use Regulations

• Staff presentation: Nick reviewed three months of workshopping (June 22, July 13, July 27 prior meetings) narrowing non-residential uses to entertainment, retail, restaurants, and mixed-use in the downtown B3 district; elimination of industrial and warehouse uses emphasized throughout.
• Public comment: None received.
• Council discussion: Peter Heck thanked staff and commissioners for the work and its alignment with the city's general plan; one commissioner noted the Fry's property (currently mapped as B3) may not fit the new vision but acknowledged it already hosts grocery and restaurant uses compatible with proposed zoning.
• Vote: 7-0 (unanimous approval, recommended to City Council).

Case AM-4-20: Cargo Containers and Accessory Structures Code Amendment

• Staff presentation: Larry presented Option 1 (status quo) and Option 2 (new regulatory framework with permit requirements, design standards, setbacks, lot coverage limits, and earth-tone color mandates). The amendment came after workshopping at the June 22 and July 13 meetings. Key provisions: containers over 120 sq ft require permits (except shade structures), must meet 6 ft setbacks from structures, 15 ft from washes, cannot exceed 15% of main structure's building envelope or approved lot coverage, metal siding required in non-RSR zones (new 100% rule, up from 75%), temporary container limit of 60–120 days, and screening by vegetation if visible within 6 feet of bottom edge.
• Staff concerns on enforcement: Larry disclosed that during a tour with the mayor preparing for a separate neighborhood meeting, staff identified 12 unpermitted containers initially, then discovered "like another 20 more" during the same tour. He noted 25+ unpermitted containers throughout the city, with multiple containers on single small residential lots in RSR zones, some used for apparent commercial or data-mining operations. He estimated 80–95% of current permits are issued after the fact and warned that legalization could invert the problem: "I don't mind the way I see it we're people are going to do it whether it's legal or not if they want one bad enough they put them in and they'll get caught or not at least now we make it to where there's an avenue for them to do it legally."
• Public comment: None received.
• Council discussion: Peter Heck raised the critical tension: "I am a little troubled by the language you said up above the motion about having difficulty really managing or enforcing this so um it's like we can go through all this stuff come up with all these requirements and change the codes and yet if it can't be enforced i feel like we're..." He cited his "25 year history" with cargo container enforcement issues in the city and reiterated that opening the door legally while unpermitted containers proliferate is paradoxical. Larry countered that the new fee structure—currently $100 for a permit—could be doubled or tripled if violations are discovered, creating disincentive for illegal installation. Commissioner Barker voted no, echoing enforcement concerns. Other commissioners, notably Vice Chair Hanshi, argued that Option 2 at least provides a legal pathway and shifts enforcement incentives: "if they do it the right way the fee is a one-time fee of i think 100. so now maybe we just do the one-time fee is for 200."
• Vote: 5-2 (approved, recommended to City Council).

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: 2 (Peter Heck and Barker).

• Main concerns:

  1. Staff has already documented 25+ unpermitted cargo containers in the city; legalization signals to residents that containers are acceptable.
  2. 80–95% of current permits are issued after-the-fact, indicating enforcement is already reactive; new rules will expand the problem.
  3. Enforcement capacity is fixed; opening a new permitting pathway for cargo containers diverts resources from other code violations.
  4. Historical precedent: Peter Heck cited his "25 year history" with cargo container enforcement problems, suggesting the issue is chronic and will not be solved by legalization.
  5. The speed-limit analogy is flawed: even if some drivers exceed limits, the city should not raise the limit in response; similarly, unpermitted containers do not justify legalizing containers.
  6. RSR zones and large accessory structures invite commercial operations masked as residential use; cargo containers enable this further.
  7. Doubling fees on violations does not prevent violations and shifts enforcement burden to the residents who violate the code after-the-fact.

• Most compelling argument: Commissioner Heck's observation that staff findings of 25+ unpermitted containers demonstrate that the code—even in its current form—cannot be enforced; legalizing containers will increase the pool of permitted structures that staff must monitor for violations, multiplying enforcement complexity.

• Organized opposition: None stated.

Support

• Number of speakers in favor: 4 (Vice Chair Hanshi, Commissioner Cantwell, Commissioner Bageman, Commissioner Gage).

• Main arguments:

  1. People will install cargo containers regardless of legality; the code should provide a lawful pathway rather than rely solely on enforcement.
  2. Permitting converts unpermitted, potentially unsafe installations (e.g., containers buried under carports with makeshift air conditioning) into inspectable structures.
  3. Doubling or tripling permit fees for illegal installation, combined with public notice campaigns, creates economic disincentive for non-compliance.
  4. Permitting also allows the city to require design standards (paint color, siding, setbacks) that lend uniformity and protect neighborhood character.
  5. Option 2 is not perfect, but it is better than the status quo of reactive enforcement and widespread non-compliance.
  6. Precedent is mixed: shade structures are already allowed without permits; horse sheds and other rural structures are common in RSR; containers are an extension of that tolerance.

• Organized support: None stated.

Project Details

Case AM-1-21: Downtown Zoning Bulk and Use Regulations

• Case number: AM-1-21
• Applicant / sponsor: City staff (Nick, Planner) on behalf of the city council's directive to revitalize downtown
• Current zoning: B3 (commercial)
• Proposed changes: Elimination of industrial and warehouse uses; emphasis on entertainment, retail, restaurants, and mixed-use; refinement of use table to remove vague or redundant categories; alignment with general plan goals for a vibrant downtown core.
• Process: Workshopped over three prior meetings (June 22, July 13, July 27) with extensive commissioner and staff input.

Case AM-4-20: Cargo Containers and Accessory Structures Code Amendment

• Case number: AM-4-20
• Applicant / sponsor: City staff (Larry, Planning Director) responding to council direction and community demand for clarification on accessory structures
• Current code: Chapter 1, Article 1-6 (cargo containers and accessory structures, partially in Chapter 9 property maintenance code)
• Proposed changes:
  • Permit required for containers and structures >120 sq ft (except shade structures <200 sq ft)
  • Setbacks: 6 ft from other structures, 10 ft from septic tanks, 15 ft from washes (new provision)
  • Lot coverage: limited to 15% of main structure's building envelope or approved lot-coverage ratio
  • Design standards: earth-tone paint or siding for all exterior surfaces; 100% of exterior must be uniform material (changed from 75%)
  • RSR zones: permit metal containers if properly painted; non-RSR zones: must be sided or stuccoed (100% coverage requirement, new)
  • Maximum one metal container per RSR lot under 0.5 acres; larger lots may have 40-foot (220 sq ft) container
  • Temporary use: 60–120 days allowed for cargo containers and accessory structures
  • Screening: if visible within 6 feet of bottom edge, must be screened by vegetation
  • Businesses: accessory buildings for business must meet main-building design standards
  • Home occupations: prohibition on light industrial or commercial activities in residential zones
  • Cumulative square footage: all accessory structures shall not exceed lot-coverage ratio; individual structures limited to habitable floor area of main structure's first floor
  • Permit fee: $100 (staff noted potential for doubling or tripling in cases of violation)
• Ordinance structure: Staff will present two ordinances to city council: (1) repeal of cargo container provisions in Chapter 9 property maintenance code, and (2) text amendment to Section 1-6-5 adding definition and regulatory framework.

Vote Breakdown

Case AM-1-21:

• Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval)
• Yes: Commissioner Gage, Commissioner Barker, Commissioner Bageman, Commissioner Cantwell, Vice Chair Hanshi, Peter Heck, Darryl Cross
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: None

Case AM-4-20:

• Final: 5-2 (approved)
• Yes: Darryl Cross, Commissioner Gage, Commissioner Bageman, Commissioner Cantwell, Vice Chair Hanshi
• No: Peter Heck, Commissioner Barker
• Abstentions / absences: None

Meeting Dates and Times Selection (August 10):

• Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval)
• Yes: All commissioners
• Details: Regular meeting August 10 at 7 PM in city council chambers, 300 East Superstition Boulevard; cancellation permitted if no items on agenda; staff to notify commission and post cancellation notice.

Outcome & Next Steps

Case AM-1-21: The commission recommended approval to the city council with a public hearing scheduled for August 17, 2021. No changes from the draft presented.

Case AM-4-20: The commission approved Option 2 (new regulatory framework) and recommended it to the city council. Staff will prepare two ordinances (repeal and amendment) for council consideration, likely at the August 3 work session (date subject to council confirmation). No timeline stated for city council adoption.

State Land Project: Submission deadline pushed from July 15 to August 6, 2021. Planning commission work session scheduled for August 24, 2021. Public hearing rescheduled to September 14, 2021. Anticipated city council adoption October 5, 2021. If submissions miss the August 6 deadline, a special council meeting may be required. The November 12, 2021 annexation deadline (one year from the state auction) is hard; failure to meet it triggers unwinding of the deal or return to the state for extension negotiation.

Lennar Homes Old West Highway Development: Open house scheduled for Friday at 2:00–3:00 PM. Public open house at MGC Wednesday, August 4, 5:00–6:30 PM.

Controversies & Context

Cargo Container Enforcement Crisis

Staff disclosed a systemic enforcement failure that threatens the viability of the proposed code amendment. During a routine tour of a neighborhood, staff identified 25+ unpermitted cargo containers, many with multiple containers on single small lots. Several appear to house commercial or data-mining operations in residential RSR zones, including one buried under a carport with makeshift air conditioning (a potential safety hazard). Larry noted that 80–95% of cargo-container permits issued are after-the-fact—that is, the city is legalizing illegal structures rather than preventing violations.

Peter Heck raised a fundamental question: If the city cannot enforce the existing prohibition on unpermitted containers, how will it enforce the new permitting and design-standard requirements? His concern—backed by 25 years of direct experience with the issue—is that codifying cargo containers signals acceptance and may increase installation rates, thereby multiplying the enforcement burden.

Larry's rebuttal hinges on a shift in incentives. By allowing legal containers (with fee and design standards) and doubling or tripling fines for illegal containers, the city creates an economic case for compliance. However, he acknowledged that staff has limited capacity to proactively hunt violations; the current model is reactive. Doubling fees on after-the-fact permits does not prevent the violations, only monetizes them.

The commissioner-staff debate reflects a broader governance tension: Should a city legalize widespread non-compliance, or enforce existing law? In this case, the commission opted for the former, betting that a legal pathway with design standards will improve outcomes better than unenforced prohibition.

State Land Annexation Complexity

The state land project involves two separate developers acquiring different parcels (one auctioned by the state, one retained) on different timelines. The complexity of negotiating a single master plan, dual zoning codes, dual development agreements, and dual community facilities districts has pushed the landscape architect and planner to the brink. Larry disclosed that the project lead has worked "night and day," lost employees unwilling to work 24-hour schedules, and contracted COVID-19 mid-project. The second developer submitted a preliminary plat, forcing the city to hire a third-party consultant to review it—but the city cannot approve anything until the land is formally annexed.

The two developers have "slightly different philosophies," requiring negotiation on each point. For example, separate meetings were held just on dark-sky provisions and low-impact development; Larry suggested "five or six or seven sticking points" remain unresolved, with two zoning documents and two development agreements in parallel submission pipelines.

Deadline pressure: The auction occurred on November 23, 2021 (per Larry's note, though he said "November 12th or something" and then "November 12th" as the deadline). Annexation must complete within one year. October 17 is the city's contractual all-done date for all submissions; failure risks unwinding the deal or return to the state for extension. The state has not granted extensions beyond that date, so the parties face a hard wall.

Duration

• This meeting: Not stated; approximately 2.5 hours based on transcript length.
• Case AM-1-21 discussion: ~30 minutes (presentation + limited questions + motion + vote).
• Case AM-4-20 discussion: ~75 minutes (extended staff presentation, detailed Q&A, commissioner debate, public hearing call, motion, roll-call vote).
• State land update: ~30 minutes (director's report + timeline discussion).

Other Notable Items

Lennar Homes Old West Highway Development: Active construction with 165+ planned units. Over 100 permits pulled; 65 remain. Recent wind damage toppled construction on at least one building (possibly two); Larry noted concern that OSHA may not have been contacted and asked Dave Zellner (presumably the developer's rep) for details. No response recorded.

Pinal County Land Amendment: A commissioner requested that the commission schedule a future agenda item explaining a Pinal County amendment affecting land east of Apache Junction. Larry agreed to place it on the next agenda and noted that county process meetings are scheduled for October.