Study Session Minutes

City of Chandler — Regular Meeting (2024-01-10)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 9701 characters
Meeting Minutes 
Airport Commission  
Study Session 
December 13, 2023, | 6:30 p.m. 
Chandler Airport Terminal  
2380 S. Stinson Way, Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hawley at 6:30 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Commission Attendance  
 
 
         Staff Attendance 
Chairman Christopher Hawley  
 
         Ryan Reeves, Airport Manager 
 
Vice Chairman Charles McCorkle 
 
         Scott Rinkenberger, Airport Ops Manager    
Commissioner Cecil Orozco 
 
 
         Chris Andres, Airport Planning Program Mngr. 
Commissioner Mark Mount       
      
         Diana Alonzo, Management Assistant 
Commissioner Robert Ehlbeck  
 
          
 
 
 
           
 
Absent 
Commissioner Chad Wakefield 
 
Others in Attendance 
Lauren Schumann, City Principal Planner  
Alisa Peterson, City Senior Planner 
Jericho Bankston, Schnitzer Commerce Parks  
Bruce Wallace, Schnitzer Commerce Parks 
Kathy Wallace, Schnitzer Commerce Parks 
Adam Baugh, Cambridge Medical Hospital 
Stephanie Watney, Cambridge Medical Hospital 
 
Scheduled and Unscheduled Public Appearances 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if there were any members of the public that would like to address the 
committee on any items not on the agenda. 
None.

Page 2 of 6 
 
Discussion  
1. Airport Conflict Evaluation – PLH22-0028 Schnitzer Commerce Parks 
 
City Principal Planner, Lauren Schumann, gave a presentation regarding the preliminary 
development plan for site layout and building architecture. Request to rezone from AG-1 to PAD 
for industrial business park I-1.   
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked, from the map, which area was part of Maricopa County and if the road 
that was mentioned would go through that block. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that as part of the improvements, the road will go all the way up to 
Hamilton or Ryan Road. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked where Hamilton Road was on the map. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that it was a north/south road. 
 
COMMISSIONER MOUNT asked if lighting direction was part of the plans reviewed. 
 
MR. REEVES responded that lighting is always considered when developing a building. 
 
COMMISSIONER MOUNT stated that he only saw solar panel reviews, but not lighting or light 
poles. 
 
MR. REEVES states that as part of the review, they also ask for material types so they can review 
the reflectivity of said materials.  
 
2. Airport Conflict Evaluation- PLH-23-0053 Cambridge Medical Facility 
 
City Principal Planner, Lauren Schumann, gave a presentation regarding the request to increase 
mid-rise overlay for building heights up to 75 feet, as well as the preliminary development plan 
for site layout and building architecture for a medical facility. 
 
COMMISSIONER MOUNT asked if there will be a helipad on top of the facility. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that they are not requesting a helipad. The building is not built to 
sustain that type of weight. 
 
COMMISSIONER EHLBECK asked if there is a plan to add a helipad on the ground.

Page 3 of 6 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that per the applicant, it is not intended to add one and it is not 
permitted. The applicant would have to return and go through the same process to request adding 
a helipad. 
 
COMMISSIONER OROZCO asked if there are other buildings that are 75 feet in the area. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded not within the area. 
 
MR. ANDRES stated that this would be the tallest building in the area. 
 
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked for his own personal information, how difficult would it be for 
the site to have multiple landing areas. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded that from the FAA standpoint, the applicant would have to go through 
the same process again and meet FAA site requirements. To add a helipad on the ground, there 
would be a significant amount of parking that would need to be removed, whichcan be 
problematic. 
 
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE stated that there is underground parking. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded that there is still enough parking surface. There will be a lot of outpatient 
services that will require an extended stay. Staff also spoke to the applicant, and they were made 
aware that CHD has a heliport very close by. 
 
COMMISSIONER EHLBECK asked if there would be a taxi service to transport people from the 
medical facility to airport grounds through an alternative entrance and road. 
 
MR. REEVES responded that there are a lot of properties in between. A surface street study was 
not conducted, and if they were to need access to the heliport, staff would work with them just 
like with any other company. A gate code can be provided so that they can have gate access 24/7 
following all FAA safety standards. 
 
COMMISSIONER EHLBECK asked if this would alter the future of undeveloped areas around the 
airport. 
 
MR. REEVES responded no; they would obtain access through the existing gates. 
 
COMMISSIONER MOUNT asked how close the nearest trauma center is. 
 
MR. REEVES responded that Mercy Gilbert and Chandler Regional are the closest trauma centers. 
 
COMMISSIONER MOUNT asked if they would typically land there.

Page 4 of 6 
 
 
MR. REEVES responded yes; those are the closest trauma centers. 
 
COMMISSIONER OROZCO asked if this would be under the base turn to 22L. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated that the language indicates that it is not located within the noise 
contours. He also stated that per Exhibit B, it appears that the medical facility is within the 60 
decibels noise contour area and asked if it this is an error. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded yes; that is the 60-decibel contour, but it should be 55, which is the federal 
and state noise exposure. There are 2 noise contours, 60 LDN and 55 which is the FAA standard, 
recognizing that there is a transition zone for residential noise mitigation. Anything outside of this 
is ineligible for federal funding. Where the facility is at, it is outside the 55 contours. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if Exhibit B was inaccurate. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded no. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if the red area was for the Airpark Area. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded yes. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN stated that the 60 is the blue line circling the Airpark Area. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if the highest part of the medical building was for decorative purposes 
only. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that the way the code is currently written, any equipment that goes 
on the roof needs to be covered. The equipment on the roof needs to be concealed and that is 
why those areas are higher in order to cover the equipment.  
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if they knew anything about the material and making it soundproof. 
He also stated that he was in the area and 4 helicopters were operating nearby, making him worry 
about possible noise complaints from patients. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that she reached out to the architect and an engineer was hired to 
look into these issues before designing the building.  
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked how tall the charter school next door was. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that she did not know the exact height, but her estimate was not taller 
than 45 feet.

Page 5 of 6 
 
 
MR. REEVES stated that the school has 70-foot-tall light poles that have recently passed the 7460 
process with the FAA. 
 
COMMISSIONER EHLBECK asked if the hospital’s night lighting had been inspected and that no 
unique indicators would conflict or distract the pilots from seeing the runway lights. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded that it was discussed to keep the lighting directed downward. He also 
stated that this is an elective procedure hospital, therefore the building does not need the lights 
a trauma center would require.  
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if there would be any anti-collision lights on top. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded presumably yes, but he doesn’t believe that it is required at that height. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if the school lights had anti-collision lights. 
 
MR. REEVES responded yes. 
 
MR. RINKINBERGER stated that he deals with most of 7460 forms and reviewed the aeronautical 
studies for such buildings.  Many times, the FAA recommends the lights and in few cases, does 
not. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY asked if this project had gone through this process already. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded that he did not believe it had yet. The City of Chandler requires applicants 
to obtain the 7460 form to pull permits. This is early in the process and that is why the packet has 
two paragraphs regarding the final building and all the rooftop mechanical, but there is also a 
construction component. The airport receives a copy of the aeronautical study and mitigation 
measures to verify. 
 
CHAIRMAN HAWLEY stated if this project has not been sent to the FAA for review, when it does 
the FAA may recommend or require some sort of obstruction lighting. 
 
MR. ANDRES responded that was correct. 
 
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCORKLE asked how many buildings were between site and the airport in direct 
line. The west exposure is going to be quite white.  The reflection is muted for glare, even if it is 
white, but there will still be some glare. If there are buildings in between them, that would mitigate 
the glare.

Page 6 of 6 
 
MS. SHUMANN stated that the image was drafted today, the southside has two industrial 
buildings, the northside has two 45 ft tall flex industrial buildings, and just north of that there is a 
“toy barn”.  
 
 
Calendar 
The next Regular Airport Commission Meeting will be held immediately after the Study Session, 
in the Chandler Airport Terminal 2380 S. Stinson Way, Chandler, AZ. 
 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. 
 
 
______________________________ 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
Ryan Reeves, Secretary                                                  Christopher Hawley, Chairman