Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission held on February 6, 2025
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
30896 characters
Meeting Minutes
City Council and Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Joint Meeting
February 6, 2025 | 3:00 p.m.
ASU Innovation Center
249 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 3:01 p.m.
Roll Call
Council Attendance
Appointee Attendance
Mayor Kevin Hartke
Joshua Wright, City Manager
Vice Mayor Christine Ellis
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney
Councilmember Angel Encinas
Dana DeLong, City Clerk
Councilmember Jane Poston
Councilmember Matt Orlando
Councilmember OD Harris, attended virtually
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins
Commission Attendance
Staff in Attendance
Chair Rick Heumann
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager
Vice Chair Sherri Koshiol
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / CFO
*Commissioner Mike Quinn
Andy Bass, Deputy City Manager
Commissioner Kyle Barichello
Kevin Snyder, Development Services Director
*Commissioner Charlotte Golla
Lauren Schumann, Principal Planner
Commissioner Ryan Schwarzer
Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator
Alisa Petterson, Senior Planner
Megan Moore, Logan Simpson Consultant
Terri Hogan, Logan Simpson Consultant
Bruce Meighen, Logan Simpson Consultant
Rick Merritt, Elliott Pollack Consultant
*Commissioner Quinn and Commissioner Golla departed at 5:00 p.m.
Page 2 of 17
Introductory Remarks – Mayor and Commission Chair
MAYOR HARTKE introduced the discussion. He commented that the General Plan is the shared
vision for the future, referred to for any planning and development in Chandler. It is an
opportunity for collaboration for residents to provide input in our city. The process will involve
ensuring Chandler is a vibrant inclusive place of innovation for people to call home. Mayor Hartke
said City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission will have the chance to give input into
this process.
CHAIR HEUMANN said this is an exciting opportunity for Councilmembers and Commissioners to
learn about the future development of Chandler. There are challenges as Chandler is approaching
buildout and pivoting to infill. This presentation will ensure all members are on the same page
regarding future development and zoning.
Discussion
1.
Presentation and Discussion regarding the Downtown Area Plan Update
ALISA PETTERSON, Senior Planner, presented the following presentation.
• Downtown Region Area Plan Update
• Presentation Outline
o Existing Related Plans
o Timelines & Community Outreach
o Proposed Area Plan Map
o New Recommendations
▪ Allow Adaptive Reuse
▪ Establish Commerce Routes
▪ Allow Mixed-Uses at Industrial
▪ Allow Alley Activation
▪ Recognize Downtown Gateways
▪ Develop Character Area Guidelines
• Existing Related Plans
o 1995 Chandler Redevelopment Element (replace)
o 2006 South AZ Ave Entry Corridor Study (replace)
o 2010 South AZ Ave Design Guidelines (replace)
o 2016 Chandler General Plan
o 2019 Chandler Transportation Plan
o Chandler Water, Wastewater & Reclaimed Water
o Master Plan Update
o 2023-2025 Chandler Strategic Framework
o Chandler Economic Development Strategic Plan
o 2023 Infill Incentive Plan
o 2023-2024 Southside Village Studies: Urban Land
Page 3 of 17
o Institute and Washington Street Alignment
• Timelines & Community Outreach
o 15 Month Timeline
o COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
o Website / social media / email notification
o Educational Meetings
o Stakeholder Interviews
o Public & Virtual Workshops
▪ Visioning: Aug 17 & 19
▪ Scenarios: Sept 9 & 10
▪ Immersion: Nov 15 & 16
• Proposed Area Plan Map
o Describes subject area:
▪ Ray Rd to 202 & McQueen to Alma School Rd
o 5 separate districts:
▪ Northern, San Marcos, Downtown, Eastern & Southern
o Replace & combine existing area plans:
▪ Chandler Redevelopment Element (blue)
▪ South AZ Ave Corridor Area Plan (yellow)
o Expand area map to add “gateway” areas:
▪ San Marcos District
▪ Arizona Ave north of Chandler Blvd
▪ Chandler Blvd east of Arizona Ave
▪ AZ Ave from 202 north to Pecos Rd
• New Recommendations
o The new Downtown Region Area Plan will:
o Guide all future development decisions within the region
o Provide 50,000 feet view of how the future built environment within the region
should look
o Set policies that define types of developments that can be considered
• Recommendation: Adaptive Reuse
o Add policy guidance to allow adaptive reuse along with new & redevelopment
projects.
o Why:
▪ Planning initiative: development patterns are different than expected 20 years
ago
▪ Less land consolidation & big developments
▪ Current zoning – difficult for smaller projects
o Benefits:
▪ Preserve & enhance Chandler’s unique historic character
▪ Expand revitalization across more of the downtown area
▪ Create a more vibrant & culturally rich community environment
Page 4 of 17
CHAIR HEUMANN asked if the recommendation was to encourage smaller segments.
MS. PETTERSON said over the past couple of years, there have been challenges with smaller
projects. This recommendation is intended to be more inclusive of new development patterns.
CHAIR HEUMANN shared that the development philosophy should be to find the best use for the
parcel, instead of taking the first project proposal. This is due to Chandler reaching high rates of
build-out.
MS. PETTERSON agreed and said the focus is on high-quality adaptive reuse projects in the
downtown area.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the Washington Street area is a part of the adaptive reuse
project.
MS. PETTERSON said the Washington Street realignment project has not been a project of the
Planning Division, but it will be moving forward and documented in the area plan. Housing in that
area would be under consideration, looking at the highest and best use with consideration to any
community input.
MR. WRIGHT added there will be some future presentations on the Washington Street alignment
project, pending more community input. There may be opportunities to add improvements for
transportation and quality of life.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO spoke about the possibility of historic overlays for this
neighborhood for a creative solution.
MR. WRIGHT agreed and said public outreach is ongoing.
MAYOR HARTKE asked for information about public outreach.
MR. WRIGHT said information will be shared at a future presentation.
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS asked how this recommendation would be encouraged with
developers.
MS. PETTERSON said this would open an option for developers who may not have been able to go
through with adaptive reuse in the past due to more restrictive area plans. This option would be
added to be considered across the downtown area. Each proposal would still be weighed against
what the city is looking for.
Page 5 of 17
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS said he is focused on the downtown region.
MAYOR HARTKE said further information on this subject will be brought back to Council.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO said there is a historic preservation overlay on the downtown
district which has some specific restrictions due to that.
CHAIR HEUMANN added that eminent domain should be avoided, if possible, the city should
encourage new development and independent businesses without that mechanism.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked about possible incentives to encourage smaller developments.
MS. PETTERSON said this is an area being studied currently.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS said incentives will encourage wanted developments in the downtown area.
CHAIR HEUMANN suggested that nonmonetary incentives such as expedited review could also be
offered.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS spoke about incorporating the Historic Preservation Commission in
potential adaptive reuse projects downtown. He also highlighted that it is important to make sure
the downtown area is not crowded to enhance connectivity. Councilmember Harris emphasized
enhancements such as utility boxes, lighting, and alleyway improvements.
MS. PETTERSON continued the presentation.
• Recommendation: Commerce Route
o Establish commerce route policy to reroute commercial truck traffic in the downtown
region
o Why:
▪ Planning initiative: approved development on Frye Rd (protected bike lane,
Grayhawk Residences) will challenge the current capacity
▪ More people expected downtown - more traffic, pedestrian & bike safety
concerns
▪ Better downtown environment & enhanced resident satisfaction
o Benefits:
▪ Safer streets for cars, bikes & pedestrians
▪ Protection of built infrastructure (curbs, gutters & sidewalks)
CHAIR HEUMANN requested to explain the need for commerce routes.
MS. PETTERSON said there are large existing industrial users along Frye Road. There have been
some instances of semi-trucks queueing along Frye Road in the morning, or attempting to turn
Page 6 of 17
right on Frye Road, which is not suited for semi-truck traffic. Traffic would also come up against
the Frye Road protected bike lanes plan, and the plan would be to encourage pedestrian and bike
traffic safely.
CHAIR HEUMANN said Arizona Avenue is still State Route 87 which will have high traffic. Chair
Heumann added that incorporating calming measures into downtown roadways is another way
of encouraging safe travel.
MAYOR HARTKE commented that large trucks turning east on Frye are hazardous.
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS asked how this new commerce route will be encouraged.
MS. PETTERSON said it will be a process of working with the users. Once the route is established
in the area plan it should allow users to continue successfully operating and relieve potential
conflicts between residents in new residential developments and existing industrial users.
VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL asked if this requires coordination with CIP if other measures are planned
such as roadway widening.
MS. PETTERSON said this will be a coordinated effort. These conversations occur early with related
departments once policies are set in place. These ideas could develop into projects.
MAYOR HARTKE asked where the construction would start for the Frye Road bike lane.
MR. WRIGHT said information would be provided.
MAYOR HARTKE said as construction reaches Arizona Avenue, that would be a great opportunity
to facilitate messaging about the proposed commerce route.
MS. PETTERSON said outreach has begun.
MS. PETTERSON continued the presentation.
• Recommendation: Mixed-Uses
o Add policies to allow mixed-use developments with residential & commercial uses at
existing industrial uses east of railroad
o Why:
▪ Planning initiative: changing development trends
▪ More efficient land use planning long-term
▪ Provide policy to allow new uses now before a potential loss of existing
industrial uses
o Benefits:
Page 7 of 17
▪ Live/work/play uses & development scale - a better fit for the downtown
environment
▪ More available housing
▪ More vibrant, walkable & sustainable community
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how this would be depicted in the General Plan.
MS. PETTERSON said that this would include flexibility for rezoning the property. This may require
an update to the existing zoning ordinance to be in alignment with policy recommendations.
CHAIR HEUMANN spoke about the allowable uses in industrial zoning that could be proposed for
mixed-use that are congruent with existing placements.
MS. PETTERSON continued the presentation.
• Recommendation: Alley Activation
o Establish a vision & policy guidance for alley activation as pedestrian areas in the
downtown
o Why:
▪ Community input: create a more vibrant local identity with art & public
gathering spaces
▪ Community
input:
provide
additional
landscaping
&
neighborhood
beautification
▪ Address water & sewer infrastructure issues
o Benefits:
▪ More pedestrian space for community events
▪ Increase unique community character
▪ Greater flexibility for infill development
MAYOR HARTKE asked if water and sewer infrastructure is included in this recommendation.
MS. PETTERSON said that the preservation and enhancement of existing infrastructure have been
discussed with the relevant departments.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO asked how the alley activation policy would be funded.
MS. PETTERSON said that after setting the policy, sourcing funding mechanisms would be the next
step in the process.
MS. PETTERSON continued the presentation.
• Recommendation: Downtown Gateways
o Create policy to identify enhancement opportunities for gateways into Downtown
Chandler
Page 8 of 17
o Why:
▪ Community input: add more landscape, visual beautification & protected
multi-modal paths
▪ Similar to Chandler Airpark gateway areas
▪ Consistent with “Downtown South” improvements
o Benefits:
▪ Roadway beautification with new landscaping at medians & ROWs (similar to
Chandler Blvd)
▪ A downtown core that is connected to adjacent neighborhoods
▪ A sense of place & arrival to the downtown core
• Recommendation: Character Area Guidelines
o Develop character area guidelines for established neighborhoods & future
development areas
o Why:
▪ Community input: provide unique landscaping, lighting & signage within
neighborhoods
o Benefits:
▪ Enhance existing neighborhoods by creating a sense of place
▪ Create better pedestrian connection to the downtown core
▪ Honor the unique historic characteristic of established neighborhoods
▪ Balance improvements across the region
▪ Create more housing & supportive commercial uses
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked how the parameters for the character areas were created and
how were the areas determined.
MS. PETTERSON said the existing regions are geographically named, but proposed character areas
incorporate neighborhoods such as the Silk-Stocking district. It is more about creating the policy
for these types of character areas to be created. It may originate first from historic overlays.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if names have been developed and how that process would
occur.
MS. PETTERSON said character area names would be specific and relevant to the individual
neighborhood and would represent the special unique character of these areas. Names have not
yet been proposed. This proposal would set a policy to allow these character areas to develop
organically.
CHAIR HEUMANN asked if neighborhoods would be defined by types of residential housing
available. He recommended achieving better pedestrian connection downtown and continuing to
investigate different solutions.
Page 9 of 17
MAYOR HARTKE asked if the intention was to create an identity in these neighborhoods.
MS. PETTERSON said this was based on feedback received from residents in the downtown area
that creating unique places will add to the vibrant vitality of downtown which will spur
development.
MS. PETTERSON continued the presentation.
• Please Share Your Thoughts
COMMISSIONER SCHWARZER asked if there have been any feasibility studies conducted or any
proposed alley locations for the alley activation recommendation.
MS. PETTERSON said at this time, this would provide the pathway to seek those types of
improvements. Further study is required in line with the policy approval.
COMMISSIONER GOLLA asked what Chandler can do to address adaptive reuse for proposed
multifamily developments.
MS. PETTERSON said there is some guidance from the state that would supersede anything at the
local level.
COMMISSIONER GOLLA clarified that this would be a guiding policy from Chandler to open new
opportunities.
MS. PETTERSON said once the policy is in place, it can be used for enforcement.
MAYOR HARTKE added that involving neighborhoods’ wants and needs must cohere with what
works for Chandler.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said this sets forth a great vision for Chandler and the General Plan
is approved by residents to be the vision for the community.
MAYOR HARTKE said local context for zoning and development is essential and this message is
shared with state and federal leaders.
Recessed at 4:02 p.m.
Reconvened at 4:15 p.m.
2.
Presentation and Discussion regarding the 2026 General Plan Update
LAUREN SCHUMANN, Principal Planner, presented the following presentation.
• 2026 General Plan Update
Page 10 of 17
• General Plan Update Overview
o General Plan Requirements
o Comprehensive Housing Plan Update
o Update Process
o Innovative Public Participation
o Changes since 2016
o Joint Meeting Focus Group
• General Plan Requirements
o 17 Elements required by state law
▪ Land use
▪ Circulation
▪ Bicycling
▪ Growth areas
▪ Neighborhood planning
▪ Housing
▪ Conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment
▪ Public services & facilities
▪ Cost of development
▪ Recreation
▪ Open space
▪ Energy
▪ Conservation
▪ Environmental planning
▪ Water resources
▪ Public buildings
▪ Safety
• Comprehensive Housing Plan
o Comprehensive Housing Plan (CHP)
o Analyze current housing stock, affordability, & future needs
o Community Engagement- online surveys, focus group meetings with interested
stakeholders, & public workshops
o Develop strategy approach
o Final report to City Council anticipated Summer 2025
• General Plan Process and Timeline
• Innovative Public Participation
o Public Participation Plan
o Website Live!
o Online Questionnaires- Q1 Posted
o ChandlerTalk- Host experts to discuss hot topics items
o Immersive 360 experience
o Resident Advisory Committee
o Social Media
Page 11 of 17
o Planning lab- open houses to discuss different topics
o Provide booth at community events
o Input from grade school students
o Interview interested stakeholders
MAYOR HARTKE asked if this election is required to go on the ballot in November.
DANA DELONG, City Clerk, said that it could be on the August ballot, the only election required to
go in November is the bond election.
• How has Chandler changed since 2016?
o Where and how we work
o How we interact
o How we get around
o Housing costs increase
o E-commerce
o Brick and mortar demand
o Where our dollars go
• Changes since 2016
• Changes since 2016
o Approximately 70% remaining land planned for non-residential uses
o Housing
▪ Aug. 2016- Jan. 2025 12,048 units built
▪ 40% single-family
▪ 60% multi-family
o Finite water resources; plan accordingly
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the map includes county owned property.
MS. SCHUMANN said some of the properties on the map are county-owned with minimal
improvements on them with some opportunity for growth and development.
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.
• How will the General Plan affect and be affected by other plans?
o Change in land uses could affect:
o Area plans
▪ Chandler Airpark Area Plan (2021)
▪ Southeast Chandler Area Plan (1999)
▪ Downtown Regional Area Plan (2025)
o Transportation Master Plan (2019)
o Water Master Plan (2018)
o Parks Strategic Master Plan (2021)
Page 12 of 17
o Airport Master Plan (2021)
o Infill Incentive Plan (2023)
CHAIR HEUMANN asked if the General Plan overrides other area plans.
MS. SCHUMANN said the General Plan does override the area plan, but it gives broad uses in
comparison to the area plans with more specific types of uses.
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.
• Joint Meeting Discussion Focus Areas
o 17 Elements Required by state law
o Land use
o Circulation
o Housing
o Conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment
o Water resources
• Starter Questions
o How should the City balance protecting employment corridors (e.g. Price Corridor)
with the demand for increased housing supply and mixed-use projects (e.g.
employment campuses featuring jobs, housing, and amenities)?
o What types of housing make sense for Chandler with the limited amount of land
available?
o Development height: In what areas of the city do tall, high-density developments
make sense? Should the City require minimum heights in certain areas?
MEGAN MOORE, Logan Simpson Consultant, introduced the starter questions.
MAYOR HARTKE spoke about encouraging transparency and communication with the community.
He commented that it is beneficial to reassess the community needs currently in conjunction with
the General Plan project.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS asked how City Council can facilitate community involvement.
CHAIR HEUMANN said that community involvement is important and spoke about balancing input
from residents with concrete legislative actions.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested to see more input from investors, developers, and the
business community in the plan development.
MAYOR HARTKE added that working with the Chamber of Commerce could facilitate those
conversations.
Page 13 of 17
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO shared that he would like to see a balance between priorities,
readability, and functionality of the General Plan document. This plan should be clear and
readable from a business owner's perspective. These specific area plans allow for more specific
details in line with the General Plan.
VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL asked if there have been any amendments to the plan in the last ten years.
MS. SCHUMANN said that since the last General Plan approval, there have been no amendments.
VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL asked if other developers or landowners were interested in proposing an
amendment.
MS. SCHUMANN said that one example was a large home builder who had wanted to amend an
area in an area plan for more residential development, but no action was taken.
MR. MAYO said the 2016 General Plan was a great tool for use in directing development
opportunities. The 2016 Plan was intentionally strategic and goal based.
CHAIR HEUMANN asked if this lack of amendments was due to build-out.
MS. SCHUMANN answered that there are broad categories; there are only four land use
designations that leave the interpretation of use and density to the city.
MAYOR HARTKE spoke about using the General Plan as a guiding tool for development.
MS. MOORE summarized that public involvement is paramount, providing different avenues to
collect information and getting out into the community on a smaller scale will both be pursued.
Council is encouraged to get the word out by communicating with constituents. She summarized
that Councilmembers and Commissioners had commented that they wanted a concise plan with
some flexibility to ensure ease of interpretation and a transparent process.
MAYOR HARTKE commented that Councilmembers and Commissioners can share suggestions of
interest groups who would want to participate in this process.
CHAIR HEUMANN spoke about Question 1: employment corridors should be protected as they are
currently. Employment zones provide a solid tax base for the city. The long-range vision for
planning must be kept in mind.
MR. WRIGHT asked about the attitude towards mixed development: industrial with residential and
commercial. This idea has been making headway recently, when in 2016 it was not yet under
consideration.
Page 14 of 17
CHAIR HEUMANN commented that there are a lot of components to zoning in that case, such as
land cost. Price Corridor has changed from a single user to multiple users in the area.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked how much acreage is left in Price Corridor.
MS. SCHUMANN said several properties along Price Corridor may be considered residential
employment areas.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said there have been comments from users in the area about what
amenities are offered along the corridor.
MS. SCHUMANN summarized that the attitude was to protect Price Corridor as an employment
corridor.
MAYOR HARTKE said the city should consider proposals by developers for the area along Price
Corridor.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO said there should be some guidance that staff can provide to
interested users.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked how county island and tribal lands are considered in the General
Plan.
MS. SCHUMANN said through this process, staff is working to engage as many residents as
possible.
MAYOR HARTKE asked to engage with county island residents and neighboring tribal lands.
MS. SCHUMANN said outreach will be conducted to neighboring communities.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if this outreach is being currently conducted or if this is part of
the plan.
MS. SCHUMANN said staff will be reaching out to residents in neighboring tribal lands.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said that any new users should be approached with an abundance of
caution and should be conducted from a business mindset.
MS. MOORE suggested investigating metrics to provide in case of a development like this.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO provided an example of a past case of a use that could have created
jobs but does not serve the public.
Page 15 of 17
CHAIR HEUMANN said providing careful wording in development plans will help guide smart
development.
MAYOR HARTKE said it is important to cultivate a balance between caution and welcoming new
ideas.
MS. MOORE directed the conversation to Question 2 and asked about specific housing types in
any regions of Chandler.
MAYOR HARTKE said he supports home ownership and promoting starter homes.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO added that cul-de-sac developments with less asphalt and more
houses are popular in Chandler.
CHAIR HEUMANN said it can be challenging to encourage home ownership with existing
homeowners who may not want to see new developments. Smaller lots and square footage are
appealing to many.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO provided an example of the Mariposa development, where infill and
single-family homes were in one development.
MAYOR HARTKE said there is not a solid solution for redevelopment infill but encouraged
redevelopment to provide housing solutions.
CHAIR HEUMANN addressed Question 3: minimum heights do not always make sense for
development areas.
VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL said variety provides opportunities for residents and community. It is
challenging to balance the potential highest and best use and neighbor concerns. Well thought
out density that offers amenities and infrastructure is a valuable part of the community.
• Starter Questions
o What are the most important elements of an effective redevelopment and infill
strategy? What must we maintain and what are we willing to change (e.g. traffic and
neighborhood character vs. demand for high-turnover uses)?
o What should be the City’s role in promoting sustainability through development, such
as combatting the urban heat island effect (e.g. more shade trees in developments
and on streets, alternative paving materials, etc.)?
MS. MOORE introduced Question 4 and asked where smart infill can take place within the existing
framework.
Page 16 of 17
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO said when investigating an infill site, it is important to consider any
alternatives and suggest solutions to developers.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if it is more valuable to have multifamily or individual
developments.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO said it depends, as developers have different business strategies.
Density is needed to support the land values in those built-up areas. There is not always a variety
of product available.
CHAIR HEUMANN spoke about Question 5, suggesting the heat island effect guidelines have been
mitigated by current City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission action. The General Plan
should include some guidelines in promoting sustainability.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO suggested less concrete and more trees and vegetation aid in
promoting sustainability. Commissioner Barichello recommended flow back development
guidelines to aid low impact development.
COMMISSIONER SCHWARZER emphasized balancing vegetation with smart water usage.
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS said he looks forward to working to make Chandler a thriving city
through community outreach in this General Plan project. He thanked staff, Council, and the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS thanked staff for the presentation and asked for information
regarding the website and survey, and if there is a baseline number of responses expected.
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS said he looks forward to this General Plan and spoke about holding
to the Chandler tradition and including residents’ input for this plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHWARZER said he is excited to see this plan move forward.
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON said this is an exciting opportunity to reach goals of being a vibrant
city attracting young professionals through a multitude of opportunities. Redevelopment is a big
part of providing interesting product.
COMMISSIONER BARICHELLO said there has been many great creative actions taken that could
be taken a step further across the city. Housing diversity is critical.
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO thanked the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for their
collaboration. Finding infill developers will be helpful in considering viable projects.
Page 17 of 17
VICE CHAIR KOSHIOL said this is a great opportunity for Councilmembers and Commissioners to
work together on this project. She said focusing on redevelopment for variety and vibrancy will
benefit the community.
VICE MAYOR ELLIS thanked staff for their support in this endeavor. The collaboration for this vision
has been comprised of hard decisions, the city must move forward with innovation in mind. The
residents of Chandler know what they want and should be provided a detailed and smart
document.
COMMISSIONER SCHWARZER thanked staff and looked forward to going through the General Plan
process.
MAYOR HARTKE thanked staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and looked forward to
seeing the outcome of this plan.
Public Comment
None.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:37 pm.
ATTEST: _______________________
______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Approval Date of Minutes: March 24, 2025
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Special
Meeting of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 6th day of February, 2025. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED this _______ day of March, 2025.
__________________________
City Clerk