Apache Junction Planning Commission approves 201-unit rental community, defers 166-unit downtown project pending traffic study

Planning Commission Approves Flood-Prone Site Conversion but Defers High-Density Downtown Project Over Traffic, Equestrian Concerns

The Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission handed down a split decision on two major rental-housing proposals on September 28, 2021, approving one project while punting the other until November 23 pending a traffic impact study. The split outcome—both projects similar in design but vastly different in location and community reaction—exposed a widening fault line between planning staff's interpretation of the 2020 general plan and several commissioners' concerns about premature density, traffic safety, and preservation of the city's rural and equestrian character.

The commission unanimously endorsed the Residences at Apache Trail (201 units), a single-family rental community that will reclaim a 22-acre parcel infamous for dumping, flooding, and vagrancy near Broadway and Tomahawk Road. But it voted to continue the Heavenly Superstition project (166 units), a more contentious rental community on 14.77 acres at Superstition Boulevard and Royal Palm Road, requesting that the applicant and city engineer produce a traffic study before the commission reconvenes.

Key Speeches

Residences at Apache Trail

"It's a chance to solve a long-term problem you've had in Apache Junction. It's a chance to address the problems of blight and trash and some of the vagrancy that's occurred here." — Adam Bau, applicant representative, Sonoma Communities

"I like the fact that it's not a conventional apartment complex. We need rentals. We need places for families and people to live. It's a compromise—people get yards, they get open spaces. It's what Apache Junction in a way is like. I think it's an apartment area but it has openness, and that's what AJ's about." — Commissioner Vice Chair Peter Heck

Heavenly Superstition

"This is absolutely the worst representation that we want in Apache Junction... This is Mesa stuff. This is HOAs. This is high-density garbage. This is what we don't want." — Robert Schroeder, resident, 244 West Virginia Avenue

"We have about 40 riders that go out every weekend. I'm definitely worried about the dangerous situation with traffic coming in and out of that main gate... Superstition has become a raceway." — Beth Williamson, boarding stable owner, Rancho Road

"These aren't apartments. They are standalone residences that people lease. They are homes." — Brennan Ray, Keystone Homes' attorney, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

Timeline

Residences at Apache Trail (P-21-68-PZ)

• Staff presentation: Planner Kelsey Shatnik presented a rezoning from general commercial (B1) and high-density residential (RM2) to RM2/PD, with only one deviation: reducing rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. The 22-acre site has a major wash that cuts through it, causing flooding and floodplain uncertainty. Staff recommended approval with conditions; only one neighbor attended the September 14 neighborhood meeting, expressing support.

• Applicant presentation: Adam Bau (Sonoma Communities) emphasized the site's troubled history—dumping, trash, vagrancy—and the challenge of developing around the wash. He argued the single-story design with private rear yards and covered parking (244 of 430 spaces) offers a superior rental product targeting former homeowners and young professionals seeking maintenance-free living. Density is only 10 units per acre, well below typical multifamily standards.

• Commission discussion: Commissioners expressed concern about the wash, parking in drive aisles, street widths for trash collection, traffic on Royal Palm and Old West Highway, and the extension of a sewer main northward (800+ feet). Darryl Cross flagged that the sewer extension might create development pressure on adjacent properties. Commissioner Barker worried about the intersection of Royal Palm and Old West, which he called "problematic." However, commissioners generally agreed the product type and design mitigated typical multifamily concerns, and the property's decades-long vacancy made the conversion sensible.

• Public comment: 4 speakers. Robert Schroeder (resident) expressed opposition to apartments and two-story units ("we don't want Mesa"), but acknowledged good design. Jeff Bartlett (renter) supported the project, arguing that regulations drive up housing costs and that supply lowers prices. Ken Bradley and Jim Bowler (horse owners) acknowledged the project's benefits while expressing concerns about traffic and trails.

• Motion and vote: Commissioner Barker moved approval, with conditions including trail access dedication (Condition 14, added mid-discussion). Vote: 7-0 approval. The project goes to city council on October 19.

Heavenly Superstition (P-21-73-PZ)

• Staff presentation: Planner Nick [surname unclear from transcript] presented a rezoning from rural single-family (RSGR) to high-density multifamily (RM2/PZ) on 14.77 acres in the designated downtown redevelopment area (which allows up to 40 units/acre under the general plan). The proposal is 11–13 units per acre—half the density of base RM2 standards. Fourteen of approximately 150 buildings will be two-story (max 26 feet, below RSGR's allowed 35 feet). Staff noted the site includes a minor wash, drainage will be engineered, and a neighborhood meeting on September 7 attracted 7 residents (including one on Zoom) with concerns about water retention, height, and traffic. Staff recommended approval with 13 conditions, including a trail dedication on the south side and 40-foot dedication on Royal Palm Road to improve that corridor.

• City planner's clarification: Director of Planning [name not stated] explained that the general plan, approved by voters (75% vote) in August 2020, designated this area (shown in purple on the zoning map) for downtown redevelopment and mixed-use development. The zoning map itself had not changed since August 2020; the RSGR zoning predated the city's incorporation. Staff's role is to explain consistency with the general plan to developers. The director also noted that other projects—a 15-acre mixed-use near Idaho and Scenic, a 400-unit project south of Scenic—are already in the pipeline. He acknowledged that no policy currently exists for when to require a traffic study, and suggested this project would benefit from one.

• Applicant presentation: Brennan Ray (Keystone Homes' attorney) described the project as a hybrid of single-family residential character and multifamily living—"standalone residences that people lease." The development includes extensive landscaping on Superstition Boulevard to create a "sense of arrival," pocket parks throughout, a gated entry off Superstition, and a residents-only entrance on Royal Palm. Parking is 1.8 spaces per unit (exceeds code). Three EV charging stations are planned, with infrastructure for six more. Ray emphasized that the site plan orients units toward Royal Palm to activate that street and creates diverse pocket parks (spider parks/spider webs). He noted they've coordinated with neighbors concerned about plant species toxic to horses, modified designs, and are willing to accept an additional condition requiring work with city staff on a multi-use trail on the west side of Royal Palm. The project addresses the general plan's call for high-density residential in the downtown core to support commercial and create a residential base.

• Public comment: 7 speakers. Robert Schroeder (same resident as before) vehemently opposed the project as "Mesa stuff," "HOA garbage," and a view-blocker, and warned the commission that allowing one high-density project would attract others. Jeff Bartlett (renter) repeated his support for supply-side housing, arguing regulations raise costs and that 166 units would lower rents and appeal to demographics currently priced out. Casey Bradley (resident, 635 North Royal Palm) directly across from the proposed Royal Palm gate entrance, warned that a similar community in Mesa required a traffic light, expressed concern about traffic conflicts with a small, condensed parcel, and lamented loss of views and wildlife. Beth Williamson (boarding stable owner, east of the project) reported ~40 weekend riders using trails north through state land, expressed grave concern about the "raceway" traffic on Superstition, noted she has witnessed animal fatalities from vehicles, and worried about construction dust, odor, and the incompatibility with a horse-friendly small-town culture. She also flagged that the September 7 neighborhood meeting notice arrived only two days before (during Labor Day weekend), preventing full community notice. Ken Bradley (resident) requested a wildlife study, noting two owls and two hawks nest on the property, and called for a traffic study. Tim Sheehan (AJ Apartments owner) supported the project, noting high demand from renters and that rooftops drive commercial development downtown. Lucio Ortiz (resident, 591 East Superstition Boulevard) bought the property six months prior specifically for rural character; the proposed project felt like it was "ruining" his investment and walks, blocking mountain views and habitat. Julie Fritz (resident, 575 North Royal Palm) bought in 2004 and opposed the project directly across her bedroom window.

• Commission discussion: Vice Chair Peter Heck opened by noting this is "prime development property in our downtown corridor" surrounded by RSGR (rural single-family), with other high-density projects in the pipeline (Ironwood and Superstition, Idaho and Scenic, etc.). He said the project doesn't give him "warm and fuzzies," clashes with neighbors, will cause traffic issues for the equestrian community (especially before a horse trail even exists), and he "can't find a good reason to rush on this."

  Commissioner Jeremy [surname unclear] expressed concern about rezoning RSGR to higher density and flagged a fire safety issue: "three houses in a row" with fire access only from a house away; if the middle house catches fire, rescuers are blocked.

  Commissioner Cantwell recognized the need for higher density in the downtown district but noted this is "right on the edge of the downtown district." Without the rest of downtown already developed, "it doesn't feel right being that close to the rural side." He opposed the timing and location while acknowledging the development itself may not be inherently bad.

  Commissioner Barker's "major concern is traffic." He called Superstition "a mess," noted the roadway is "running off the sides," and expressed worry that the project feels "crammed up." He noted there will be ~300–330 people (not just 166 units) and warned: "unless the city is going to completely redo Superstition [as] a four-lane road, I just feel like this is an accident waiting to happen."

  Darryl Cross noted this parcel is smaller (14.77 acres, 38% open space) than the just-approved Apache Trail project (22 acres, 58% open space), making it feel "crammed." He also voiced concern about sewer-board transparency: this was the first he'd heard of extending a sewer main north on Winchester, and that hadn't been discussed with the sewer board. He raised a policy issue: when the city extends sewer, "high-density developments require a sewer main, so you know it's the chicken and the egg; the sewer main's there, the high density is coming." He asked whether the city understands this precedent. He agreed the project is "a little too dense" and, living in the RSGR area, will "resist densifying that," but acknowledged the city approved the downtown-development district (purple area) in the general plan and "we've kind of committed to a different plan" there. He suggested commissioners understand what the general plan means before voting.

  Director of Planning responded, reiterating that staff recommends approval because the general plan, voted on by 75% of voters in August 2020, designated this area for downtown development at densities of ~13 units/acre—this project is in that range. Staff "can't just [reject it] because other density is coming." However, the director acknowledged that no policy exists for traffic-study thresholds and that "a traffic study would certainly be warranted as a condition of approval."

  Commissioner Gage asked whether the RSGR zoning had changed since August 2020 (when voters approved the general plan), or if voters knew it would be rezoned. The director responded the zoning in August 2020 was the same as today; much of it predates the city's incorporation (1978) and was inherited from the county. Higher-density zoning (40+ units/acre) already exists east of Royal Palm; this project is lower-density than that precedent.

  Peter Heck noted a "disconnect between the zoning map and the long-term master plan map." If most of the downtown (purple area) were already filled, he'd have fewer objections. But as "the first one going in, not something later on," it's a timing issue. He suggested that if the city wanted to rezone to B3 (commercial) across the whole purple area, that might be a cleaner approach.

  Commissioner Begeman (full comments not fully transcribed) expressed the traffic concern and noted discomfort with the project's location and density.

  Motion to continue: Commissioner Cantwell moved to continue the item to November 23, 2021 (the fourth Tuesday of that month, before Thanksgiving), pending a traffic study. Brennan Ray (applicant) indicated a traffic study would take ~six weeks. The motion passed 7-0. The director noted that a public hearing with city council was already advertised for October 18; the council will have to continue that hearing to December 7 (the earliest council meeting after November 23) or another date, since the commission has not yet made a recommendation.

Opposition

Heavenly Superstition project opposition (7 public speakers, plus 5 commission members expressing significant reservations):

Main concerns:

1. Traffic danger: Superstition Boulevard is a "raceway" and high-speed corridor; roundabout exit onto Superstition, combined with a gated-community entrance deceleration lane and potential left-turn conflicts, creates accident risk. No traffic study has been required yet.
2. Equestrian conflict: ~40 weekend riders use trails north through state land; gated residential development on Royal Palm will create traffic conflicts with horse riders and increase speeding, putting animals at risk. Boarding stable owner reported animal fatalities from speeding vehicles.
3. Density on small parcel: 166 units on 14.77 acres (with only 38% open space, vs. 58% on the just-approved Apache Trail project) feels "crammed up" and incompatible with 15-acre rural lots surrounding the site.
4. Loss of rural character and mountain views: Residents specifically chose the area for its openness, horse-friendly lifestyle, and unobstructed views of Superstition Mountains and desert habitat. Two-story buildings will block views; habitat destruction will disrupt wildlife (owls, hawks noted nesting on-site; quail, javelina frequent the area).
5. Sewer infrastructure pressure: City's plan to extend sewer main north on Winchester to service the project will create development pressure on adjacent rural properties, forcing future high-density zoning whether residents want it or not.
6. Inadequate notice: Neighborhood meeting notice was mailed only two days before the September 7 meeting (during Labor Day weekend), preventing full community participation.
7. Incompatibility with small-town character: Community repeatedly expressed that they moved to Apache Junction specifically to avoid Mesa-style sprawl, high HOAs, and density.

Most compelling opposition arguments:

• Beth Williamson (boarding stable owner): "If you put 166 people in this tiny little area that's not much bigger than our turnout for our horses, you're talking about a lot of traffic. Say 80 cars going out on Superstition Boulevard on top of everybody else coming down from the mountain—that's just a lot of traffic for that road, and it's a very dangerous road to begin with."
• Robert Schroeder: "This is absolutely the worst representation that we want in Apache Junction... This is Mesa stuff. This is HOAs. This is high-density garbage. This is what we don't want."
• Commissioner Barker: "Unless the city is going to completely redo Superstition [as] a four-lane road, I just feel like this is an accident waiting to happen."

Organized opposition: No formal group, but a loose coalition of equestrian-property owners and rural-character preservationists, including boarding stable owner Beth Williamson and neighboring residents Casey Bradley, Ken Bradley, Lucio Ortiz, and Julie Fritz.

Support

Heavenly Superstition project support (2 public speakers):

1. Jeff Bartlett (renter, 108 North Meridian Drive, Apartment 220): Supported the project as filling a critical housing-supply gap. Argued that supply-and-demand economics mean more units lower rents and cost of living. Praised the design. Expressed frustration with anti-development sentiment and noted demographics will shift as new residents move in.

2. Tim Sheehan (AJ Apartments owner, 357 South Winchester Road): Called the project a critical component of downtown revitalization. Reported receiving "calls weekly with people crying looking for places to live." Emphasized that "we don't have rooftops like these, businesses don't come," and that the downtown corridor specifically needs these communities to support commercial development. Noted that the project's traffic flows away from existing rural acreage.

Commission support: Darryl Cross (who expressed serious density and policy concerns) acknowledged the general plan commitment to downtown development and noted that "we've kind of committed to a different plan" for the purple area; he did not advocate approval but suggested the commission needed to grapple with what the general plan means.

Applicant support: Brennan Ray's presentation; no neighborhood support.

Project Details

Residences at Apache Trail (Item P-21-68-PZ)

• Case number: P-21-68-PZ
• Applicant / developer: Sonoma Communities
• Attorney: Adam Bau
• Location / address: Southwest corner of Broadway Avenue and Tomahawk Road, Apache Junction, Arizona
• Parcels: Two parcels comprising ~22 acres (western parcel already RM2; eastern parcel B1 commercial)
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: B1 (general commercial) and RM2 (high-density multifamily) → RM2/PD (high-density multifamily by plan development)
• Density / units / square footage: 201 units; 10 units per acre (low density for multifamily); mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units plus 8 carriage units (2 bedrooms above garages)
• Architectural types: Three architectural types, three elevations each; mostly single-story, 8 carriage units two-story; materials include stucco, wood shutters, coach lights
• Parking: 430 spaces (exceeds requirement of 365); 244 covered, balance uncovered or garage
• Amenities: Pool, clubhouse, recreation areas, gated community
• Deviations: One: reduction of rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet

Heavenly Superstition (Item P-21-73-PZ)

• Case number: P-21-73-PZ
• Applicant / developer: Keystone Homes (local, family-owned, 30+ years in valley)
• Attorney: Brennan Ray, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
• Location / address: Southwest corner of Superstition Boulevard and Royal Palm Road, Apache Junction, Arizona
• Parcel: 14.77 acres (gross; 0.23 acres is ADOT right-of-way cut for roundabout)
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: RSGR (rural single-family detached residential) → RM2/PD (high-density multifamily by plan development)
• Density / units / square footage: 166 units; 11–13 units per acre (gross); approximately 150 buildings, 166 units (includes ~16 duplexes = ~10% of buildings); square footage ranges 722 sq. ft. to ~1,200 sq. ft.
• Architectural types: Eight architectural types (contemporary Spanish and modern prairie); 14 two-story homes (all on interior or south side, none on south perimeter to minimize neighbor impact); max height 26 feet (below RSGR's allowed 35 feet, well below RM2's 40 feet)
• Open space: 38% (vs. 58% on Apache Trail project)
• Parking: ~1.8 spaces per unit (meets code)
• Amenities: Clubhouse, pool, fitness center, recreational center; "pocket parks" or "spider parks" throughout; dog park; pedestrian gates on Royal Palm
• EV charging: 3 stations planned, infrastructure for 6 additional (9 total)
• Deviations: Two: (1) reduction of minimum front setback along Superstition Boulevard from 20 feet to 10 feet to improve pedestrian access; (2) reduction of minimum rear setback for site flexibility
• Infrastructure: Will require sewer connection; city working with Arizona Water Company and sewer district on extension north on Winchester (roughly 0.5 mile), or alternative lift-station approach

Vote Breakdown

Residences at Apache Trail (P-21-68-PZ)

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

Heavenly Superstition (P-21-73-PZ)

• Final: 7-0 continuance (not approval or denial; deferred to November 23, 2021)
• Yes (all): Darryl Cross, Commissioner Gage, Commissioner Barker, Commissioner Begeman, Commissioner Cantwell, Vice Chair Hinchey, Peter Heck
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: None
• Note: No recommendation was made to city council; council's October 18 public hearing will be continued, likely to December 7.

Outcome & Next Steps

Residences at Apache Trail

Decision: Unanimously recommended for approval to city council, subject to 14 conditions of approval, including:

1. Compliance with zoning ordinance
2. Substantial compliance with presented plan development (layout, elevations, setbacks, wall separations, amenities, landscaping, utilities)
3. Landscape screening (24-inch box trees, 5-gallon shrubs, 6-foot fence)
4. Street improvements (pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights, underground utilities, fire hydrants)
5. Traffic, drainage, FEMA floodplain compliance per city engineer
6. Not age-restricted
7. All permits and current code compliance; development fees paid per 30 units
8. Common areas and amenity areas owned/maintained by HOA
9. Civil engineer improvement plans per city standards
10. Land division and lot combination required
11. Minor modifications administratively reviewed; major deviations require amendment
12. Developer to work with city on trail dedication and access around Weeks Wash (Condition 14, added by commission)

Next step: City Council public hearing October 19, 2021. After approval by council, applicant must complete engineering studies (hydrology, sewer capacity) before any grading or construction permits are issued. Applicant indicated "tremendous interest and demand" and expects to break ground as soon as entitlements are finalized.

Heavenly Superstition

Decision: Continued to November 23, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, pending preparation of a traffic impact study by the applicant and city engineer.

Why continued: Multiple commissioners (Peter Heck, Barker, Cantwell, Begeman, Darryl Cross) expressed concern about traffic safety on Superstition Boulevard, particularly the roundabout exit, deceleration-lane design, left-turn conflicts, and interaction with equestrian riders on Royal Palm. Commissioner Barker called it "an accident waiting to happen." Director acknowledged no policy exists for traffic-study thresholds and agreed a study is warranted.

Applicant position: Brennan Ray indicated applicant is amenable to a traffic study; six weeks typical timeframe. Applicant confirmed willingness to accept staff's 13 recommended conditions and offered to add a condition requiring coordination with city staff on a multi-use trail on the west side of Royal Palm Road (east side of development).

Next steps:

1. Applicant/engineer to conduct traffic impact study (estimated completion by early November)
2. Study to be reviewed by city engineer and staff
3. Commission reconvenes November 23 to hear study results
4. Assuming recommendation is made, city council hearing would likely be December 7, 2021 (next council meeting after November 23)
5. If approved by council, applicant would proceed to engineering, drainage, hydrology studies, and permitting

Controversies & Context

General Plan Ambiguity and Zoning-Map Disconnect

The primary controversy surrounds a disconnect between the zoning map and the general plan. In August 2020, Apache Junction voters (75% approval) adopted a 2020–2050 general plan designating a "downtown redevelopment area" (shown as a purple zone on staff maps) that allows mixed-use development and densities up to 40 units per acre. However, much of the land within that purple zone is zoned RSGR (rural single-family) or other lower-density categories. This zoning predates the city's incorporation in 1978 and was inherited from Maricopa County.

Staff position: The general plan is controlling. Developers applying within the purple zone are entitled to rezone to densities consistent with the plan (~13 units/acre). Staff's role is to explain this to applicants and voters.

Commission concern: Several commissioners (Peter Heck, Cantwell, Barker, Begeman, Darryl Cross) expressed discomfort with being the "first" to approve a high-density project in this zone, especially on the boundary between downtown (purple) and rural (RSGR) areas. The timing feels premature; if the rest of downtown were already built out, the context would be different. Commissioner Cantwell suggested the city consider a wholesale rezoning of the purple area to B3 (commercial) or RM2, rather than approving projects on a case-by-case basis.

Sewer Infrastructure as a Precedent-Darryl Cross (also on the sewer board) raised an institutional concern: when the city extends sewer north on Winchester to serve the Heavenly Superstition project (~0.5 mile extension), it will inevitably create development pressure on adjacent properties to rezone to higher density—because "high-density developments require a sewer main." He noted this was the first he'd heard of this sewer extension, despite being on the sewer board, suggesting poor transparency between the sewer district and the planning commission. The director acknowledged the concern and suggested further discussion with the sewer district.

Equestrian Community Impacts

The Heavenly Superstition project sits immediately west of a major equestrian boarding stable (east of Royal Palm) with ~40 weekend riders who use a trail north through state trust land. Public comment and commission discussion focused on:

• Traffic safety: Residents on horseback will cross Royal Palm and Superstition Boulevard. Superstition is described as a high-speed "raceway"; a boarding stable owner reported recent animal fatalities from speeding vehicles.
• Trail connectivity: Staff and applicant discussed possible trail dedications (Condition 3 on the south side; potential additional condition on west side of Royal Palm), but as Darryl Cross noted, "it will be a while" before any horse trail is formalized—meanwhile, traffic will be present immediately upon occupancy.
• Odor and incompatibility: Residents moving into a rental community may be unfamiliar with equestrian culture; horses near residential development can create odor issues and management conflicts (though applicant Keystone Homes coordinated with a neighbor to avoid planting trees toxic to horses).

Community Identity and "Don't Become Mesa"

A recurring theme in public comment was residents' fear that Apache Junction will "become Mesa"—i.e., sprawling, overdeveloped, losing the small-town, rural feel that attracted them. Robert Schroeder (who stated he has no plans to leave and intends to monitor future development) explicitly invoked this concern, saying "we don't want to be like Mesa ever." This sentiment reflects a fundamental tension: the city adopted a general plan calling for downtown densification to support commercial and create a vibrant core, but much of the existing population moved to Apache Junction (or stayed there) precisely to avoid that kind of development.

Sewer Board and City Staff Communication

Darryl Cross flagged poor transparency: the sewer board was not informed that the city was planning to extend a sewer main 0.5 mile north to serve this project. The director responded that staff interfaces with the sewer district through their engineer, who reviews each project, but acknowledged that "further discussion with the sewer district" is warranted as the area grows. This raises a question about whether sewer infrastructure planning is being coordinated across agencies or siloed.

Traffic Study Policy Gap

The city has no written policy defining when a traffic study is required. The director noted that the just-approved Apache Trail project (201 units) did not trigger a traffic study requirement, nor did a 195-unit project at Meridian and Southern, but another developer did produce a traffic study for a comparable project. This inconsistency led the director to suggest the city should "get a policy in place." The Heavenly Superstition deferral, by contrast, is premised on obtaining a traffic study—suggesting commissioners believe Superstition Boulevard's existing conditions warrant deeper analysis.

First Project in a Redevelopment Zone

Vice Peter Heck noted this is "the first one going in, not something later on." If the purple downtown zone were already half-built with higher-density residential, the incremental addition of another project would feel less jarring. But approving the first such project on a high-speed boulevard adjacent to established rural neighborhoods and equestrian facilities feels premature to several commissioners, even if it technically complies with the general plan.

Duration

• Item 1 (Residences at Apache Trail): Approximately 90–100 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, commission questions, public hearing, commission discussion, findings of fact, motion, vote)
• Item 2 (Heavenly Superstition): Approximately 120–150 minutes (staff presentation, applicant presentation, commission questions, public hearing, extensive commission discussion, director response to policy questions, motion to continue, vote)
• Total meeting: Approximately 3.5–4 hours (including breaks, roll calls, agenda approval)

Other Notable Items

None. The meeting included only two public hearings. An item on "selection of meeting dates, times, locations" set the next regular commission meeting for October 12, 2021, at 7 p.m. in the city council chamber; any future meeting may be cancelled if no items are scheduled. All agenda items were zoning hearings.