September 15, 2021 Study Session Minutes

Meeting Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
Study Session

September 15, 2021 | 5:00 p.m.

Chandler City Council Chambers C2 CHANDLER
. c// \\ arlzona

88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ Community of Innovation

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Heumann at 5:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Commission Attendance Staff Attendance

Chairman Rick Heumann Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator
Vice Chairman David Rose David de la Torre, Planning Manager
Commissioner Matt Eberle Lauren Schumann, Senior City Planner
Commissioner George Kimble Harley Mehlhorn, Associate Planner
Commissioner Erik Morgan Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney

Julie San Miguel, Clerk

Consent Agenda and Discussion

1. September 1, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Move Planning and Zoning Commission approve Planning and Zoning Commission Study
Session Minutes of Wednesday, September 1, 2021, and Regular Meeting Minutes of
Wednesday, September 1, 2021.

2. PLH20-0053 Chandler Airpark Area Plan Update

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER presented details regarding the request for
adopting an update to the Chandler Airpark Area Plan, clarifying recommended future land uses,
establishing conceptual design guidelines, andadoptingrevisions to the Airport
Conflicts Evaluation process, located within the area surrounding the Chandler Municipal Airport,
bounded by Santan 202 Freeway, Gilbert Road, Ocotillo Road, and Arizona Avenue.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN pointed out the presentation contained a lot of tilt on buildings. He
understands there is a need for tilt for flex industrial and asked in the innovation zones is there
anything preventing a bunch of tilt. He also asked if the zones would clarify the type of buildings
that can go in.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER stated the uses recommended will guide the type
of development going in. She explained the Innovation District has some guidance within the
design guidelines for a higher quality of design. She further stated it recommends the breaking
of the planes, roof planes, and creating a campus like settings.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented concerns regarding the three Design Review Committee
meetings held over the last months. He stated the applicants are coming in with a lot of tilt and
no design standards and he would like to make sure that is covered. He further stated the
presentation had pictures of parking garages with a lot of solar. He asked is solar is going to be
encouraged on some of these projects.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER stated this is an opportunity to allow for
sustainable uses and mentioned that the parking garage, adjacent to Sky Harbor Airport, is one
of the largest solar panels with within the vicinity of an airport.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN mentioned solar on parking garage gives another floor of covered
parking. He stated as we talk about innovation, we should also be talking about climate change,
and he would like to see this as part of the terms. He asked staff to explain the conflict scale and
if there is written criteria. He presented concern regarding the conflict scale and the Airport
Commission. He suggested there be written criteria to clarify the conflict levels.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER stated it would be at the mercy of the Airport
Commission Members. She explained discussions were held at Airport Commission regarding
criteria and some situations were discussed. She further explained in a situation where you have
130 single family homes located a mile and a half away from the airport, under a flight paths
would be a high conflict. She stated if the same location and distance away from the airport if
there were 25 single family lots and the flights are at an altitude above 2000 square feet, would
be a moderate or a high conflict.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated we are not proposing any new residential, we are not taking
industrial and make it into residential, so the concern is that it’s very vague. He asked between
now and City Council if it could be tightened up. He asked if Airport Commission would have to
say on Preliminary Development Plans (PDPs).

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER responded Airport Commission will be reviewing
Preliminary Development Plan Applications. She explained currently, Airport Commission is only
to look at any development for its use is and if the use creates a conflict with current or future

Page 2 of 5

operations. She further explained a few years ago Solid Cabinetry almost created a potential
conflict with flights departing from the airport due to the location and height of the building. She
further explained the PDPs they are going to review are for the site layout and building
architecture. She stated the height is part of the airport conflict evaluation and there are
notations as to things the Airport Commission could take into consideration, some examples
are; building height, material used, water features, signage, and lighting.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN is concerned that the City is adding another layer of bureaucracy to
businesses in Chandler. He presented statements regarding Airport Commission reviewing
issues that is statutory under the scope of Planning and Zoning Commission. He presented
further concerns regarding businesses going through Airport Commission for design rather than
land use and airport conflicts.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated he understands the concerns and explained
there is a conflict evaluation lens for the Airport Commission to look through and they will be
making decisions that are pilot centered. He explained the need for Airport Commission to
review building design for height, glazing, and lighting to ensure hazards for pilots are not
created. He further explained up lighting can mimic a runway at nighttime, glazing should have
low reflectivity, and should not be angled in ways that it would not create an issue. He used the
example of Arches Climbing Facility where the Airport Commission had concerns over the
building height and glass, but they only had voice on the land use portion of the proposed
project. He stated that is the reason staff brought in the PDP, but also gave Airport Commission
direction for the review to be pilot centered, he explained it is not necessarily for unbridled
architectural review and site design.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated it is fine if Airport Commission wants to determine if there is too
much glass or the buildings are too high because that is a conflict. He is concerned with the
extra money the business community will have to pay to get something done, that should not be
in Airport Commission’s purview. He would like to make sure that doesn't happen.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNINGADMINISTRATOR stated the Airport Commission’s comment would
simply be to use low reflectivity, because it could cause a problem for pilots. He explained some
solar panels are actually highly reflective, therefore, they need to be reviewed, to make sure a
problem is not caused inadvertently, it is not to change the design.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN advised he would like to ensure the City is not putting the business
community through the wringer. He explained other cities do this, where they have different
groups review and the Applicant spends thousands on changing something, then the project
gets to Planning Commission and they do not like it. He wanted to make it clear that we want the
same goal.

Page 3 of 5

COMMISSIONER EBERLE wanted to follow up on the no conflict versus low conflict.
He stated he is surmising from Chairman Heumann’s comments that there is no language
around the no conflict versus low conflict designation.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER explained at last week's at Airport Commission,
there was an item on the agenda for an industrial complex building along Arizona Avenue. She
further explained the Airport Commission Members had no conflict and they discussed why
would they assigned a number 1, a low conflict, if there was actually no conflict.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked what is the difference and what constitutes no conflict. He asked
what is the difference between moderate and low conflict, he explained some examples could
be, the buildings are too high or too close to the runway He would like to avoid a semantic issue
with Airport Commission; therefore, they cannot designate a project high conflict if they do not
like it.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated that the conflict evaluation process originally
had nothing to do with Planning Commission. He explained the airport conflict evaluation is a
path for the Airport Commission to have their voice heard. He further explained they are
frustrated that the only options are yes or no and asked for some type of sliding scale and since
the scale is at their request, they need to determine ultimately what does that mean and then
when they write the conflict evaluation report that will carry what criteria constitutes that
conflict. He further explained this is a process, outside of Planning Commission that will
ultimately feed a memo that touches planning questions and ultimately goes to City Council.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented statements regarding potential comments by Airport
Commission and stated there should be criteria to prevent the designation of high conflict
because they do not like the building. He liked the four conflict levels and understands if the
project is too close to the runway or the buildings are too high.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR replied when a project comes through there will be a
report that will notate the conflict, if there is no conflict that will be easy.

COMMISSIONER EBERLE clarified his question was more educational and not jurisdictional. He
stated he wanted to be more educated on the process and lingo.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded that he would keep this in mind as we
bring the first one through. He ensured staff will notate the criteria that Airport Commission
used from their meeting.

3. PLH 21-0045 SanTan Brewing Company Inc
Page 4 of 5

HARLEY MEHLHORN ASSOCIATE PLANNER presented details regarding the request for Use Permit
and Entertainment Use Permit, PLH21-0045 SanTan Brewing Company Inc. for a patio expansion
with a Series 7 Beer and Wine Bar License and to allow outdoor speakers and acoustic live
entertainment, located at 495 E Warner Road, approximately half a mile east of Arizona Avenue
on the south side of Warner Road.

4. Cancellation of the October 6, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing
Move Planning and Zoning Commission cancel October 6, 2021, Planning and Zoning

Commission Hearing.

Calendar
The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 20, 2021, in the Chandler City

Council Chambers, 88 E. Chicago Street.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 5:36 p.m.

ae \ oy. WA

KevitNytayo, Secrdtary Rick Heumann, Chairman

Page 5 of 5