Planning and Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes 09.16.2026

Meeting Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
Study Session
September 16, 2026 I 4:30 p.m.
t::!_cHANDLER
Chandler City Council Chambers
V/j\,ar1zona
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ Community of Innovation
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Koshiol at 4:35 p.m.
Roll Call
Commission Attendance Staff Attendance
Chair Sherri Koshiol David de la Torre, Acting Planning Admin.
Vice Chairman Tom Bilsten Lauren Schumann, Acting Planning Manager
Commissioner Mike Quinn Alisa Petterson, Senior Planner
Commissioner Charlotte Golla Taylor Manemann, City Planner
Commissioner Dan Gauthier Mikayela Liburd, City Planner
Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney
Danielle Smee, Clerk
Absent
Commissioner Ryan Schwarzer- Excused
Commissioner Tracy Ducharme- Excused
Scheduled/Unscheduled Public Appearances
Members of the audience may address any item not on the agenda. State Statute prohibits the
Board or Commission from discussing an item that is not on the agenda, but the Board or
Commission does listen to your concerns and has staff follow up on any questions you raise.
Consent Agenda and Discussion
1. August 19, 2026, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Move Planning and Zoning Commission approve Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes of the Study Session of August 19, 2026, and Regular Meeting of August 19, 2026.

CHAIR KOSHIOL inquired if any Commissioners had any questions or comments on the meeting
minutes. There were none.
2. Rezoning, Rezamp Office #2 and #3
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning PLH25-0001 Rezamp
Office #2 and #3, Rezoning amendment to include Adult Daycare as a permitted use within an SF-
8.5/Planned Area Development (PAD) for professional offices, located at 456 & 484 W Chandler
Boulevard, generally located ½ mile west of the north-west corner of Chandler Boulevard and
Arizona Avenue, subject to the conditions as recommended by Planning Staff.
MIKAYELA LIBURD, CITY PLANNER presented PLH25-0001, Rezamp Office #2 and #3. The request
is to amend the current zoning to allow for an adult daycare as a permitted use. The proposed
development consists of two parcels. With this proposal for the Rezoning for this use to be able
to take place, a parking study is required to demonstrate that an additional demand in parking is
not generated. The Applicant has provided a parking study and there are 13 parking spaces
required and there are 18 parking spaces available at the site. Additionally, parking is
supplemented with timed buses for pick-up/drop off each day. Employees shall not exceed six
persons at any one time and hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8AM-6PM.
A neighborhood meeting was held on August 4, 2026 with only staff and the applicant in
attendance. Staff was unaware of any concerns at this time. Staff recommended approval with
stipulations.
CHAIR KOSHIOL opened the floor for comments or questions. There were none.
3. Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan, Vineyard Park
Rezoning
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning PLH26-0017 Vineyard
Park, rezoning from Planned Area Development for church uses to PAD for single-family
residential, located¼ mile north and west of the north-west corner of Germann and Alma School
roads, subject to conditions by Planning staff.
Preliminary Development Plan
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Development Plan
PLH26-0017 Vineyard Park for sixteen-lot single-family subdivision, located¼ mile north and west
of the north-west corner of Germann and Alma School roads, subject to conditions as
recommended by Planning staff.
MIKAYELA LIBURD, CITY PLANNER presented PLH26-0017 Vineyard Park. The request is for a
Rezoning from a PAD for church uses to a PAD for single-family residential and includes a
Preliminary Development Plan for a sixteen-lot single-family subdivision. MS. LIBURD provided
Page 2 of 10

background information on the site.
There are three floor plans with three elevations proposed that incorporate Santa Barbara, Desert
Prairie and Modern Farmhouse styles. MS. LIBURD reviewed setbacks for all lots. Maximum lot
coverage is 60% and all housing product is single-story with maximum height being 21 feet 9
inches. Parking will be provided with a two-vehicle garage and space for two vehicles in the
driveway. On street parking would be provided on both sides of the street.
Two concerns were received prior to the neighborhood meeting, siting concerns with density and
impacts on property values. A neighborhood meeting was held on July 21, 2026. There were seven
residents in attendance with concerns, which were reportedly addressed by the Applicant at the
time of the meeting. Staff was unaware of any further opposition. Staff finds the proposal in
conference with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommended
approval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan.
COMMISSIONER GAUTHIER inquired if there was an HOA in the neighborhood to be able to carry
out landscaping and other maintenance. MS. LIBURD reported she believed there would be an
HOA.
CHAIR KOSHIOL was happy to see the applicant and staff work together for a public street on this
project.
CHAIR KOSHIOL noted for the record that VICE CHAIR BILSTEN did step down from the podium
during the staff presentation and that he would be recusing himself from voting on this item.
4. Rezoning, Stellar City North
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning PLH25-0029 Stellar City
North, Rezoning from Single-Family (SF-8.5) District to Single-Family District/Planned Area Plan
(SF-8.5/PAD) on five (5) single-family residential lots located at the northeast corner of Stellar
Parkway and Mercury Way to establish site-specific development standards for residential aircraft
hangars, including modifications to permitted building height, lot coverage and hangar setback
requirements, subject to the conditions as recommended by Planning staff.
TAYLOR MANEMANN, CITY PLANNER presented PLH26-0029 Stellar City North. The current zoning
is SF-8.5 and the request is to rezone to SF-8.5/PAD. The five-lots currently existing have a single­
family home constructed on them with direct access to a taxiway from their rear yards in the
north. There is another subdivision that shares the same taxiway as well. The existing
development standards were approved in 2016.
There is no specific development proposal in this instance as there is no Preliminary Development
Plan, this is a PAD overlay to allow for flexibility in development standards. If the owners wish to
Page 3 of 10

utilize these new standards, then they can submit building permits at that time and it would be
reviewed individually for building and zoning code conformance.
A neighborhood meeting was held on August 4, 2026. Three neighbors attended the meeting with
no concerns. Staff was unaware of any opposition to the request. Staff recommended approval
with stipulations.
CHAIR KOSHIOL opened the floor for questions. There were none.
5. Preliminary Development Plan, Desert Palms- Burlington Signs- CONTINUANCE
Move Planning and Zoning Commission continue PLH26-0031-Desert Palms-Burlington Signs to
the October 21, 2026 meetings as recommended by Planning staff.
CHAIR KOSHIOL announced this item, Desert Palms-Burlington Signs would be continued to the
next Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing.
6. Preliminary Development Plan, Desert Palms
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of PLH25-0018 Desert Palms, to
allow for additional retail pad buildings at an existing shopping center, subject to conditions as
recommended by staff.
ALISA PETTERSON, SENIOR PLANNER presented PLH25-0018 Desert Palms to allow for additional
retail pad buildings at an existing shopping center. MS. PETTERSON reviewed the history of the
case, noting it was originally for office buildings but is now a shopping center. There are three
parcels that make up the site with three quick-serve restaurants and larger inline shops. New
landscaping and a pedestrian path are proposed as well as enhanced entry on Warner Road with
more landscaping.
MS. PETTERSON reviewed the architecture and materials for proposed use for each side of the
major streets.
A neighborhood meeting was held September 1, 2026. Staff was unaware of any opposition to the
request at this time. One email was received in support of the project. Staff recommends approval
with conditions and additionally a modification to the condition, provided to the Commissioners.
MS. PETTERSON noted that there was a modification to Stipulation #5 and that all Commissioners
were provided hard copies of that updated language. MS. PETTERSON elaborated that this
stipulation speaks to the phasing of the project and how the improvements will occur. Originally,
the stipulation was to have things completed concurrently but has since been revised to indicate
that onsite landscaping improvements will happen after the underground retention. Staff was in
agreement to that revised stipulation as it would not change the requirement that all the
Page 4 of 10

landscaping improvements would required prior to any Certificate of Occupancy for any of the
pad buildings.
CHAIR KOSHIOL read the updated stipulation aloud for the record:
Phase one shall include site demolition, rough grading, utilities to the site, and City-required
median improvements. Phase two shall include all off-site and onsite improvements int eh areas
depicted in Exhibit A, to be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or
certificate of completion for any of the proposed pads, unless such improvements have already
been completed by another ground lease tenant.
CHAIR KOSHIOL opened the floor for questions.
COMMISSIONER GOLLA asked about the previous time this area was seen at Planning and Zoning
and if it was not previously proposed for mixed use as the previous Planning and Zoning
Commission Hearing. COMMISSIONER GOLLA asked if there were discussions for that type of use
or if that was something that was not pursued.
MS. PETTERSON asked DAVID DE LA TORRE, ACTING PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR, to share more
information about that history. MR. DE LA TORRE reported that there were a lot of inquiries with
this area and that staff was previously encouraging mix used, but that it is zoned commercial and
that this owner wanted to keep it commercial as it is zoned that way already and can do a certain
number of pads by right. The Applicant is asking for additional pads, which is why this project is
coming to Planning and Zoning Commission for review.
COMMISSIONER GAUTHIER inquired about the rule with drive-thrus on major arterial roads,
noting he thought it was only one per shopping center on each arterial road. MS. PETTERSON
noted that is correct and that is why the Preliminary Development Plan is coming through Planning
and Zoning to entertain allowing an additional drive-thru. Economic Development is in support of
this request and staff reportedly worked with applicants to screen the drive-thrus and create a
continuous look to the separate drive-thrus and create a reasonable solution for the shopping
center that staff could support.
COMMISSIONER GAUTHIER asked about Quick Service Restaurant 3 (QSR-3) and if there were any
concerns with traffic on that side (Warner Road).
MS. PETTERSON reported a traffic study was needed for that area specifically and that there was
concern on entering the parcel from Alma School with multiple drive-thru lanes. It was noted it
can be addressed by closing a space and having the cars have to come around in a different area.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN inquired what would trigger an applicant to lose that specific entrance or
move the entrance to the north.
Page 5 of 10

MS. PETTERSON noted that with a future tenant coming in for permitting that may have
modification to the site plan, that stipulation would encumber the applicant to come in for a traffic
study specific to the proposed project. If the results from the parking study are determined that
those cars would back up onto Alma School Road, that would consider a way for traffic to be
redirected.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN asked if a traffic engineer works with the applicant on this. MS. PETTERSON
that would be correct.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN asked how much additional land on this site is still vacant as this area has
been constantly redeveloped.
MS. PETTERSON pointed out the Wal-Mart in the area and some of the other businesses, but that
she was not certain what space is still available. MR. DE LA TORRE reported it is all really developed
and that if there was a proposal in the future for something different, parking would need to be
further assessed to make sure there was sufficient parking for the center. The pads that are for
review for the Commission are the last remaining properties, everything else would be considered
re-development.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN asked how many existing buildings were vacant in the current shopping
center. MS. PETTERSON pointed out some of the active businesses.MS. PETTERSON invited the
applicant to come provide additional information.
MADISON LEAKE, APPLICANT, provided the tenant map. She noted the PetSmart, Ross and
Burlington and that other suites in the area are under discussion. There is also a gym and a
restaurant. There is a proposed Chick-A-Fila and a Chipotle, with the third quick service still to be
determined.
There were no further questions.
7. Preliminary Development Plan, 7-11 Chandler
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Development Plan
PLH25-0038 7-11 Chandler for the site layout and architecture for a gas station, convenience store
and commercial pad, generally located approximately 500 feet north of the north-west corner of
Cooper and Germann roads, subject to the conditions as recommended by Planning Staff.
MIKAYELA LIBURD, CITY PLANNER presented PLH25-0038 7-11 Chandler. The request is for a
Preliminary Development Plan for a gas station and convenience store with a commercial pad.
The zoning case was originally approved in 2004, and the subject site consists of two parcels. The
Rezoning requires that each parcel submits a Preliminary Development Plan, which is why this
Page 6 of 10

case came before Planning and Zoning Commission.
The proposed convenience store is 4,483 square feet with a gas canopy of 153 feet by 20 feet. The
commercial pad is proposed to be 6,401 square feet. Proposed materials used will be glazing,
metal and fiber cement panels. The required parking is 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet, requiring
60 parking spaces. 66 parking spaces have been provided.
The development is a part of a larger site so it is required to tie back into the existing development
to the materials used are corrugated metal and fiber cement panels. The gas canopy will also
implement some of these materials.
This site is within the Chandler Airpark Area Plan and was required to be reviewed by the Airport
Commission. It was determined by the Commission that this development does not constitute any
conflict with the airpark.
A sign was posted on the site and a neighborhood notice was sent out in lieu of a neighborhood
meeting due to lack of adjacent single-family residential properties.
Staff was unaware of any concerns at this time. Staff recommended approval with stipulations.
CHAIR KOSHIOL opened the floor for questions.
CHIAR KOSHIOL asked if a user had been identified for the building on the south end. MS. LIBURD
reported it was Firestone.
CHAIR KOSHIOL asked if there would be dock doors utilized.
MS. LIBURD reported that they would have dock doors and that more landscaping in that area has
been requested to create additional screening. MS. LIBURD noted that the building shown today
is only conceptual and that Firestone will have to come back in administratively to have their
building approved to ensure it is in conformance.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN asked where the dock doors would be located.
MS. LIBURD shared that currently the building that is proposed is only conceptual so when
Firestone does submit their plans administratively, then everything would be reviewed then,
including the dock doors.
VICE CHAIR requested that doors be shielded as best as they can be.
MS. LIBURD did note that the doors would be located on the north side of the building and that
additional landscaping would be requested as a screen.
Page 7 of 10

There were no further questions.
8. Use Permit, GOODAZ
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Use Permit PLH25-0041 GoodAZ
to install a new mono-broad leaf wireless communication facility generally located at the southeast
corner of Ray Road and Mcclintock Drive, subject to conditions as recommended by Planning staff.
TAYLOR MANEMANN, CITY PLANNER presented PLH25-0041 GoodAZ. MS. MANEMANN reviewed
the site location and current zoning. MS. MANEMANN provided overview on the tower, noting it is
proposed to be 65 feet to the top of the tower and 70 feet to the top of the tree. Historically,
Chandler has approved wireless facilities at 65 feet in height to the top of the antenna, so the
proposed facility is meeting the current historical precedence.
The broad mono-leaf design was selected because it does provide a superior concealment for a
three-sector wireless facility and would accommodate future co-locating opportunities. The
commercial center does contain a variety of trees, so the proposed concealment design would be
considered compatible.
There is an existing wireless facility in the center, a mono-palm, located 160 feet from residential
properties. This is reportedly the minimum distance that a wireless facility pole can be from
residential properties. This proposed tower would be located 357 feet from residential properties.
Parking would be at a deficiency due to three parking spaces being eliminated with the new mono­
pole. A parking study was completed to support this reduction, and it was determined that with
shared parking methodology, the 369 spaces that will still be provided would be enough for the
shopping center.
A neighborhood meeting was held on July 29, 2026, with one resident in attendance. Planning staff
has received three emails and one phone call with concerns. There has been one letter received
in opposition with 20 signatures of neighbors in the area. There are concerns with a second pole
being in the same center, visibility of the pole, the type of tree design used, and health related
concerns. Applicants and staff have worked to address these concerns.
The Applicant did seek out other options at surrounding shopping centers, but this property
owner was the one willing to lease the property to the Applicant. The Applicant also investigated
co-location opportunities on other structures in the area but none provided the coverage
necessary per their analysis. The chosen tree type matches leaf patterns in the center and that
type of tree style would be necessary to provide adequate coverage.
Additionally, MS. MANEMANN reported that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) does
Page 8 of 10

not allow local governments to deny new projects that are being proposed in a qualifying location
or that are providing a gap in coverage. Staff can only work with the Applicant on aesthetics of the
tower and which zoning districts the towers may be in.
Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit with stipulations.
CHAIR KOSHIOL noted that this reminded her of a previous tower near the airport that the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved and that she did recently drive by that tower and felt
that the broad leaf does do an excellent job concealing the tower and was aesthetically pleasing.
CHAIR KOSHIOL inquired if that tower was 65 feet as well.
MS. MANEMANN stated that the tower referenced was approved for 65 feet in height.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN stated he believed that the broadleaf was a better camouflage option
compared to the palm tree option. MR. BILSTEN asked about the parking study, stating that he did
believe it was a okay to reduce parking and identify businesses that can share and asked for more
information.
MS. MANEMANN reported that the parking study did look at off-hours of businesses, such as the
bowling alley that is typically not used during the day and an auto parts store that is primarily used
during the day. With the current parking situation, there was no reported issue so with the
decrease in the three parking spaces there were no issues presented.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN asked if current code stated a minimum distance between cell towers.
MS. MANEMANN reported she did not believe there to be a minimum distance, but that Applicants
must analyze all existing cell towers in a mile radius for co-location opportunities, which was
completed by the Applicant. Additionally, Applicants need to analyze structures at a certain height
in the area within a mile radius with the opportunity to co-locate. The Applicant does have to
provide justification as to why they cannot use those other structures in the area, which they did
provide. This location does meet a coverage gap that the Applicant needed.
VICE CHAIR BILSTEN thanked MS. MANEMANN for that information.
9. Notice of Cancellation of the October 7, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission
Notice of Cancellation of the October 7, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing as
recommended by staff due to lack of items.
CHAIR KOSHIOL noted that the October 7, 2026 meeting will not be occurring and that the
Planning and Zoning Commission will reconvene for a meeting on October 21, 2026.
Page 9 of 10

Calendar
The next Study Session will be held before the Regular Meeting on Wednesday October 21, 2026,
in the Chandler City Council Chambers, 88 E. Chicago Street.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
David de la Torre, Secretary Sherri Koshiol, Chair
Page 10 of 10