Planning commission rejects Wolf Company’s 336‑unit downtown apartment proposal after public opposition

The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 8, 2025 declined to recommend approval of conditional use permit PD-24-104-CUP, a request by the Wolf Company (represented by Gilbert Blyley/Paul Gilbert) to build a 336‑unit, three‑story multifamily rental community on about 18 acres at the northwest corner of Idaho Road and North Apache Trail.

City planner Kelsey Shatnick presented the staff analysis and said the site is zoned City Center B3 and carries a downtown mixed‑use general plan designation. The applicant proposed 14 three‑story buildings with a total of 336 units (one‑ and two‑bedroom plans ranging roughly from 750 to just over 1,000 square feet), a clubhouse, pool, dog park, usable open space, grills and covered parking. Shatnick said the project would use native, low‑water landscaping and dark‑sky‑compliant lighting; staff noted public outreach including a neighborhood meeting on December 9, 2024 and said staff supports the CUP as consistent with the general plan and downtown master plan.

Representing the applicant, attorney Paul Gilbert and Wolf Company representatives described the plan as market‑rate multifamily that aligns with multiple city plans. Gilbert said the development is an $80 million project that would provide about $3.7 million in public infrastructure improvements, and that the developer requests an administrative parking reduction of about 8.7% (proposing 684 on‑site spaces where code requires 749). The applicant said it would provide 2.4 parking spaces per unit on site and add 45 off‑street parking spaces on Plaza Drive; the project’s stated height is about 34 feet, below the 60‑foot maximum in B3 zoning.

Many nearby residents — largely from the Lost Dutchman RV Resort and properties on Plaza Drive — spoke in opposition at the public hearing. Speakers raised concerns about increased traffic (particularly exiting onto Plaza Drive and crossing North Apache Trail to reach Idaho Road or Superstition Boulevard), parking and enforcement, stormwater runoff into existing retention areas, loss of views of the Superstition Mountains, the safety of older residents and children, and the timing and representativeness of the traffic study. Several speakers said the October/December traffic counts used did not reflect higher winter/"snowbird" season volumes.

Commission discussion focused on conflicting city goals: the general plan’s encouragement of downtown residential density versus resident concerns about traffic, views and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioners pressed the applicant on parking math, guest parking, driveway location, traffic projections and whether the project’s rents would be affordable to local households. Staff and the applicant noted the parking analysis and traffic report had been reviewed and accepted by city engineering; the applicant acknowledged a typo in the narrative about the number of off‑street stalls and said it would be corrected.

When the commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of PD-24-104-CUP, the roll call recorded five votes against and two in favor and the motion failed. The commission clerk noted the decision may be appealed to the city council within 20 days in writing and subject to a filing fee.

Because the project would have required only a CUP (not rezoning), commissioners and the public discussed that retail or office uses allowed by right in B3 zoning could have a higher traffic impact than the proposed multifamily; the applicant argued the residential project would generate fewer peak trips than the other allowed uses. The record shows outstanding concerns about traffic circulation on Plaza Drive and North Apache Trail, runoff and view impacts; staff materials specify conditions of approval and engineering requirements would apply if the council later approves the project.