Apache Junction advances 271-unit Silver Ray rezoning to May 21 council vote with three options

Apache Junction Council Faces Three-Path Choice on Silver Ray Rezoning After Planning Commission Overrules Staff's Commercial Reservation

On May 8, 2024, Apache Junction staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission presented starkly different visions for the 271-unit Silver Ray rental development, setting the stage for a contentious public hearing on May 21. The project, proposed near the southeast corner of US 60 and Goldfield Road, requires both a major general plan amendment (changing from commercial to high-density residential designation) and rezoning. Planner Kelsey Shnick laid out the dispute: staff recommends reserving 5 acres of the northern parcel for future commercial development, while the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to approve the development as wholly residential—eliminating staff's conditions outright.

Key Speeches

"Planning staff are not commercial developers, we're not real estate brokers, we're not Economic Development Specialists, however in reviewing these proposals we receive guidance from the general plan, public input, Planning and Zoning Commission, city council, as well as our knowledge and experience regarding current market trends and development trends." — Kelsey Shnick, Planner

"The Commissioners who were in favor of the project as proposed by the developer noted the benefit of developing a historically vacant property. They discussed whether the site was viable for a commercial use and noted that the approved development plan has been in existence for 20 years and has yet to be developed." — Kelsey Shnick, presenting Planning Commission majority rationale

"The Commissioners who were against the proposal noted the desire of an ownership product at the site as opposed to rental. They noted the lack of desire to continue changing the voter approved General Plan." — Kelsey Shnick, presenting Planning Commission minority concerns

Timeline

• Applicant presentation & site history: Kelsey Shnick presented the two decades of history on the 31.5-acre bifurcated site. Ordinance 1144 (north of Resort Boulevard, approved 2000) approved a commercial center with pad sites for gas station, retail, service, restaurant, and hotel; only the gas station was built. Ordinance 1146 (south of Resort Boulevard, approved 2000) approved a 60-bed hospital campus with helipad; never developed. Current general plan designates the property commercial.

• Proposed development: 271 two-story rental units (1, 2, and 3 bedrooms), mix of covered/uncovered parking and garages, amenities including pool, clubhouse, dog parks, walking paths, and game lawn.

• Staff recommendation: Approve both general plan amendment and rezoning subject to Project Specific Conditions 1 and 2: reserve 5 acres of northern parcel for commercial use, with uses restricted to community commercial types (grocery anchor, inline retail, medical, pad sites) and excluding undesirable uses like motor vehicle dealers, cemeteries, check cashing stores, and death care services. Staff cited voter-approved general plan commercial designation, freeway proximity, future north-south corridor location, and scarcity of large developable commercial sites citywide.

• Planning Commission votes: Two public hearings (March 26 and April 23). Vote: 4-3 to recommend approval without the 5-acre commercial reservation and without Project Specific Conditions 1 and 2. Majority cited 20-year vacancy, viability questions, benefit of "rooftops," and reluctance to "keep commercial property that may never develop." Minority opposed further changes to voter-approved general plan and preferred ownership product over rental; also concerned about market-rate-only affordability.

• Public comment at work session: None formally presented; however, staff noted 17 emails (mostly opposing), a protest petition signed by 170+ Golden Vista residents, and multiple neighborhood meetings held by applicant. Primary concerns: two-story height, traffic, water availability, property values.

• External input: Pinal County was the sole respondent to the 60-day general plan amendment notice; county opposed the amendment and designated a portion of the site as commercial on its own land-use map.

• Council discussion: Mayor Chip Wilson and council members asked clarifying questions on the wash location, five-acre placement, commercial viability alternatives (e.g., medical plaza instead of hospital), and community input breakdown (Golden Vista owners vs. Dolce Vita renters).

• No vote at work session: This was a discussion and work session only. Public hearing and formal vote scheduled May 21, 2024.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 17 email senders, 170+ Golden Vista petition signers, plus Pinal County official response.

Main concerns:

1. Two-story building height deemed excessive for the location
2. Traffic impacts and congestion on surrounding roads
3. Water availability and demand on city infrastructure
4. Property values—particularly for Golden Vista homeowners (who own both lot and unit) and Dolce Vita residents (who own home but not land)
5. Loss of voter-approved commercial land designation and scarce commercial development opportunity
6. Preference for ownership housing over rental product
7. Lack of affordability (market-rate units only)

Most compelling arguments:

• Staff's structural point: large, freeway-visible commercial sites are increasingly scarce in Apache Junction, and this parcel's 20-year vacancy does not negate its value for eventual commercial use; once rezoned residential, commercial development option is permanently lost.
• Pinal County's alignment with staff on commercial designation, suggesting regional coordination on land use.
• Planning Commission minority's concern about the pattern of eroding voter-approved general plan designations.

Organized groups: Golden Vista HOA (170+ signatures on protest petition).

Support

Number of speakers for: Planning Commission majority (4 commissioners).

Main arguments:

1. Property has been vacant under commercial zoning for 20 years; reasonable to assume commercial viability is low.
2. Developing the site as proposed brings 271 residential units ("rooftops") into the city.
3. Market trends show shift away from standalone commercial development; rentals serve workforce housing demand.
4. Eliminating forced commercial reservation allows greater design flexibility and financial viability of the rental community.
5. No need to "keep commercial property that may never develop."

Organized support: Applicant (unstated entity in transcript) held multiple neighborhood meetings; no formal resident support group identified in transcript.

Project Details

• Case number: P23-D63-PZ and P-GPA (General Plan Amendment and Rezoning)
• Applicant / developer: Not named in transcript
• Attorney: Not identified in transcript
• Location / address: Southeast corner of US 60 and Goldfield Road, Apache Junction, Arizona
• APN: Not stated in transcript
• Current zoning: Commercial (B1 PD under two ordinances: 1144 north of Resort Boulevard, 1146 south)
• Proposed zoning: High-Density Multiple Family Residential (RM2 PD)
• Current general plan designation: Commercial
• Proposed general plan designation: High-Density Residential
• Density / units / square footage: 271 units (mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms), all two-story
• Site size: Approximately 31.5 acres (bifurcated by private Resort Boulevard)
• Parking: Mix of covered, uncovered, and garage options
• Amenities: Pool, clubhouse, dog parks, walking paths, game lawn
• Elevation types: Eight types specified, using tile roofs, brick veneer, stucco
• Changes from previous version: N/A—first presentation to council (prior approval was original ordinances 1144 and 1146 from 2000)

Vote Breakdown

• Final at work session: No formal vote; work session only
• Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation vote (prior to council work session): 4-3 to approve general plan amendment and rezoning as proposed by developer (eliminating staff's 5-acre commercial condition)
• City Council position: Not yet determined; awaiting May 21 public hearing

Outcome & Next Steps

The May 8 work session served as a discussion and information platform before the formal public hearing. At the May 21, 2024 public hearing, city council will consider three options:

1. Approval as developer proposed: All 271 units residential; full general plan amendment to high-density residential; no commercial reservation.
2. Approval per staff recommendation: 271 units plus 5-acre commercial reservation on northern parcel, with Project Specific Conditions 1 and 2 governing permitted commercial uses.
3. Denial: Maintain current zoning (B1 PD commercial under ordinances 1144 and 1146), triggering no rezoning and no general plan amendment.

No conditions have been formally imposed or modified at this stage. The May 21 hearing will include public comment and council deliberation before a formal vote. The outcome will determine whether the site is developed all-residential or partially reserved for commercial use, and whether the city's general plan commercial designation for this high-visibility freeway property is relinquished or preserved.

Controversies & Context

Staff vs. Planning Commission split: The Planning Commission's 4-3 vote directly contradicts staff's recommendation. Staff justified the 5-acre commercial reservation on grounds of:

• Voter-approved general plan designation (commercial)
• Proximity to US 60 and future north-south corridor (high visibility)
• City's limited inventory of large, developable commercial sites
• 20-year vacancy does not eliminate future commercial viability; it underscores lack of prior demand, not permanent unviability

The Planning Commission majority, by contrast, treated the 20-year vacancy as evidence that commercial use is unlikely and that residential use delivers tangible community benefit (rooftops, tax base, utilization of historically vacant land).

Pinal County opposition: Pinal County's official response to the 60-day general plan amendment notice opposed the amendment, citing its own land-use designation of a portion of the site as commercial. This suggests regional friction over the loss of commercial capacity.

Community opposition by neighborhood: Golden Vista (to the west; homeowners owning both lot and unit) organized a protest petition with 170+ signatures, citing property values. Dolce Vita (to the south; residents owning home but not land, all renters) also voiced concerns, though the distinction in ownership structure suggests different economic exposure. Staff received 17 emails, mostly against the proposal.

Commercial viability argument unresolved: A critical tension in the hearing was whether the site is "viable" for commercial use. The Planning Commission viewed 20 years of vacancy under commercial zoning as proof of non-viability. Staff viewed it as insufficient evidence and argued that the site's freeway visibility and future corridor proximity make it valuable for eventual community commercial use (grocery anchor, inline retail, medical). Neither side presented market studies or expert testimony to resolve this empirical question.

General Plan erosion concern: The Planning Commission minority and Pinal County both cited concern over repeated changes to voter-approved general plan designations. This reflects a broader governance tension: should voter-approved land-use classifications be durable commitments, or should they be pragmatically relinquished when development under the original designation has not materialized?

Affordability and housing type: Only three commissioners and staff mentioned the fact that Silver Ray will be all market-rate rental (no affordable component). No council member raised affordability at the work session.

Duration

• Silver Ray rezoning and general plan amendment item: Approximately 45 minutes (presentation, council questions, discussion)
• Senior Transportation Services Agreement Amendment item: Approximately 15 minutes
• Total meeting: Approximately 65 minutes

Other Notable Items

Senior Transportation Services Agreement Amendment (CACD, second amendment): Recreation Superintendent Jamie Sullivan and Senior Services Coordinator JJ Underwood presented a second amendment to Apache Junction's transportation services agreement with Central Arizona Council on Development Disabilities (CACD). The change shifts from a per-rider model ($17.50 minimum 6 riders) to a flat-rate model ($240 for up to 18 riders, with $80 added for extended-day programs). The per-mile rate increases from $6 to $8. Staff noted the city serves nearly 31,000 meals, provides 5,000+ trips, and serves 4,500 program participants annually via senior center services. The amendment keeps spending within the existing budget despite increased rates for insurance, gas, and personnel. Council members expressed strong informal support (Council Member Peter Heck joked about joining the bus himself). No formal vote was taken at this work session; the item will return May 21. The amendment is recommended for approval and requires no additional budget allocation.