September 20, 2023 Work Session Minutes

Meeting Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission
Work Session Meeting

September 20, 2023 | 2:00 p.m.
City Council Conference Room 6... aarti zona
88 E. Chicago Street, Chandler, AZ ISS & sinsnityoftanovation

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m.

Roll Call
Commission Attendance Staff Attendance
Chairman Rick Heumann Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator
Vice Chair Sherri Koshiol David de la Torre, Planning Manager
Commissioner Erik Morgan Lauren Schumann, Principal Planner
Commissioner Michael Quinn Alisa Petterson, Senior Planner
Commissioner Jeff Velasquez Ben Cereceres, City Planner
Commissioner Kyle Barichello Harley Mehlhorn, City Planner
Commissioner Rene Lopez Darsy Olmer, Associate Planner
Mika Liburd, Associate Planner
Tulili Tuitelelapaga-Howard, Junior Planner
Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney
Julie San Miguel, Clerk
Discussion

1. City Code Amendments
CHAIRMAN HEUMANN introduced the discussion stated the work session meeting this date this

meeting was designed to be an open forum to give feedback on proposed code amendments.
He asked everyone in the meeting room to introduce themselves.

All attendees introduced themselves.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN thanked everyone for introducing themselves and emphasized the
importance of thoroughly reviewing the details of the presentation this date. He mentioned that

it is easier to provide feedback before it is set as code as it is difficult to amend at a later date
once its formally adopted.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER expressed gratitude for everyone attending the
meeting and pointed out that there has not been this volume of code amendments in quite some
time. Typically, they address singular topics like chickens or data centers; however, this meeting
presented a broader range of topics. The entire planning team had contributed to this effort,
seeking information from various sources to offer the best recommendations. The journey began
in August of 2019, when discussions were held between City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a joint meeting regarding ideas for the City’s future design and amendments were
categorized into short-term and long-term. The short-term amendments were approved by City
Council in July 2020. They included expanding notification requirements for neighborhood
meeting, signs to be posted on site, changes to storage, and just general code cleanup. Staff began
work on the second phase and in April 2023, a Council Work Session was held to review the
presentation, but they only got through half of the presentation. Staff received feedback to
conduct further research and consult experts. Before the Commission today is a draft for feedback
because the Commission are the experts. Staff is seeking guidance and feedback before sending
this out to the public for response. Previously this month, the presentation was divided into two
parts, Economic Vitality and Neighborhoods; both were presented before the corresponding
Council Subcommittees for feedback. Under Economic Vitality, the aim was to address
development of infill properties and redevelopment. Furthermore, the aim was also to provide
developers with a predictable development process. For neighborhoods, the goal was to ensure
a high quality of life for residents and to preserve the cultural fabric of communities.

Code Amendments Economic Vitality

Slide #7 Buildings Constructed of Shipping Containers

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER started with the Economic Vitality section, discussing
the potential use of shipping containers as building materials. This amendment change would
allow for buildings to use shipping containers if designed creatively and use additional material.
This proposal is in response to the rising interest in developments using shipping containers. The
City of Phoenix has allowed shipping container developments and Chandler's current city code is
silent on the use of shipping containers but prohibits metal buildings to be used from arterial
roads or even seen from an arterial road. The proposed a code amendment would allow the use
of shipping containers used as a building material, if designed creatively and using other materials.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked about the definitions and their consistency throughout the
document, stating he noticed some discrepancies.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER sought clarification and asked if his question is
regarding the updated table.

Page 2 of 36

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN clarified this is something that can be looked at later and mentioned the
area of code he was referring to had new wording and some language crossed off.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR acknowledged the possibility of oversight and
welcomed feedback from the Chair and Commission.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated the City is nearly fully developed with minimal vacant lots remaining,
it becomes crucial to prioritize and protect key elements of our City's design and aesthetic. He
highlighted the importance of these type of structures being compatible with the surrounding
areas. Every development proposal should begin with a thorough assessment and questioning of
its compatibility and impact. He asked whether a proposal for infill development with this type of
design could be permitted without a public hearing process.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained the code prohibits certain types of buildings,
primarily targeting prefabricated structures and often staff encounters challenges because the
code classifies certain metal structures under this prohibition. Whether it's made of steel, block,
wood, or even adapted from shipping containers, staff will continue to enforce our commercial
design standards. This proposal aims to allow this construction method without it conflicting with
another section of our code and the process and commitment to high-quality design remains
unchanged.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ presented concerns regarding the height and safety, especially when
discussing five-story structures made of shipping containers. He asked about stacking, weight
limitations, and if it's the Commissions duty to address this or is it the developer's responsibility.
He presented concerns regarding stacking shipping containers and asked who ensures the safety
of these tall structures?

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded any structure, regardless of its construction
method, must undergo the building code vetting process. As a matter of fact, when comparing
with standard construction methods like steel structures or concrete floors, these shipping
containers have an impressive load-carrying capacity. They are extremely durable, designed to
handle thousands of pounds without collapsing. He confirmed they will be subjected to the same
building permit review as any other construction method.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented a scenario: If a developer were to consider such a structure ina
neighborhood or somewhere similar, would it be permissible in a traditional neighborhood where
perhaps someone buys multiple lots and wishes to introduce such a structure.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER stated such construction can be considered in a
traditional neighborhood; however, the usual development standards would need to be followed,
like property setbacks and building permits.

Page 3 of 36

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated over the years, structures using shipping
containers have been approved. He explained while the entire house was not built solely out of
them, containers have been used as accessory structures and, in such cases, to maintain aesthetic
consistency, staff required modifications like adding sloped roofs or matching the primary house's
architectural design.

COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ confirmed this amendment would allow structures to be permissible
alongside arterial roads for both infill and new developments.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized in allowing the use of shipping containers, there should not
be a compromise on architectural and safety standards. He stated the flexibility to use this as a
building material should not be interpreted as a blanket approval without adherence to set
standards.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ echoed Chairman Heumann’'s statements and stated the primary
construction material should not be the only consideration and all other regulations, like
environmental considerations, property setbacks, and others, still hold.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stressed the importance of precise wording in the code to clearly articulate
and avoid any misinterpretations.

Slide #8 & #9 Administratively Reduce Setbacks within Certain Areas

LAUREN SCHUMANN presented the next proposed code amendment to allow administrative
approval to reduce setbacks within certain sites if development proposes a pedestrian-oriented
useable, and high-quality design. The goal is to foster infill and redevelopment as Chandler's
current setback requirements are designed for suburban development and pose challenges. An
illustrative example is presented of the property located at the northeast corner of Ray and Alma
School roads. The property is zoned for commercial uses, and under the existing regulations, there
are large landscape setbacks at intersections; 250-feet in length and 50-feet deep. This means
there's a reduced buildable area for developers. Although developers can approach the Council
to request a rezone for custom zoning and seek waivers, the process can be lengthy, taking
anywhere from six to eight months. The proposed code amendment would allow administrative
approval on setback reductions, given that the development is designed creatively and with
proper consideration to the surroundings.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated the current code has the unintended
consequence of pushing buildings closer to homes and staff is seeking administrative flexibility to
adjust this and move buildings further from residential areas, ensuring neighborhood protection.
He explained as roads have expanded and properties have become narrower the intent is to
promote infill while preserving neighborhood integrity.

Page 4 of 36

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO asked regarding requirements at intersections, landscaping, and
building setbacks; are you suggesting administrative approval could reduce landscape setbacks
to 30 or 40.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated it would be considered on a case-by-case and
site-specific basis. He further stated anything with administrative approval would align with what
is advocated for in a public hearing. He explained the goal is to streamline the process, taking out
the lengthy six to eight months and promoting more efficient building practices.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ understood the intention but had issues with certain terminology. He
pointed out there are specific areas and instances but its written ambiguous. He called for clearer
guidelines on where and under what conditions these administrative decisions can be made,
rather than a blanket permission.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO mentioned it is important to note that property size can be
deceptive, as a site might be four acres, but with certain constraints, its effective size is smaller.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated using southeast Chandler, for example, there is a set of criteria that
needs to be met for certain allowances and changing to this route administratively, there should
be a structured system in place; therefore, if a proposal does not meet the criteria, it should
undergo a more rigorous process. He mentioned this is currently part of the PAD practice now
and this administrative process makes him nervous, especially in older parts of town changes
must harmonize with the existing neighborhood.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained Chandler's planning dynamics are evolving,
historically, planning was highly regulated, making some practices deeply ingrained; however, as
the City transitions to infill and redevelopment, staff finds these conventional standards no longer
align. In southeast Chandler, our residential building guidelines have a tiered approach. If
developers aim for about 2.5 to 2.75 units per acre, they follow this method, staff has used this
system for 20 years and while it has seen some success, it has not fully met the City’s expectations.
Businesses often choose the simpler tiers and staff rarely see Applicants opting for more
challenging ones, which were designed to meet our main objectives. He stated if the Commission
is not ready for such an approach, staff will consider removing this proposed amendment and
continue working under existing codes. He further explained the idea is to streamline the process
and emphasize high-quality design and pedestrian experiences. The existing tiered approaches in
the code have not lived up to their potential over the last 20 years.

COMMISSIONER QUINN stated infill lots pose unique challenges for development. If not profitable
enough, developers might look elsewhere. He gave an example in Glendale, where aspects like
landscaping have been traded to make the sites work. He stated the City of Phoenix has a

Page 5 of 36

dedicated team for infill projects, emphasizing the importance of using these spaces rather than
leaving them vacant. He presented statements regarding the importance of balance and how
focus should be on supporting development rather than creating barriers.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated Commissioner Quinn is highlighting a crucial issue and there needs
to be solutions that balance the needs of the community and developers.

COMMISSIONER QUINN stated in Glendale adjustments did not necessarily translate to additional
costs and emphasized any process that becomes too burdensome will force developers to seek
alternatives elsewhere.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained staff is hesitant to create a one-size-fits-all
solution as it not practical. He stated staff could make developers aware of what they can build
according to the current code and if the developers are considering alternatives, staff can have
specific goals to guide them. Once these goals are met, there could be room for flexibility.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated in Scottsdale, he has seen old buildings torn town down and
replaced with large homes. He would like to ensure the guidelines cater to different scenarios to
avoid future complications and recommended the proposed amendment be written in such a way
that there are no issues.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified the focus on this proposed code amendment
is on non-residential properties.

COMMISSIONER QUINN pointed out the image on the presentation and stated to envision it as a
commercial spot; after accounting for parking, the drive isle, landscaping, and other essentials,
the usable space is too limited and such configurations are unattractive for many developers.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented statements regarding the history of difficulties with the parcel
on the presentation.

DAVID DE LA TORRE, PLANNING MANAGER clarified that the proposed amendment is specific to
the infill area north of the 202 and there is particular criteria aligned with the City’s goals, like
traffic management, buffering from residential zones, etc.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN recommended the goals can be refined further for clarity and ease of
implementation.

VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL echoed the statements of Chairman Human and stated it is essential,
especially considering future planners who might lack the historical context to provide a detailed
framework to guide them.

Page 6 of 36

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized the need for a system that stands the test of time for future
planners.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN asked if there was a way to ensure safeguards are in place to maintain
the setback distance from residential properties.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR confirmed safeguards would be in place.

Slide #10 Modify Requirements for Free-standing pad Buildings

LAUREN SCHUMANN presented the next proposed code amendment to allow the modification of
requirements for freestanding pads. The current zoning code allows one freestanding pad per
arterial street, so generally large commercial centers are only allocated two freestanding pads by
right. She stated in unique cases, the proposed amendment would allow administrative capability
to review and possibly allow for more than one freestanding pad per arterial when the quality of
architecture is warranted.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO pointed out the image presented and asked if the pad in question
is on the far western side of the site. He asked if not permitted by right if they would need to
undergo the PDP process for modifications.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented statements regarding the potential traffic nightmares, for
example, an In-n-Out next to Chick fil A can be problematic. He stated when larger businesses are
involved, traffic problems can intensify and if businesses claim they have the right to place
multiple PADs on a street, traffic can worsen, especially in areas where there are already
complaints.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR reminded the Commission that each site is unique. He
stated instead of a strict 'by right' approach, staff is suggesting an administrative review instead
of a six-to-eight-month public hearing process. The aim is to expedite the process without
compromising on standards; for example, if a site like the one at Queen Creek and Alma School
were proposed, staff would want the ability to streamline the approval without compromising on
standards.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized the need to for a system to ensure consistency, especially as
personnel change over the years. For instance, defining what counts as a PAD and managing

intense use cases, like a bank vs. a popular coffee drive-thru, is important.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO sought clarification to confirm that a PAD does not necessarily
mean a drive-thru and for a non-drive-thru use, the traffic impact would be different. He stated

Page 7 of 36

some PADs specify the number of drive-thrus allowed and that maybe an exception can be made
for non-drive-thru uses.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated that is a good point and many businesses now
want drive-thru lanes, but staff must differentiate between low-intensity and high-intensity drive-
thrus.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated Banks, for instance, have low-intensity drive-thrus, while coffee
shops like Starbucks have high-intensity ones. He asked if the amendment can define and
categorize these, so there is a clear difference in intensity between banks and popular coffee
outlets.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded yes to Chairman Heumann’s question and
stated the City can conduct traffic impact analyses. He further stated that some drive-thrus have
been rejected due to concerns about traffic spilling onto arterial streets and that staff aims to plan
for the worst-case scenario to ensure noting is inadvertently approved.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized the importance of considering worst-case scenarios,
especially as establishments change over time. He stated a bank might convert to a coffee shop,
leading to increased traffic. The City's standards are unique and if there is a change to
administrative approval, the standards need to be clearly defined.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO pointed out instead of the decision relying on the Planning and
Zoning Commission for recommendation then to Council; could the City provide a traffic analysis
and if the proposed meets the criteria from a traffic perspective and the City's traffic engineer
confirm the roads can handle it and that is part of the standards, so decisions do not become
subjective.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated if a project is approved for something with a lower impact and later
it changes to a higher intensity, it becomes an issue. He stated Chandler's standards are unique
and not like other cities, so whenever we have such cases, clarity is crucial. He emphasized it is
about looking ahead and today's decisions might bring issues for someone else in the future.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ stated Councils can be fickle and even if a proposal meets all
administrative standards and is approved, there is a public aspect where the Council must defend

it the decision.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR asked if they could try to create a clear framework for
such decisions through this discussion.

Page 8 of 36

DAVID DE LA TORRE, PLANNING MANAGER clarified in the draft text proposes: notwithstanding
the forgoing, the Zoning Administrator may approve more than two freestanding PAD sites per
development administratively, upon determining that and then has certain criteria and one of
those is there is sufficient area on the site to accommodate safe and adequate on site traffic
circulation. He clarified the feedback from the Commission is that they want the wording to be
more specific.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he finds that criterion vague and would like conversions from low
to high intensity uses are accounted for.

COMMISSIONER QUINN asked what is preventing a lot split and if a lot split was achieved if a PAD
could go on each.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated nothing is preventing a lot split, however the
number of lots comes down to the zoning and PDP approvals. He stated the approval for the
larger commercial development these decisions and it was approved as part of a commercial
development, splitting it into multiple parcels would not change the underlying guidelines. It
would be driven by the larger PDP approval and the zoning and guidelines remain consistent.

Slide #11 Modify Requirements for Drive Throughs (online orders)

LAUREN SCHUMANN stated the next proposed code amendment addresses a notable trend to
introduce a dedicated drive thru lane for online order pickups. Post-COVID, changes were
observed in how businesses operated and the design of their premises. Many high-turnover
businesses are looking to incorporate an online order pickup lane. Based on the current code,
they had defined queuing lane specifications, including a requirement for a 150-foot distance from
the pickup window to the start of the queue. Additionally, the code stipulated that from the order
box to the start of the queue, space for six cars be available. This model was not congruent with
the needs of online order pickup. Research indicated that some businesses, like Salad and Go,
only allow for two customers to pick up within a five-minute timeframe. Thus, it is recommended
to amend the code to accommodate online order pickup queuing, recommending a minimum
length of 40-feet to fit two cars.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated given the changing dynamics of pick-up services, this amendment
seems timely and perhaps it might even reduce waiting times at places like Starbucks. He pointed
out that he noticed specific language in the proposed amendment and asked the Planning
Manager to clarify the different measurements based on ordering methods.

DAVID DE LA TORRE, PLANNING MANAGER clarified if an order is placed on-site, the current code
requires a different queuing distance from the start of the lane to the order box and for off-site
or online orders where no order box is present, staff is proposing a shorter queue length of 40-
feet instead of the existing 150-feet.

Page 9 of 36

VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL pointed out that proposal is redefining instead of six vehicles to 120-feet
instead.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated due to the 120-feet is to align more with the
standard of six car lengths.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated the adjustment could expedite pick-ups and this change reminds
him of reduced parking for Uber. He further stated the need for eliminating the menu boards to
reduce waiting times.

COMMISSIONER QUINN warned that he has observed instances at Someburros where even after
ordering online or by phone, there is a wait time at pick-up window. He is concerned that the 40-
feet is too short and perhaps a longer queue, like 80-feet or four car lengths should be considered.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN echoed Commissioner Quinn's concerns.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO presented concerns regarding orders not being ready for pick up
and having designated parking spots, he asked if there was a way to place more responsibility on
the business to manage these situations.

COMMISSIONER QUINN mentioned some establishments, like McDonald's, have pull-out spots for
longer waits; however, they are hesitant to use them because they are farther away and slow
down their service.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained the 40-feet recommendation comes from
industry research and if the Commission believes this is too short, staff appreciates guidance. He
asked if it should be 60-feet or more.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN considered potential back-ups and stated it is essential to ensure traffic
does not spill onto main roads. He mentioned some businesses like Dutch Bros have issues, while
Target does an excellent job with orders. He asked if businesses could have designated specific
waiting spots in case of a delay in the order.

COMMISSIONER QUINN suggested the addition of a bypass lane.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO asked if staff could encourage quality design and use their
judgment.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated the main concern is preventing back-ups, whether in the parking lot
or onto main roads. He favored having additional space as it seems prudent.

Page 10 of 36

Slide #12 Modify Requirements for Drive Throughs (multiple drive-thru lanes)

LAUREN SCHUMANN stated in the presented image, the design previously went before the Council
in 2018 and while staff aimed to closely match the 150-foot criteria, there was ambiguity about
the specifications for a secondary window. She further stated another emerging trend observed
is businesses desiring multiple drive thru lanes to efficiently handle customer volume. Some
establishments construct a drive-thru and then divide the mandated queuing area into two
separate lanes, only to merge them back into a singular lane. At peak times, one lane is often
closed, which leads to vehicle overflow from the establishment onto neighboring properties or
even public roadways. To address this, staff aims to incorporate explicit guidelines into the code.
While businesses can opt for multiple queuing lanes, one lane must adhere to our set minimum
requirements, with any additional lanes deemed as supplementary or bonus lanes.

COMMISSIONER QUINN agreed with the proposed change stating the 150-foot standard should
apply exclusively to one lane.

Slide #13 Increase Height for Mid-Rise Overlay (MRO)

LAUREN SCHUMANN stated the next proposed code amendment would increase the height for
the mid-rise overlay. In 2006, a mid-rise policy was established through an ordinance stipulating
that any building exceeding a 45-foot in height would necessitate an additional ordinance. The
original intent of this policy was to regulate structures exceeding five stories; however, over the
past decade, staff has observed changes in architectural and engineering practices. Floor heights
and mechanical zones have been increasing in size. Consequently, mechanical screening, even for
buildings that are essentially three or four stories, is often pushing these structures beyond the
45-foot mark. This trend requires developers to undergo another entitlement process to be
permitted to build above the 45-foot limit. To accommodate these evolving building standards
and practices, the propose would raise the height threshold to 55-feet. This means only buildings
surpassing 55-feet would necessitate an additional ordinance to breach the 55-foot ceiling.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented statements regarding the proposed height changes and asked
if this was going to be applicable across all areas of the City, including residential areas. He stated
in some areas a 45-foot building is equivalent to a very tall two-story building and further stated
suddenly allowing a 55-foot building right next to a residential area could be problematic,
especially in places like North Chandler. He asked if the proposed is only concerning industrial
properties.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained this is a change is citywide. Currently,
buildings up to 45-feet are permissible everywhere, except in specific zones that have lower height
restrictions, like certain residential areas. The proposal merely increases this from 45-feet to 55-
feet. However, our mid-rise policy, which dictates where taller buildings can be constructed,
remains unchanged. For instance, contemporary apartment buildings can be four stories tall,
ranging from 48-feet to 52 feet, and we've always evaluated their compatibility based on this.

Page 11 of 36

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN advised he is apprehensive about areas adjacent to residential not going
through the process. He stated with infill, this is going to be a challenge, but when it is right next
to a residential area, the proposed height could be problematic. He stated for industrial in West
Chandler, such changes are inconsequential, but if it is going to be industrial next to a residential
area, we need to be cautious, especially considering past discussions about downtown overlays
and the proximity to residential zones.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER addressed the Commission’s concerns by explaining
the code stipulates a certain setback for taller buildings and if a building is allowed to go up to 55-
feet next to a residential area, it should be at least 80-feet away from the residential property line.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN pointed out the earlier amendment for potential reductions in setbacks.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER reminded the Commission that such setback
reductions would be applicable from the street, not properties adjacent to residential areas.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN mentioned in previous discussions there an implication that these
setbacks could be encroached upon.

COMMISSIONER QUINN asked why the mid-rise overlay noted a building height in measured feet
rather than redefine by four or five-stories.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained the reason is because even a four-story
building, when inclusive of architectural elements like a parapet, might exceed the proposed
height limit.

COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO asked about architectural elements like the addition of spires, he
asked if they would need to be included in the height calculations.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded that typically, specific architectural
embellishments are not included in such calculations.

Slides #14 & #15 Mechanical Screening

LAUREN SCHUMANN elaborated that expanding the mid-rise overlay could aid with the next
potential code amendments, especially concerning mechanical screening on building rooftops,
such as air conditioners. The objective was to effectively screen this equipment from view. The
existing code mandates concealment from view and while developers typically preferred metal
boxes for this purpose, the code had stipulated architectural integration from all vantage points.
She noted that the image pertained to buildings containing offices, commercial spaces, and hotels.
She emphasized the need for architectural integration and comprehensive screening from all

Page 12 of 36

sides using materials and colors consistent with the building. She highlighted that some
developers had expressed concerns about the code's restrictiveness compared to codes in other
cities, but many cities are adopting similar guidelines. She cited examples where screening was
mandated at a 45-degree angle from across the street but identified the potential complications
arising from changes in the road gradient. Staff is asking for the ability to waive screening if it is
not seen from an arterial street within a larger business park business or industrial subdivision, if
it is not adjacent to residential, and when it is adjacent to residential it shall be completely
screened. The way the code is currently written, would be no change to commercial, it would only
change regarding industrial within larger business parks and buildings requesting a midrise
overlay. She asked if the equipment is placed in the center of a seven-story building, is anyone
going to see it.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated staff has encountered screening systems that
stand 22 feet tall.

LAUREN SCHUMANN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER stated there one at the intersection of Ray and Price
road that comes to mind.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN pointed out the importance of screening to sound mitigation, especially in
residential areas and used Cyrus One as an example of noise.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN stated Cyrus One’s equipment is on the ground and not roof mounted.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized that putting screening helps alleviate the vibrating sound, so
it cannot be heard from a block or two away, especially in residential areas.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained that systems use materials like perforated
corrugated metal, which allow airflow and have minimal noise reduction. In the case of Cyrus One,
our regulations did not initially require them to mitigate noise; however, once complaints arose,
they introduced acoustic measures.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated as equipment sizes increase and they are placed on rooftops, noise
concerns grow. He asked how the City codes will address the noise.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified the noise regulations focus on the concept of
"nuisance" rather than specific decibel levels. This has been both helpful and challenging and in
the case of Cyrus one, it was not about volume of noise or loudness, but the persistent noise that
was the issue. He confirmed the current approach allows staff to address such nuances.

Page 13 of 36

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked in a situation requiring legal action, how would the "nuisance"
definition hold up and in larger buildings, does the code specify that unscreened equipment on
rooftops should be centrally placed and out of sight.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified the "nuisance" definition has served the City
well for years, though it is not strictly defined. As for the rooftop equipment, the emphasis is on
minimizing visibility and noise impact. Distances can sometimes be deceptive; there have been
complaints from residents located half a mile away from the source. Staff's approach considers
both distance and sound quality.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN mentioned a time, after a complaint, he visited a site and was surprised by
the noise level.

Slide #16 Permit ‘For Lease’ Banner Signs

LAUREN SCHUMANN introduced the next proposed code amendment addresses a change made
to the sign code in 2017. She pointed out a discrepancy where banners indicating "For Lease" or
"Space Available" on buildings are not compliant with the 30-day display rule within a six-month
period. She proposed a potential code amendment to address this, therefore, “For Lease” or
“Space Available” banners can remain in spaces unoccupied.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated currently the City is not enforcing the signage regulations. He has
noticed non-compliant signs around the City, like the banner at the top career place which has
been there for months, and it exceeds the code's specifications. He asked if there was a size
limitation for these signs.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded, yes, the City has specific size limitations.
For instance, the banner at the top career place can only be as large as the current code permits
for banners. Staff aims to maintain the size regulations while proposing the flexibility to extend
projection. Regarding enforcement, the decision to resume lies with Council and they would
instruct the city manager accordingly.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ stated as he recalls, years ago, there was a decision made by Council to
begin enforcing these regulations.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN recognized the challenge as the City is rife with banners and even balloons
that have been displayed for months, he stated it is essential the City address this.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR agreed with Chairman Heumann and stated once the
City decides to reinitiate code enforcement, it will be a significant undertaking.

Page 14 of 36

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated he supports the proposed amendments as long as staff ensures the
allowed space is utilized appropriately and not just haphazardly filled with banners on trees and
such.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ presented statements regarding damage to such displays, like from
strong winds. He mentioned the need for immediate repair.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN echoed Commissioner Lopez's statements and recommended the wording
reflect the need for regular maintenance and timely repairs.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR confirmed that staff will clarify maintenance in the
proposal.

Slide #17 Murals

LAUREN SCHUMANN moved on to the next proposed code amendment to address murals. The
current zoning code does not address murals and there has been challenges with murals that
contain commercial imagery being classified as signs. The proposed would allow murals by right,
so long as they do not display commercial imagery. If, for example, a taco restaurant displays a
flying taco, it would be viewed as a sign rather than a mural.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked how will staff handle potential conflicts, like a mural that leans
towards a political ideology as he has seen artistic murals, but what if there is a controversial
message. He asked the Assistant City Attorney how the City will be able handle such issues.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY mentioned Chairman Heumann has a valid concern
and once murals are allowed, regulating them becomes challenging. He provided an example of
a anti-police mural example that was a First Amendment issue and stated if the City allows murals,
regulating their content will be difficult.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked about murals that seemingly advertise a product, for example
offering free cookies.

THOMAS ALLEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY stated commercial speech is different than first
amendment case law and the City can restrict commercial more than regular speech and
therefore can distinguish between them.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated if a bar depicts beers, it could be label it as
commercial imagery and any commercial message or imagery in murals will be reviewed. Staff's
aim is for clarity in the code and to ensure commercial messages are differentiated from standard
murals.

Page 15 of 36

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ asked if Espo’s mural that depicts people eating is commercial imagery.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified if Espo’s wanted to display a three-dimensional
plastic taco as part of their branding, staff would assess it based on various criteria. To the
Assistant City Attorney, Thomas Allen’s point, staffs intention is to codify what's already
happening. For instance, when a mural with an anti-police message was displayed on the tattoo
shop, staff determined it was not a sign per the sign code. The City’s zoning code does not
currently regulate murals, acknowledging First Amendment right to display it. The City did not
intervene, as there is no specific ordinance that prohibits it. Staff aims to provide clarity in the
code for those who seek to comply, the goal is to proactively ensure they understand the rules,
rather than retroactively asking them to modify or remove their artwork, especially considering
the potential costs involved. For example, if someone paints a mural with a commercial message
without prior review, staff will have to intervene. They might argue about the cost involved in
redoing the artwork and that is why the goal is to review such projects in advance, ensuring they
adhere to the guidelines against commercial messages.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ asked if this would be reviewed by permit.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated staff would not be approving murals, if it is a
sign, there is a sign approval process.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented a scenario: a mural with birds does not need approval.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified it would not need a sign permit, there would
be no approval by planning as staff will not be approving murals.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if one of the birds has the name of a shop attached, it becomes
commercial?

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: Yes, that's the distinction we're drawing. We want to
be proactive, providing clarity to people and avoiding reactive enforcement.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented another scenario: a mural with birds with “Wild Birds Unlimited”,
would that count as a sign.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRAOR confirmed that the “Wild Birds Unlimited” would make
the mural a sign and it would need to go through the process.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked what if a huge mural faces residential areas or if an owner of sign
mural argues that other murals did not have to obtain approval from planning.

Page 16 of 36

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated if staff can proactively guide 80% of the cases to
the right path from the outset that would be a success. He further stated there will always be that
remaining 20% where there will be more of a reactive enforcement approach. If a commercial
message is present, the responsible party will need to obtain the necessary sign permit and in
cases where a mural might be classified as a sign, staff will have to evaluate each situation
individually.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked what if a 35-foot mural was painted on the building facing residential
or a shopping center.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ stated that would be allowed right now as staff has stated the code
currently silent on this and it is a First Amendment right.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR confirmed this is correct, the zoning code does not
regulate that, and they can claim it as their First Amendment right.

COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ presented statements regarding size and asked if there should be a
review for massive murals.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated while the City does have an Arts Commission, it
is mainly for City projects, not private ones.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN emphasized the challenge is balancing freedom of expression with
potential community backlash. While many murals are positive, there is a risk with controversial
ones.

Unknown: Yes, the ones that disregard guidelines will do so regardless.

Slide #18 Medical Parking Requirements

LAUREN SCHUMANN shifted the discussion to the next potential code amendment related to
parking regulations, specifically addressing changes in the medical industry. She highlighted the
necessity of updating the zoning code to account for various medical facilities with differing
parking needs. For medical parking, the current code is broad, classify general medical which
requires one parking space per 150 sq. ft. and hospitals at three parking spaces per bed. Staff
aims to identify different intensities of medical offices and adjust the parking ratio accordingly.
We've noticed outpatient surgery facilities don't typically need one space per 150 sq. ft. but closer
to one per 200 sq. ft.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked how the proposed parking ratios for outpatient facilities was
determined as outpatient services, some visits last 15 minutes and others several hours, especially
if there is a procedure followed by recovery.

Page 17 of 36

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR confirmed this is industry data and expert consultation.
Many medical facilities have expressed their actual parking needs are less than what our code
currently mandates. Staff adjusted the number based on both national standards and specific
industry feedback.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ asked if there is a new category for lower medical usage or is this a
subcategory within the existing framework. He asked by changing the parking, if staff is risking
future tenant changes requiring different parking needs.

COMMISSIONER QUINN echoed Commissioner Lopez's concerns and stated if the medical tenant
changes and there was a reduction on parking, is there a situation created where there is not
enough parking for the new medical user.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified this is a potential long-term issue; however,
current trends suggest most medical offices are reducing parking needs and there might be
situations where there is insufficient parking, and staff will need to address those cases
individually.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented concerns about spillover parking into neighborhoods, like
parking issues with multifamily.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated for medical offices, staff would like to ensure
they have the required parking on-site before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. If not, they might
need to find alternative locations.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked what if they already have a CFO due to taking over an existing space.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained if they require interior modifications that
need a building permit, they will need to comply. Most outpatient surgery centers converting to
other uses usually undergo modifications, and they get permits.

COMMISSIONER QUINN presented statements regarding the occupant load of the building and
how this often dictates the parking needs. He presented concerns regarding parking reductions
in the event a new user comes in who then must reverse the adjustment to adhere by their parking
requirements.

Slide #19 Flex Industrial Parking Requirements

LAUREN SCHUMANN introduced the next potential code amendment regarding "flex industrial
parking." Over the past five years, there has been a noticeable surge in the development of
industrial complexes. Typically, staff is uncertain about the final user and the current industrial

Page 18 of 36

code defines parking spaces for manufacturing at one spot per 1,000 square feet. In contrast,
warehousing requires one space for every 500 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet, and
then one space per 5,000 square feet subsequently. Additionally, office parking is set at one for
every 250 square feet. Given this variability and the uncertainty surrounding the end user (which
could range from research and development to manufacturing), staff proposes a streamlined
requirement: two parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet. This average not only
accommodates manufacturing and warehousing but also anticipates that around 30% of a
building might be designated as office space, including any ancillary offices.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained when working with developers, staff often
must juggle numbers, and this is especially true considering the Council's strategic framework
which targets certain industry clusters while dissuading others. He pointed out the image on the
presentation as an example: The north building shows three entrances, though the building is
calculated as the first 10,000 and then the next 5,000 square feet of warehouse space, the
presence of three users means we should be calculating the first 10,000 square feet for each user.
This approach becomes convoluted and makes it challenging to align with the council's strategic
goals for specific industry clusters. An average that consistently emerges as both accurate and
manageable is two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked once this is established, how would that impact places with large
numbers of people, such as call centers or other various users with several employees, especially
as employers are no longer allowing employees to work at home.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified call centers are categorized under ‘office’.
Hence, in a flex industrial building, unless the zoning explicitly designated as 100% office space,
call centers would not ordinarily be located there. If they were the zoning designation would
ensure the parking would be appropriate.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if a call center would be able to use the building if they obtained a
use permit.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded there are instances where staff permitted
office use in a similar building, but they would have to present an alternative parking plan. If truck
bays aren't needed, for instance, how would they modify the rear area to accommodate car
parking for office use.

Slide #20 Revise Uses Permitted in Non-residential Properties

LAUREN SCHUMANN moved on to the next potential code amendment, focusing on updating the
table of permitted uses in the zoning code. She emphasized the need for a restructured table that
groups similar uses for better accessibility. She highlighted the inclusion of missing permitted uses
such as breweries and emerging concepts like cloud kitchens. She also introduced the notion of

Page 19 of 36

"ancillary" uses, aiming to formalize this term within the code. The current table of permitted uses
does not address this and by default, staff generally allows for ancillary use within a building up
to 10%. The aim is to formalize this percentage, for industrial buildings with available parking, the
proposed would permit up to 40% as ancillary office space. Staff has seen instances where a single
user of these flex industrial buildings also brings their entire corporate office, exceeding the 10%
threshold for ancillary office space. Fortunately, some of these buildings have provisions in their
PDPs allowing for up to 25% office space. However, staff would like to codify a provision wherein,
if parking permits, up to 40% of the building can be designated as ancillary office space in an
industrial setting.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR explained staff has encountered situations where
users tried to move into west Chandler, right at the heart of the districts and found a building with
ample parking and had plans for a three-person office and staff told them it was not possible
under the existing PDP. The user would be steered away because they did not have the time to go
through the process.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if this was about adaptative reuse.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated staff is focusing on enhancing tools for adaptive
reuse and redevelopment.

COMMISSIONER LOPEZ asked if staff is observing trends towards consolidation, for example
combining offices and warehousing to avoid maintaining two separate buildings. He asked if
companies incorporating office mezzanines and similar features.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR responded this is correct.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN presented statements regarding SanTan Brewery's location on Warner
Road and pointed out their facility is also a tasting room, and they have music; he asked how does
this fit into this discussion.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR clarified that SanTan Brewery has regularly sought
permits. Initially, staff allowed their setup because of the less than 10% ancillary tasting room.
Over time, their operations grew, and they had to go through a more detailed approval process.
He emphasized staff's aim is to define the guidelines for such ancillary spaces.

CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if anything within the building is fine, but if they want to expand
outside, they would need to get a permit.

KEVIN MAYO, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR stated if they serve liquor and have entertainment, they
would need to come through the proper channels.

Page 20 of 36