Extracted text (via pymupdf)
29234 characters
1 Lauren Schumann From: Mark Fitzgerald <Mark@azcapitolconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 10:31 AM To: Andy Bass; Lauren Schumann; Kevin Mayo; David De La Torre Cc: Joshua Wright; Chandni Bhakta Subject: Thank you! Hello all, Thank you for meeting with us this morning to address our questions. Following a deeper understanding and your team resolving language concerns, we no longer have any issues with the City proposed text amendments. On behalf of my team, we appreciate your willingness to compromise and respond to all our inquiries. Kevin, I will provide the language for you to draft a letter to our members, clarifying that the changes do not prevent developers from charging for parking. My initial interpretation of the revised language was incorrect, but the letter will help rectify any misunderstandings. Additionally, I will draft a letter supporting the staƯ's recommendation to P&Z regarding guest parking requirements. I just spoke to Vice Mayor Orlando and shared this update with him. As a result, we will be canceling any previously scheduled meetings with your councilmembers. My sincerest apologies for the miscommunication. Once again, thank you all, and I look forward to future collaboration. Respectfully, Mark Fitzgerald Capitol Consulting, LLC 1415 N. 7th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 PH: 209-986-0842 Email: mark@azcapitolconsulting.com CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: Chandni Bhakta <Chandni@azcapitolconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:14 PM To: Lauren Schumann; Mark Fitzgerald Cc: Kevin Mayo; David De La Torre; courtney-azcapitolconsulting.com Subject: RE: City of Chandler proposed Zoning Code Amendments Good aŌernoon, Thank you for engaging AMA in your discussion of the upcoming code amendment as it relates to mulƟfamily projects and parking. We applaud the staff’s Ɵme, research, and resources it took to compile this proposal. We are in support of the increased height from 44 feet to 55 feet that would require a Mid-Rise overlay to areas of growth, reducing the requirements to completely screen roof mounted equipment, and open to adding a provision that mulƟfamily will be allowed addiƟonal Ɵme during the iniƟal lease up. However, AMA strongly opposes the increase in (guest) parking requirements by 0.25 and preempƟng apartment communiƟes from charging for any parking spaces that are required to be built per the zoning code. This intent would iniƟally raise the cost for development of mulƟhousing projects versus the number of units that could be built due to the parking restricƟons. Currently we are seeing several ciƟes actually work to reduce their parking requirements especially for affordable housing communiƟes and housing near major transit or transportaƟon corridors. Below are some highlight points that AMA would like to bring to your aƩenƟon: • ImplemenƟng via the zoning code a limitaƟon if parking fees or parking rent is a government overreach: RestricƟng apartment owners from charging for parking consƟtutes an unnecessary government intervenƟon into private property rights and ongoing property operaƟons. Property owners should have the autonomy to set their own pricing policies, especially when it comes to a valuable asset like parking. • Financial burden on property owners : For rental housing owners and managers, the prohibiƟon on charging for parking may translate into financial burdens. The costs of maintaining and operaƟng parking faciliƟes can be significant, and if owners are unable to recover these costs through parking fees, they may need to offset the expenses through other means such as higher rents across the board. Whereas charging parking rent or fees based on type of parking (covered, uncovered or in some cases individual enclosed garages) or the needed parking spots is a more equitable approach allowing the resident to determine the parking opƟon that best first their needs and budget. While some families renƟng a three bedroom, they might need two or three parking spaces but another person renƟng a three bedroom and using the extra rooms as an office and guest space may only need one parking space. • Unintended consequences: ImplemenƟng such policies may lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced investment in apartment communiƟes, less upkeep of parking infrastructure, or a potenƟal decline in the quality of housing services provided to tenants. • OperaƟonal flexibility for property owners: Different apartment communiƟes may have varying needs and circumstances. Allowing property owners to set parking policies, including whether to charge for parking, enables them to adapt to the unique requirements of their residents and the local context. In summary, we hope that you will harmonize urban planning goals without infringing on property rights on-going property management. However, in the case of prohibiƟng fees or rents for parking no such balance exists, and property owners and some residents will be leŌ disadvantaged. The city mandates addiƟonal parking, driving up costs, only to 2 then hinder landlords from charging for parking. If parking fee restricƟons pass, it could lead to a potenƟally far-reaching and adverse consequences down the road. Sincerely, Chandni Bhakta Capitol Consulting, LLC P.O. Box 13116 Phoenix, AZ 85007-3116 Office: (602) 712-1121 Cell: (602) 909-4689 From: Lauren Schumann <Lauren.Schumann@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:16 PM To: Chandni Bhakta <Chandni@azcapitolconsulting.com>; Mark Fitzgerald <Mark@azcapitolconsulting.com> Cc: Kevin Mayo <Kevin.Mayo@chandleraz.gov>; David De La Torre <David.DeLaTorre@chandleraz.gov> Subject: City of Chandler proposed Zoning Code Amendments Good Afternoon Mark and Chandni, Thank you for taking the time to meet with us last week as the City of Chandler finalizes the proposed code amendment. We wanted to reach out to see if you had any comments, questions, or concerns as we are in the process of preparing the memo for the Planning and Zoning Commission 11/15 meeting. Lauren Schumann Principal Planner, City of Chandler’s Planning Division 215 E. Buffalo St. Chandler, AZ 85225 (480) 782-3156 From: Lauren Schumann Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:58 PM To: Chandni Bhakta <Chandni@azcapitolconsulting.com> Subject: RE: City of Chandler proposed Zoning Code Amendments My apologizes, I sent updated the invite but it deleted you. I just added you and Courtney, thank you for brining this to my attention. Lauren Schumann Principal Planner, City of Chandler’s Planning Division 215 E. Buffalo St. Chandler, AZ 85225 (480) 782-3156 1 Lauren Schumann From: Rebecca Hill <rebecca@downtownchandler.org> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:00 PM To: Lauren Schumann Cc: Lauren Koll Subject: Zoning Code Feedback Hi Lauren, On behalf of the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership, there are a few concerns we would like to discuss/see addressed. 1. Should we require an entertainment permit for business already in the entertainment district? - It has been suggested puƫng specifics (Ɵme and decibels) in the new Zoning Code Amendment 2. Is it reasonable to ask new renters (DC Heights) to sign a waiver acknowledging the entertainment district? - Include guidelines into Land Use and Zoning directed to mulƟfamily establishments requiring renters to acknowledge Entertainment District and exisƟng permit regulaƟons. - Any amplified music or speakers on public areas within the Entertainment District must be permiƩed through the City. Including but not limited to; entertainers, speakers expressing opinions, pan handlers, non-profits seeking donaƟons, etc. 3. Sign Code, Item F. Would the City reconsider this if there were certain hours of this sign being lit? This will have an impact for several current businesses, some that are already established and certainly any new business currently in the zoning process. (PotenƟally, Hidden House, Maple House, Food Court, GheƩ Yo, the Perch, One Chandler) Thank you for your time and consideration. Rebecca Rebecca Hill Executive Director 100 W Boston St., #5 Chandler, AZ 85225 480-855-3539 Office 480-406-5898 Cell CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 12:52 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Thu, 10/19/2023 - 12:51 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Erich Wichterman Address 970 E Desert Inn Dr Chandler, Arizona. 85249 Email erich.wichterman@gmail.com Comments Not in favor of permitting accessory dwelling units on single-family lots. For every family that wants to allow this for extended family there are 10 others that are seeking to generate a revenue stream. This amounts in practicality to change zoning from SFR to multi-family. Not in favor of Home occupations amendment. This amounts to a zoning amendment to support business - business should be conducted in a business zoned area. Such an amendment adds to traffic posing a danger to citizens and quite franky degrades the neighborhood into mixed use. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 4:33 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Sun, 10/22/2023 - 04:33 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Seth Borman Address 1408 E Gail Dr. Chandler, Arizona. 85225 Email sethborman@yahoo.com Comments The city's focus on parking is unwarranted, there is no parking crisis and thus no need to drastically increase parking requirements. This is true especially of ADUs and home occupations. With ADUs, many of the units will be occupied by people that don't drive. If I build an ADU in my home it will be for an elderly relative that doesn't drive. With home occupations, most people don't use their garages for parking anyway, they park in the driveway. This is directly applicable to my family, as we are in the process of opening a small business that would have gone in our garage if that were allowed. Because it can't, we found a small office space in an adjacent city. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 4:50 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 10/25/2023 - 04:50 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Linda Miller Address 930 W Oriole Way Chandler, Arizona. 85286 Email lindasmiller2@gmail.com Comments I think all of these are good ideas. Many would solve a lot of HOA versus resident disputes if carried to existing communities where applicable.thank you for asking fir community feedback. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 12:21 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Mon, 10/23/2023 - 12:21 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Margaret Pena Address 2373 W. Flint St Chandler, Arizona. 85224 Email penafami@aol.com Comments Could you let me know which areas (neighborhoods) these changes would be impacting? CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 8:01 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 10/25/2023 - 08:01 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Suzanna Williams Address 1760 E i digo dr Chandler, Arizona. 85286 Email suzibean@gmail.con Comments We are in favor of increasing the size of open air residential rmanadas CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 7:40 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Fri, 10/27/2023 - 07:40 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name David Freet Address 599 S Terrace Road Chandler, Arizona. 85226 Email fxstsaz99@cox.net Comments I am against all of these proposed changes to the current codes. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 9:37 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Fri, 10/27/2023 - 09:36 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Setliff Jo Setliff Jo Address 5172 w Dublin lane Chandler, Arizona. 85226 Email josetliff@gmail.com Comments Like the addition of shipping containers and guest parking. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 2 Priority: Five Day Assigned To: Tawna Mower Requester Name: Karin Taylor Requester Phone # (928) 856-1151 Request Service Location : Customer Comments: Hello, I am writing to share my opinion on city parking codes. I moved to Chandler a few years ago and I am happy to see that the city allows companies to request lower parking requirements after a study. I believe that this does not go far enough, as the mandate for a study to prove a lack of need places unnecessary spending requirements on potential entrepreneurs. A government-mandated spending requirement limits development by presuming that the government knows what businesses should be spending their money on better than business owners themselves.In addition to the increased land and construction spending requirements for potential small businesses, the requirement for large parking lots creates an ongoing financial burden by making the company hire additional night or weekend security staff to ensure the vacancy of the lot. Parking lots that are sized to account for large single-day events may be useful for the theater or a mall on Black Friday, but for most businesses they are a liability. People who simply want to run their business are now tasked with managing a massive tract of land that sits unused most days and attracts dangerous behavior such as doing donuts and loitering. The government is forcing companies to increase startup costs for the benefit of owning land that does nothing but attract foolish young men looking for a misdemeanor. Dealing with the behavior of these parking lot hooligans, noise complaints, and the resulting legal requirements is another burden that city parking requirements are hoisting on small business owners. The requirements themselves do not increase business traffic, and companies should be able to be responsible for the design and spending on their own property to the extent that it is safe.Laws are supposed to keep the citizens safe. The mild inconvenience of trying to find a parking spot in a crowded lot is not a safety issue, it is a free market issue. Businesses should be responsible for their own company, and if they lose business due to people being unable to find a place to park in a smaller lot that is a lesson they need to learn as an entrepreneur, not a danger that the government needs to protect them from. In fact, with the increased vagrancy and public disturbance that large parking lots encourage, the government has created a law that increases danger to the public while restricting commerce. I urge you to bring these requirements down as soon as you can so that we can see more innovative businesses and fewer viral videos of people crashing their car while doing donuts in a vacant lot.Sincerely, Karin Taylor Created By: RESTAPILogOn on 9/6/2023 at 8:21:17 PM To open this record in the web application click on the link below. If this does not work for you, you can copy the link and paste it into Internet Explorer Link to View This email came from an automated system. Do not reply to this email. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 10:20 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Tue, 11/28/2023 - 10:19 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Jill Evans Address 3330 S. Gilbert Rd. Unit #2028 Chandler, Arizona. 85286 Email jill.evans3@gmail.com Comments Regarding the proposed amendment for Multi-Family Residential Parking: I currently live in a condominium complex that was built 15 years ago. We have a limited number of guest parking spaces (approximately 35 to accommodate 184 living units). The proposed amendment would require that we have .25 guest spaces per unit for a total of 46 spaces. As a fully developed property, there is absolutely no space to create extra guest parking. Another proposed amendment is not to charge a fee for guest parking. Our HOA has recently implemented paid guest parking. This was done as guest parking was being abused by residents who had more vehicles than assigned parking spaces and were using guest parking spaces for their own personal vehicles. This obviously caused issues for other residents who now could not find a guest parking space for an actual guest. Our HOA tried many things to deter this including visitor passes, towing, etc. Nothing worked. Now that we use a software system (Zark Parking) to rent a guest space for a nominal fee, this issue has significantly reduced. I am not in favor of this amendment as it will cause unnecessary hardship. I urge you not to pass these particular parts of your proposed amendment. Thank you. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 12:17 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Tue, 12/05/2023 - 12:16 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Trina Bates Address 609 W San Marcos Dr Chandler, Arizona. 85225 Email teensyfaye@gmail.com Comments I am in favor of the proposed elimination of the ramada size limit and instead using a percentage (30%) of the area of the yard. I am also in favor of the newly proposed setbacks for ramadas. Great idea! CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 4:06 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/29/2023 - 04:05 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Lisa Sackett Address 4578 W Earhart Way Chandler, Arizona. 85226 Email happyveggie2@gmail.com Comments I would really like for the current restrictions on building ramadas or shade structures anywhere on our property to be removed. Our planet is warming and Arizonans should be able to reduce the temperatures around our homes any way possible. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 3:27 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/29/2023 - 03:26 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name nanette grisham Address 4667 w. shannon, chandler, Arizona. 85226 Email arizona_nan@yahoo.com Comments this is response to; home occupations subject...... i totally disagree to any home occupations businesses. these would bring VERY negative occurrences to any neighborhoods. they could include; heavy traffic, unsafe to children , strangers, parking illegally, debris thrown around. if a person wants a business, rent a location in a strip mall type of building. NOT garage OR home occupations.... and; who would enforce the hours of 9am - 7pm ? the police have more important duties. i DO not want my driveway blocked so some person could operate a business near me. also, strangers, bring crimes, break-ins, thefts, NO THANK YOU !! CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 12:51 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/29/2023 - 12:51 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Nancy Landeryou Address 4650 W Ivanhoe St Chandler, Arizona. 85226 Comments Keep the home occupation code as it stands. Residential areas should be just that, for residents, not for commercial use. If businesse that are run out of a home, allow customers and employees in and out, throughout the day, there will be more traffic in and out of our neighborhoods. This increases the danger of accidents to children, pets, and the elderly. Not to mention, strangers coming in and out of our neighborhoods. We have a tight knit community, where neighbors look out for each other. How will we know if certain people belong in our neighborhoods, if it becomes a free for all? Keep businesses where they belong, in shopping centers! I doubt if other people would approve of this change, if it were more widely known to the general population. Are you just accommodating a special interest group or friend? This seems like a very important zoning change that should be brought to the public for a vote. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 11:31 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/29/2023 - 11:30 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Joseph Dale Address 4849 E Karsten Dr Chandler, Arizona. 85249 Email azjoedale@q.com Comments In regards to eliminating requirements for driveway to be connected to garage or carport: IMO, having two driveways in most of our cookie cutter master planned communities with lots under .3 acres would be an eyesore. What would happeen is we would have cars parked on both driveways so your front yards now become one giant driveway. Instead of this, how about reduce amount of parking landscape (cement, pavers, etc) is allowed. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 2:11 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Tue, 11/28/2023 - 02:10 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Leslie Minkus Address 3372 E Gemini Ct Chandler, Arizona. 85249 Email faminkus@msn.com Comments With the support of my Co-Chair and City Liaison, Linda Sawyer and the members of our the LD13 Local Government Committee, our FOCUS IS ALL ABOUT true, clear and FULL transparency, open dialog and communications regarding proposed ordinances and agenda issues that are presented and discussed at all future city work sessions, study sessions and department meetings between our LD13 Committee Members, including Residents of Chandler, AND the City Staff, Mayor and Council Members. It is also important for the City to publicly provide clear and complete feedback to justify their reasoning supporting each decision made by each elected official that voted on an ordinance. CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 12:53 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/15/2023 - 12:53 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Theo Anglin Address 1613 E Cindy St Chandler, Arizona. 85225 Email theoanglin99@gmail.com Comments I am overwhelmingly in support of the code changes, especially regarding ADUs! CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 9:30 AM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Submitted on Wed, 11/15/2023 - 09:30 AM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Tracie Younce Address 3632 E PRESCOTT PL CHANDLER, Arizona. 85249 Email tyounce@hotmail.com Comments Most of these amendments appear to align with nearby cities and more modern updates however I would like to question the elimination of the pool setback of 5 feet. What is the benefit of this change that would outweigh any issues that could be caused by setting the pool decking so close to a neighbor? Wouldn't this cause more problems with masonry fencing and tree roots, etc? I realize lot sizes have dwindled in newer neighborhoods and doesn't always allow room for a pool to be installed on a property but to change the pool set back regulations is not the way to handle citizens wanting a pool in their small yard. Why are you allowing lot sizes so small in the first place if you would allow a pool on that property? What is the overall majority benefit of this amendment? CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. 1 Lauren Schumann From: City of Chandler <webmaster@chandleraz.gov> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 4:17 PM To: Lauren Schumann Subject: Webform submission from: Code Amendments: Public Comment Form Submitted on Mon, 01/15/2024 - 04:17 PM Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: Name Andrew DeValk Address 213 S Maple St Chandler, Arizona. 85226 Email andrewjdevalk@gmail.com Comments Due to the current cost of living, an ADU with built in cooking capabilities would help so many residents like us in various ways. This would allow residents to provide a long-term solution to an aging parent, family member, adult children, friend, or even the opportunity to rent the space long-term (which provides another affordable housing opportunity within Chandler) makes economic sense for all involved. Wouldn't this add value to living in Chandler? An in-law suite adds value to homes. Allowing the chance to rent out an ADU would also increase property values. However, care should be taken in making sure that there is little to no impact on the neighborhood as it relates to parking and aesthetics. Thank you for your consideration! CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.