October 19, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes

City of Chandler — Regular Meeting (2022-12-08)

Extracted text (via ocr_local) 42798 characters

Meeting Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting

October 19, 2022 | 5:30 p.m. ln
Chandler City Council Chambers Baran, CHANDLER
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ Community of Innovation
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Heumann at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call
Commission Attendance Staff Attendance
Chairman Rick Heumann Derek Horn, Development Services Director
Vice Chairman David Rose Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator
Commissioner Erik Morgan David de la Torre, Planning Manager
Commissioner Sherri Koshiol Lauren Schumann, Senior City Planner
Commissioner Michael Quinn Alisa Petterson, Senior City Planner
Commissioner Jeff Velasquez Harley Mehlhorn, City Planner
Commissioner Kyle Barichello Tulili Tuiteleleapaga - Howard, Planning Intern
Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney
Julie San Miguel, Clerk
Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Rose.

Scheduled and 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.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN announced the Consent Agenda would be voted on by one motion and
confirmed there were no questions or comments regarding said agenda. He further announced
the Action Agenda would be heard following the vote of the Consent Agenda.

Consent Agenda and Discussion
1. September 7, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes

Move Planning and Zoning Commission approve Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
minutes of the Study Session of September 7, 2022, and Regular Meeting of September 7, 2022.

2. PLH22-0053 Data Centers

City of Chandler initiative amending the city zoning code by adding a section regulating data
centers. Proposed amendments include clarifying permitted use, regulations for sound
attenuation and acoustic testing, as well as regulations for backup power generation.

Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of an amendment to Chapter 35 -
Land Use and Zoning for PLH22-0053 Data Centers, by adding a section regulating Data Centers.

3. PLH21-0089 MCQUEEN LIVE WORK

Request Rezoning from Planned Area Development (PAD) for commercial uses to Planned Area
Development (PAD) for a mixed-use development and Preliminary Development Plan approval for
site layout and building architecture on approximate 1.5-acre site, located north of the northwest
corner of McQueen and Warner Roads.

Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of PLH21-0089 McQueen Live Work,
Rezoning from Planned Area Development (PAD) for commercial uses to Planned Area
Development (PAD) for a mixed-use development, subject to the conditions as recommended by
Planning staff.

Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of
Rezoning from Planned Area Development (PAD) for commercial uses to Planned Area
Development (PAD) for a mixed-use development, subject to the following conditions:

Rezoning
1. Development of the overall site shall be in substantial conformance with the Development
Booklet kept on file in the City of Chandler Planning Division, in File No. PLH21-0089,
modified by such conditions included at the time the Booklet was approved by the Chandler
City Council and/or as thereafter amended, modified or supplemented by Chandler City
Council.

2. Permitted uses include Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial subject
to the following:

Page 2 of 18

A. Medium Density Residential shall not exceed a density of eight (8) dwelling
units per acre.

B. Permitted commercial uses shall be those permitted in the Neighborhood
Commercial District except:

i. Restaurants or cafés shall not exceed two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of serving area.

ii. The following commercial uses shall be prohibited: Dental offices,
medical offices, excluding psychiatry and counseling services, medical
clinics including veterinarians, bars, cocktail lounges, automotive repair
services, animal daycare, recreational assembly, entertainment
activities, childcare, preschools, educational facilities offering any
grades from kindergarten to 12th grade, churches and other places of
worship, gymnasiums, fitness centers, martial arts studios,
laundromats, drive-through uses, and music or dancing conservatories
or schools.

3. Completion of the construction of all required off-site street improvements including but

not limited to paving, landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalks, median improvements and
street lighting to achieve conformance with City codes, standard details, and design
manuals.

4, The landscaping and all other improvements in all open-spaces shall be maintained by the

property owner or property owners' association and shall be maintained at a level
consistent with or better than at the time of planting.

The landscaping in all rights-of-way shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner or
property owners' association.

Preliminary Development Plan

Development of the overall site shall be in substantial conformance with the Development
Booklet kept on file in the City of Chandler Planning Division, in File No. PLH21-0089,
modified by such conditions included at the time the Booklet was approved by the Chandler
City Council and/or as thereafter amended, modified or supplemented by Chandler City
Council.

Landscaping plans (including for open spaces, rights-of-way, and street medians) and
perimeter walls shall be approved by the Planning Administrator.

Page 3 of 18

3. Signage shall be designed in coordination with landscape plans, planting materials, storm
water basins, site contours, utility pedestals, and other site appurtenances or features so
as not to create problems with sign visibility or prompt the removal of required or proposed
landscaping.

4. All mechanical equipment shall be fully screened on all sides. Said screening shall be
architecturally integrated with the building.

5. Preliminary Development Plan approval does not constitute Final Development Plan
approval; compliance with the details required by all applicable codes and conditions of the
City of Chandler and this Preliminary Development Plan shall apply.

Note: Stipulation No. 6 was added as a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussion
during the Study Session:

6. Fifty percent of the trees planted along McQueen Road shall be a minimum of 36-inch box
and a minimum 12-feet in height at the time of planting and fifty percent of trees planted
along McQueen Road shall be a minimum of 48-inch box at the time of planting.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to read aloud the added stipulation.

HARLEY MEHLHORN, CITY PLANNER read aloud added stipulation No. 6 reflected under the
Preliminary Development Plan stipulations.

4. PLH22-0035 THE DISTRICT DOWNTOWN

Request Rezoning from Planned Area Development (PAD) for office, retail, and hotel to PAD for
mixed used development including multi-family, office, commercial uses as permitted under
Community Commercial (C-2) type uses a with Mid-Rise Overlay allowing for heights up to 120
feet, as well as Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) approval for site layout and conceptual
building architecture for approximately 44.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Arizona
Avenue and the SanTan 202 Freeway.

Rezoning

Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning PLH22-0035 The
District Downtown, Rezoning from Planned Area Development (PAD) for office, retail, and hotel to
PAD for mixed used development including multi-family, office, and commercial uses as permitted
under Community Commercial (C-2) type uses a with Mid-Rise Overlay allowing for building
heights up to 120 feet, subject to the conditions as recommended by Planning staff.

Page 4 of 18

Preliminary Development Plan

Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Development Plan
PLH22-0035 The District Downtown for site layout and conceptual building architecture, subject
to the conditions as recommended by Planning staff.

Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of
Rezoning from PAD for office, retail, and hotel to PAD for mixed used development including multi-
family, office, and commercial uses as permitted under Community Commercial (C-2) type uses a
with Mid-Rise Overlay allowing for building heights up to 120 feet, subject to the following
conditions:

Rezoning

Development shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans included in the
Development Booklet, entitled, "The District Downtown" and kept on file in the City of
Chandler Planning Division, in File No. PLH22-0035, modified by such conditions included
at the time the Booklet was approved by the Chandler City Council and/or as thereafter
amended, modified, or supplemented by Chandler City Council.

Building heights shall not exceed 120 (one hundred and twenty) feet in height as measured
to the top of parapet of the building facade.

Commercial development must occur prior to any multi-family use under Phase I.

Residential density shall be permitted up to a maximum density of forty-five (45) dwelling
units per acre for Parcel 5 and fifty-two (52) dwelling units per acre for Parcel 4.

Completion of the construction of all required off-site street improvements including but
not limited to paving, landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalks, median improvements and
street lighting, to achieve conformance with City codes, standard details, and design
manuals.

Right-of-way dedications to achieve full half-widths, including turn lanes and deceleration
lanes, per the standards of the Chandler Transportation Plan.

The developer shall be required to install landscaping in the arterial street median(s)
adjoining this project. In the event that the landscaping already exists within such median(s)
the developer shall be required to upgrade such landscaping to meet current City
Standards.

The landscaping and all other improvements in all open-spaces shall be maintained by the
property owner or property owners' association and shall be maintained at a level
consistent with or better than at the time of planting.

Page 5 of 18

9. The landscaping in all rights-of-way shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner or

property owners' association.

10.Minimum building setbacks shall be as follows:

Property Line Location Minimum Building Setback
Arizona Avenue 30 feet
Pecos Road 30 feet
West 20 feet
South 10 feet

Note: Stipulation No. 11 was added as a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s discussion
during the Study Session:

11.Commercial development must occur adjacent to Arizona Avenue in Parcels 1 and 2,

excluding any mixed-use building, prior to any multi-family use on Parcel 4, as depicted
within the development booklet on the site plan.

Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of
the Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the following conditions:

Preliminary Development Plan

As part of the Administrative Design Review process, where staff determines the proposed
site improvements do not achieve a high-quality interconnected mixed-use development,
the request may be reverted to Council for approval of a revised Preliminary Development
Plan.

Note: Stipulation No. 3 was modified as a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussion
during the Study Session:

3. AS part of the Administrative Design Review process, where staff determines that the

proposed building design does not achieve a high-quality architectural design as rendered
in exhibits within the Development Booklet, the request shall require an amended
Preliminary Development Plan. ,

Phase 1 shall include all off-site improvements and landscaping along Arizona Avenue and
Pecos Road.
Page 6 of 18

5. The developer shall provide tree-lined sidewalks connecting all uses within the
development.

6. The developer shall provide at a minimum a passenger loading area for each multi-family
parcel, office, and one for each commercial parcel (1 & 2).

7. Landscaping plans (including for open spaces, rights-of-way, and street medians) and
perimeter walls shall be approved by the Planning Administrator.

8. Fifty percent of the trees planted along Arizona Avenue and Pecos Road shall be a minimum
of 36-inch box and 12-feet in height at the time of planting.

9, Except as shown in the Development Booklet, all signs shall comply with Chapter 39, Sign
Code, of the Chandler City Code.

10.Signage shall be designed in coordination with landscape plans, planting materials, storm
water basins, site contours, utility pedestals, and other site appurtenances or features so
as not to create problems with sign visibility or prompt the removal of required or proposed
landscaping. Building signage shall be architecturally coordinated with the respective
facade.

11.All roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened on all sides. Said screening
shall be architecturally integrated with the building.

12.Preliminary Development Plan approval does not constitute Final Development Plan
approval; compliance with the details required by all applicable codes and conditions of the

City of Chandler and this Preliminary Development Plan shall apply.

13.The mesquite tree species shall be replaced with another species from the City approved
low-water use plant list.

14. Electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided in each parcel.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to read aloud the added and modified stipulation.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER read aloud added Zoning stipulation No. 11 and
modified stipulation No. 3 of the Preliminary Development Plan.

PLT22-0013 CHANDLER AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER

Request Preliminary Plat approval for a new industrial development located at the northwest
corner of Queen Creek and Cooper roads.

Page 7 of 18

Move Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat PLT22-0013 Chandler
Airport Business Center, as recommended by Planning staff.

6. Cancellation of the November 2, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing

Move Planning and Zoning Commission cancel November 2, 2022, Planning and Zoning
Commission Hearing.

Consent Agenda Motion and Vote

Vice Chairman Rose moved to approve the Consent Agenda of the October 19, 2022, Regular
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, with added stipulation No. 6 on Consent Agenda Item
No. 3 and added Zoning stipulation No. 11 and modified stipulation No. 3 of the Preliminary
Development Plan on Consent Agenda Item No. 4; Seconded by Commissioner Morgan.

Motion carried unanimously (7-0).

Action Agenda

7. PLH21-0063 BACKYARD CHICKENS

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER presented details regarding City of Chandler initiative
amending the city code to allow chickens to be kept on single-family residential lots. Proposed
amendments include adding the definition of a chicken coop to Chapter 35-Land Use and Zoning
and modifying Chapter 14-Animals to regulate the keeping of chickens in residential backyards.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN clarified the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding
Action Agenda Item No. 7 is the definition of a chicken coop and the fact of having chickens or not
having chickens will be the purview of Mayor and Council on November 10, 2022. He asked the
Assistant City Attorney for further clarification.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY stated the Action Agenda Item No. 7 is simply a vote
on the definition of a chicken coop that is going in Chapter 35 of the City Code. He explained the
public will have a chance to address the City Council on November 10, 2022, when the actual vote
is about allowing chickens or not. He reiterated tonight is to discuss the definition of a chicken
coop.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked of the one-hundred eighty-five people who were vocal online in
favor of chickens, how many live within a homeowners association (HOA).

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER stated that information is unknown at this time but
she would get it.

Page 8 of 18

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to have that number when this is presented to Council as this
doesn't pertain to those who live in HOAs, as they are likely to have their own rules regarding
chickens.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO thanked staff for the presentation. He pointed out if someone were
to have a one hundred twenty square feet chicken coop, they could not build an accessory
building. He asked if people with larger lots would have to choose between a chicken coop and an
accessory building or if they could have both. He asked if staff had any suggestions for people
who could wanted both.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER explained if the structure is one hundred twenty
square feet and not taller than seven feet, then it is considered a chicken coop and when it goes
larger than one hundred twenty square feet or taller than seven feet then it becomes an accessory
building. She further explained, an accessory building must meet setbacks and maximumn lot
coverage and could have a chicken coop attached to it as part of the building.

COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if the coop is larger than one hundred twenty square feet, would it
take place of your accessory building or it could be built in conjunction with an accessory building.
He further asked if it is below one hundred twenty square feet if it replaces a storage shed.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER clarified one will be able to have one storage shed and
one chicken coop.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN pointed out the image on the presentation has a very nice chicken coop,
but, he has seen homemade chicken coops that are made of chicken wire, plywood, and painted
many colors. He pointed out there was an example of a twenty-seven hundred square foot lot on
the presentation and presented concerns for smaller lots. He asked where the chicken coop could
go ona smaller lot.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER stated the setback is used to create a buffer from the
adjacent neighbors. She explained the ones she looked at were pretty tight and five feet would
almost seem impossible for them to get chickens as they would not be able to put them in a coop.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN pointed out numerous other cities were mentioned in the presentation
and stated, although we would like to compare, Chandler is on a different level than other cities.

He confirmed there were no further questions or comments from the commission for staff.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated the individual speakers will be given three minutes and called up
the first speaker.

Page 9 of 18

DAVID DELGADO, 2160 E HALET DR stated he was not for or against chickens, but he has several
questions and asked if a permit would be required or would chickens just be allowed. He
presented concerns regarding lost and abandoned dogs and cats and asked how the city is going
to deal with lost or abandoned chickens. He suggested the chickens be micro-chipped and tracked;
therefore, code enforcement can scan them to find the owner. He mentioned the presentation
contained a list of cities that allow chickens and he asked how long those ordinances have been
in effect. He further suggested if the chickens do not require permits, that there be inspections to
ensure upkeep. He stated there should be a height requirement on fences from neighbor to
neighbor and asked if a chicken run would count towards the measurements of the chicken coop
and what the ground would be like inside the chicken run. He asked if somebody has an existing
shed a couple of feet from a wall and they want to have chickens, would they have to attach the
chicken coop to the shed and does that five-feet requirement now kicking in. He asked how the
chickens were going to be fed and if it was in a confined area like the coop as the food could attract
other birds and lead to issues with wild birds waiting on roof tops for pet chickens to be fed.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to address David Delgado’s questions.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER explained staff discussed a permit requirement with
City Council during work session meetings, but ultimately it was turned down, therefore no
chicken permit would be required. She further explained there would be too much red tape with
verify signatures for a permit requirement and was not sure how micro-chipping chickens would
work. She clarified the chicken run would be considered part of the chicken coop, therefore, it
could not be separate and would need to be attached to the coop. she further clarified there are
no regulations regarding the ground material for the chicken run. She explained if somebody had
an existing shed, which does not require a building setback, and they were to attach a chicken
coop to it; it would need to meet the setback, because then it would be considered a chicken coop.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he has several speaker cards asking for Leslie Minkus to speak on
their behalf and pointed out there were several more speaker cards than people present. He
announced that Leslie Minkus would be given fifteen minutes and reminded the audience that
the Commission’s purview is regarding chicken coops. He stated the following cards were
presented this date indicating that they would like Leslie Minkus to speak on their behalf:

Miriam Jones, 2734 E Birchwood Place - Oppose
Phyllis Minkus, 3372 E Gemini Court - Oppose
Brian Fox, 1871 W Longhorn Drive - Neutral
Linda Sawer, 1158 W Linda Lane - Oppose
Robert Sawer, 1158 W Linda Lane - Oppose
Caroyn Arkins, 1180 W Linda Lane - Oppose
Debbie Oehler, 1180 W Linda Lane - Oppose
Wayne Oehler, 1180 W Linda Lane - Oppose
Darlene Ankle, 750 N Karen Drive - Oppose

Page 10 of 18

Robert Stevens, 740 N Karen Drive - Oppose
Richard Yanno, 780 N Karen Drive - Oppose

Mary Yanno, 780 N Karen Drive - Oppose

Mary Smith, 875 N Apache Drive - Oppose
Joanne Noble, 1101 W Ivanhoe - Oppose

Dalton Smith, 875 N Apache Drive - Oppose
Loretta Miller, 800 N Alma School Road - Oppose
Craig Davis, 780 N Chippewa Drive - Not Indicated

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked the clerk to set the timer at fifteen minutes and reminded the
audience that the Commission is not voting on whether chickens are allowed or not and that is
Mayor and Councils purview.

LESLIE MINKUS, 3372 E GEMINI COURT stated nine years ago, he argued the same situation as the
city and the voters did not have the interest in having backyard chickens and it was defeated at
that time. He explained the city has grown substantially population-wise to about 280,000 people
and commercially/business-wise and although the presentation listed off cities that allow
chickens, not all of them are cities. He further explained, Gilbert is not a city and that is why it has
a town council. He stated the characteristics of a city is there is more non-agricultural activity than
agricultural activity. He further stated there was a number presented indicating if people were yay
or nay and he did not believe staff extended out communication as hard as they should had to
figure the number of residents in Chandler that really want an amendment to the ordinance that
would allow chickens. He presented concerns regarding the nuisance that can occur on smaller
properties for neighbors. He presented further concerns regarding the City Clerk's Office losing a
petition containing three hundred signatures of Chandler residents that are opposed to backyard
chickens and losing his presentation for tonight that he turned in the day prior. He stated
fortunately he had his presentation with him tonight and they were able to upload it again;
however, it is wrong that the City Clerk's Office cannot find things provided to them that is in
opposition to backyard chickens. He presented images of code and alley violations and stated
there are several violations throughout the community going on for years without being corrected.
He further stated when asked about chickens code enforcement stated they anticipate most
complaints being noise and smell and that these kinds of complaints are hard to measure and
enforce. He further stated code enforcement typically works during regular business hours 8:00
a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; therefore, if one wanted to report something outside
those hours or on the weekend, they would have to wait until the next business day. He explained
there are various health issues such as upper respiratory diseases and asthma and furthermore,
a study that was conducted, September 22 of 2022 by the CDC that showed 40,700,000 birds,
including backyard chickens and commercial chicken, were infected by H5N1. He further
explained this is happening mostly in other states, but infected bird could fly over and leave
droppings in a backyard and infect chickens and other birds. He presented concerns with the
banding and slaughtering of chickens for meat and due to the danger of viruses being transmitted
to humans. He presented slides illustrating how chickens are able to escape their backyards and

Page 11 of 18

enclosures and stated these issues would have to be enforced by code enforcement; however,
they are not allowed to enter somebody's backyard without a warrant or court order, so they can
only enforce what they can see from the periphery of the property. He stated while HOAs have
CCNRs to protect their members from having farm animals in their properties, they cannot
enforce this rule on therapy pets, and chickens can be a used a therapy animal. He further stated
even if a HOA does not allow chickens, they could still be a nuisance to those who live bordering
areas without HOAs. He further stated they could get chickens in their yard who have escaped,
noise, and feathers due to molting. He explained that chickens can attract predators such as
raccoons, coyotes, and hawks. He further explained these predators could be lured into
neighborhoods by the chickens, but then attack dogs, cats, and children. He mentioned PETA
could have issues with the mistreatment of chickens due to the heat exposure chickens would
have to endure during the summer. In concluding his presentation, he showed images of
predators, a study conducted by the CDC, and Next-Door posts in opposition to backyard chickens.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN confirmed the Commission did not have any questions and thanked the
speaker.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN asked if there are any kind of stipulations that can be added regarding
how the coops have to be made or amenities to ensure the safety the chickens.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated all aspects of the regulation of chickens, if
approved will be in Chapter 14 and the only thing regarding chickens in Chapter 35 is the definition
of a coop, in the definition section of the zoning code. He explained we do not regulate through
definitions, as we regulate through various sections within the zoning code, but nothing about
chickens is going to be in the zoning code. He stated it would not be appropriate to regulate how
it is constructed or that it must be locked at night or secure. He further stated all regulation would
be in Chapter 14.

LESLIE MINKUS, 3372 E GEMINI COURT stated he would like to point out the Council vote is being
pushed through December 2022. He further stated, the new Council members are going to be
sworn in January 2023 and there is no reason for this item to be pushed through until the new
Council members come on. He explained the Council members who are leaving will not have any
responsibility or obligation to the community and there is no reason why they cannot wait until
January when the new Council members come in.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN thanked Mr. Minkus for bringing up those points and explained it would
be up to the Council to make that decision. He stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is a
recommending body to Council and tonight the Commission’s purview is on the definition of
chicken coops. He thanks Mr. Minus again and stated many of the points he brought up were
valid, but he would want to direct them more towards City Council.

Page 12 of 18

RUTH JONES, 2734 EAST BIRCHWOOD PLACE thanked the Commission as she was once a Planning
and Zoning Commissioner and appreciates their service. She presented concern as she felt the
presentation tonight was disingenuous as it was about allowing chickens, although the
Commission is only voting on the definition of chicken coops. She stated an individual who notated
their opposition did not show on the list of opposing voices and there are many people who are
not being heard. She presented further concerns for materials and standards of the chicken coop
and asked for the code to be clearer regarding the definition. She explained only listing the
measurement requirements is not sufficient and asked if the structure will be required to match
the building as all other cities that have this in their code. She stated other cities also require coops
to match the building and be aesthetically pleasing. She further explained most cities that allow
chickens also include a requirement for a chicken run that must be enclosed, and the chickens
must remain for the purpose of the animal's safety. She echoed the statements of Mr. Minkus
regarding predators and stated if the definition for the structure does not create protection than
the Commission is allowing a menace into our community. She asked before approval that the
code have a clearer definition regarding the appearance of the structure, materials, percentage of
chicken wire to building etc. She urged the Commission to have staff write a definition that is more
complete and works for the city. She stated chickens are going to be decided by the Council and
asked for the Commission not to approve the definition until it is properly written.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN confirmed the Commission did not have any questions and thanked the
speaker. He further confirmed there were no members of the audience who would like to speak
on this item and closed the floor. He asked the Assistant City Attorney to clarify if chicken coop
quality is under the purview of the Commission, as he does not wish to have a requirement
regarding the amount of chicken wire to building, but this is Chandler and we have great quality
here.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY stated the item on the agenda tonight is for the
definition of a coop and to the extent the Commission wishes to tie in any additional
recommendations to Council to that definition. He stated how the Commission wants to word that
is up to them and they have the ability to make recommendations to Council as they see fit;
therefore, the Commission can add recommendations as are related to a chicken coop.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented concerns regarding the sight of chicken coops in traditional
neighborhoods and stated he would like to see the wording change that the coop cannot be above
the fence line from the property line as some fences could be five or six feet. He asked how the
wording could be changed to address quality and the concerns brought up by Commissioner
Morgan and Ruth Jones.

COMMISSIONER QUINN stated staff has made a good gesture, as the coops are to be no larger
than one hundred twenty square feet. He explained the city is not managing sheds until it hits
over one hundred twenty square feet or over seven feet tall, then one must go through the
building permit process. He further explained once the structure is over that amount, then it is a

Page 13 of 18

more substantial structure that will have to go through full plan review that verifies the structure
and foundation and the measurements in the definition will lead most to go purchase a coop from
a retail store. He stated the definition leads us to a level of the quality.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO stated he is hesitant to add too much in the definition would like to
avoid it becoming a long-convoluted definition. He explained the comments and input received
by the city is not going unnoticed. He stated if there is a need for review of quality of design,
perhaps the square footage or height should be lower.

COMMISSIONER KOSHIOL presented concerns regarding the structural integrity of makeshift
coops made of pallets and chicken wire versus something more structurally sound, regardless of
whether it is more or less than one hundred twenty feet. She stated she would like there to be
further definition requirements regarding safety to ensure the structure is safe from the inside
out.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated the points made here tonight are very valid and it is important that
the chickens be confined so they do not get loose in neighborhoods. He mentioned he was at the
Council Work Session where there was discussion of feral chickens, and he does not believe
microchipping or putting collars on chickens would work.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN presented concerns as the definition reads “a small structure that is
used as a cage or housing enclosure”. He stated using the word cage could allow people to put up
chicken wire and posts for their coop.

VICE CHAIRMAN ROSE stated he is concerned with safety and mentioned he saw a coyote earlier
today. He further mentioned what strong monsoon winds do to trampolines and would like to
prevent that from happening to chicken coops. He would like to look further into this and code
enforcement regarding how to regulate what is safe for the neighborhoods.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN thanked the Commission Members for their comments. He stated he feels
strongly about coops being no higher than the fence line and asked staff for their thoughts in
terms of adding quality and confinement for the purpose of safety.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated staff can help guide the Commission through
this discussion and mentioned in the recent past an amendment was added to codify the
requirement that an accessory structure must carry the same architectural style as the primary
structure. He presented statements regarding visibility from neighboring properties and stated
most fences and walls in Chandler subdivisions are six feet tall. He stated as written if coops are
greater than one hundred twenty square feet and seven feet in height, it would count as your
accessory structure that must follow the architectural requirements to tie back to the primary
structure. He mentioned the possibility of limiting coops to under the six feet, therefore they
cannot be seen from a neighboring property and the accessory structure requirements must be

Page 14 of 18

followed by anything taller. He stated that could be one way to change the definition to help
regulate.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated that is an interesting concept asked if wording could be added to
change the height requirement to be “below the fence line” and for the chicken coop to be “secure”
to prevent free roaming chickens.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated to regulate how a structure is used and if
someone left is gate open, are they now in violation is not in definitions, but would be found in
animal regulations Chapter 14. He stated the Commission could probably pass recommendations
for Council to consider and staff can put that in in our notes. He further stated the Commission is
looking for something that is voted on and the Commission can vote on comments to forward to
Council, but those things do not belong in the definition. He explained the code definition does
not have anything about the aesthetic of accessory buildings or sheds as it only describes what it
is. He further explained the regulation is found elsewhere in the code and as the Planning
Administrator he believes it is imperative that regulations are placed appropriately in the code
what goes into the definitions.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked the Assistant City Attorney if a motion was made say, the definition
of a chicken coop is no higher than the fence line and we are recommending to the Council that
Chapter 14 regulate coops in in such a way that they are a secure facility so chickens are not free
roaming, would that suffice in terms of a motion this Commission can make.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY stated that would be appropriate and further stated
the motion should be clear that the Commission is approving the definition of chicken coop as
presented by staff with the recommendation that the definition be amended to the height you
want in the definition. He explained to make the motion that includes height to the definition with
additional recommendations to Council for items go that under Chapter 14.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if setbacks could be added.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY stated setbacks would be a recommendation for the
Council to consider.

COMMISSIONER QUINN stated he rather have a clear height for the definition. He further stated
the wording, “below the fence line”, has the potential for homes to have different rules others. He
explained if my fence is taller than your fence, | have a higher height requirement. He stated if the
Commission is going to make a recommendation on height, it should be a maximum six feet tall
as most walls in neighborhoods are six feet tall. He explained if the coop is under that height of
six feet, it will not count as accessory building, regardless of its size.

Page 15 of 18

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated if the definition of the height is no higher than the wall, they will
have to get approval for the coop if the height is taller than the wall, no matter if the wall heights
are different.

COMMISSIONER QUINN stated that creates different rules for the city to follow on what gets
permitted. He gave an example if my fence is four feet ten inches, my chicken coop can only be at
that height, but you have a six-foot fence and can have a six-foot high coop and | would have to
get a permit to have the same thing.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to clarify the requirement for a permit.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated as part of the group who enforces our zoning
code, it is very challenging to have something that says “no higher than the fence line” because
the grades can be different on either side of the fence. He further stated there are different
heights of fences some are four feet, some are ten feet, there are some people who have fourteen-
foot sound walls. He explained | understand what you are trying to do with the fence height, but
it will be challenging to enforce and challenging for a property owner to see somebody next door
that has a six-foot coop when they can only have a four foot. He further explained it just becomes
challenging to enforce.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he understood where staff is coming from and mentioned below
the fence line is a clearer definition. He explained he does not want to see chicken coops and they
have the right to build a taller fence.

COMMISSIONER KOSHIOL asked how staff arrived at the seven-foot height as outlined in the
recommendation and asked if its commensurate with what an accessory structure.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR replied yes, with other structures already permitted the
code like a storage shed or accessory structure it slotted within those. He stated if a storage shed
is above seven feet, it requires a permit and we would count as an accessory structure.

COMMISSIONER KOSHIOL thanked staff and stated if there is a concern with setting a height, |
would suggest we could consider six-feet instead of the seven-feet.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked staff to present the definition and asked staff to add to the definition
the chicken coop cannot be visible from above, the wall and cannot be larger than seven feet in
height. He asked staff if they could also create wording a recommendation to Council to make the
structure more secure and address the comments brought up by the citizens tonight.

DAVID DE LA TORRE, PLANNING MANAGER presented statements regarding changes made to the
definition and read aloud the revised definition as follows: A small structure that is secure and
used as a housing enclosure for chickens. A chicken coop includes any “chicken run” or attached

Page 16 of 18

enclosure in which chickens are allowed to roam. A chicken coop shall not exceed the height of
the surrounding property wall. A chicken coop exceeding on hundred and twenty (120) square
feet in size or seven (7) feet in height, requires a building permit and is considered an accessory
building for purposes of Section 35-2202.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he liked the changes and asked the Planning Administrator if this
addresses the discussion earlier regarding the changes in code.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded that is correct and presented statements
regarding the square footage and height.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he would like to make a motion if there are no further questions or
comments.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY suggested the motion be the Commission is
recommending approval of the definition as amended by staff.

Action Agenda Motion and Vote

Chairman Heumann moved to approve the Action Agenda of October 19, 2022, Regular Planning
and Zoning Commission Meeting; the Commission is recommending approval of the definition as
amended by staff; Seconded by Commissioner Velasquez.

Motion carried (5-2), Vice Chair Rose and Commissioner Quinn dissenting.

Member Comments/Announcements

COMMISSIONER KOSHIOL stated that this Saturday, October 22, 2022, is For Our City Day. She
explained For Our City Day is opportunity for citizens of Chandler help revitalize neighborhoods
and spend time doing great things for those in the community. She stated it is an annual event
held in October and encouraged everyone whose interested in participating to look online for
volunteer opportunities on Saturday.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN thanked Commissioner Koshiol for mentioning For Our City Day and stated
hundreds of people volunteer and are sent to different areas of the city to help clean up. He stated
it's a great program and thanked the Commissioner again for bringing it up.

Calendar
The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, in the Chandler City
Council Chambers, 88 E. Chicago Street.

Page 17 of 18

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.

Kevinvlayo, Secretary Rick Heumann, Chairman

Page 18 of 18