Minutes of the Work Session held on February 23, 2026

Meeting Minutes 
City Council Work Session 
 
February 23, 2026 | 4:00 p.m. 
Council Chambers Conference Room 
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:00 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Council Attendance 
 
 
 
 
Appointee Attendance 
Mayor Kevin Hartke  
 
 
 
 
John Pombier, City Manager 
Vice Mayor Angel Encinas  
 
 
 
Kelly Schwab, City Attorney  
*Councilmember Christine Ellis  
 
 
Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk 
Councilmember Jane Poston 
 
 
 
  
Councilmember Matt Orlando   
 
 
Councilmember OD Harris 
 
 
 
 
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins 
 
*Councilmember Ellis attended virtually  
 
Staff in Attendance 
 
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager  
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer  
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager 
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager 
Tawn Kao, Deputy City Attorney  
Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney 
David de la Torre, Planning & Urban Design Senior Manager 
Lauren Schumann, Principal Planner  
Kevin Mayo, Acting Development Services Director  
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director 
John Sefton, Community Services Director

Page 2 of 14 
 
Discussion 
1.  
Discussion of the "Chandler 2026 General Plan: evolving the Chandler way" - An Update to 
the City's General Plan which Guides Future Development within the City of Chandler 
 
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.  
 
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, introduced the discussion item. 
 
LAUREN SCHUMANN, Principal Planner, presented the following presentation.  
• PLH25-0010 Chandler General Plan Update  
• What’s Different? 
o Minor Housekeeping Changes  
 Changed the plan structure  
 Updated policies  
 Updated demographics 
 Updated historic timeline  
 Updated reference plans 
 Updated glossary  
 Updated graphics/photos 
 Summarized public participation  
 Vision Statement  
o More Significant Changes  
 Future Land Use Map  
• Growth Area revisions 
• Illustration of Area Plans  
• Category mapping revisions  
 Future Lans Use Categories 
• Revisions and refinements 
 Implementation Action Table  
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM)  
• Concerns Heard 
o South Price Corridor Growth Area-New residential policy  
o Use of the word “Urban”  
o Addressing Architecture  
• Architecture 
o Hierarchy of Plans  
 General Plan = Broad Policy  
 Area Plans/Master Plans = Detailed Specific Policy  
 
MAYOR HARTKE expressed concern about the legislature's growing "one-size-fits-all” approach to 
cities, especially on housing policy. He noted statewide efforts toward higher-density development

Page 3 of 14 
 
and affordable housing that might override local priorities, such as architectural quality and 
durability. He asked if any pending laws could supersede the city’s General Plan, housing policies, 
or standards, even if locally approved. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN said she isn't aware of any draft bills that could affect the General Plan update. 
She noted the new objective design standards created to give clear, measurable criteria for 
developers reducing subjectivity and setting requirements for building articulation, height 
variation, and materials. She stressed that the General Plan is a broad policy document and 
doesn't specify detailed architectural design. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE expressed concern about upcoming legislation and the need to stay informed 
about proposals impacting local architecture.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO inquired about proactive measures to protect traditional 
neighborhoods and vulnerable areas. 
 
KELLY SCHWAB, City Attorney, said protections can be added via design guidelines and zoning 
code, but warned state laws might preempt local control depending on their wording. She isn't 
aware of draft bills needing action, but noted responses often follow legislation. 
 
KEVIN MAYO, Acting Development Services Director, explained that staff reviews proposed 
legislation early and provides input through strategic monitoring, ensuring the city remains 
engaged regardless of varying outcomes. He noted that current protections include the zoning 
code, recently adopted objective design standards, and existing PADs and PDPs in the southeast, 
though these measures could ultimately be preempted by the state.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.  
• Urban Residential  
o 2016 
 The predominant land use in this category is residential, however: a variety of 
other uses are allowed based on location and other compatibility criteria 
described below. The following residential densities and non-residential land use 
are allowed in the Neighborhood category subject to the following criteria: 
• High-density residential ( 12-18 dwelling units per acre)… 
• Urban residential (densities exceeding 18 dwelling units per acre)… 
o 2026 
 The predominant land use in this category is residential: however, a variety of 
other uses are allowed based on location and other compatibility criteria 
described below. The following residential densities and non-residential land use 
are allowed in the Neighborhoods category, subject to the following criterial: 
• High-density residential (13-35 dwelling units per acre)… 
 Urban residential (26+ dwelling units per acre)…

Page 4 of 14 
 
• Urban Residential  
o 1st used 2008 General Plan  
o Used for densities exceeding 18 units per acre 
o Limited to areas within the downtown region, designated high-capacity transit corridor 
growth areas, and as an incentive to redevelop underutilized commercial properties 
within the Infill Incentive District  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO requested clarification on the definition of “underutilized 
commercial properties,” asking what criteria apply beyond their location within high-capacity 
corridors. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN noted that while commercial development on North Arizona Avenue near Elliott 
Road is strong, properties on arterial roads might be underused and could be redeveloped. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO acknowledged the possibility but voiced concerns about 
neighboring areas. He questioned whether 18 units per acre was too intense, especially on larger 
parcels at prominent corners. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN explained that higher-density projects should include buffers to prevent four-
story buildings from abutting single-family homes, aiming for a transition from higher to lower 
density. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO compared this approach to the development at Mariposa, where 
residents from Clemente Ranch expressed concern. In that case, homes were built adjacent to 
existing backyards, with building height increasing gradually toward the corner.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN confirmed that this was a good example of transitional design. She added that 
the city’s General Plan already includes language requiring sensitivity to such transitions, 
particularly where commercial or multifamily development abuts single-family neighborhoods. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO then asked whether the General Plan language would prevent a 
developer from claiming the right to build 18 units per acre on any eligible property without regard 
for the surrounding context.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN stated that higher intensity uses must always be designed to step down 
appropriately toward single-family areas, reinforcing that the city maintains safeguards to ensure 
compatibility.

Page 5 of 14 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that infill projects are challenging because longtime residents, 
who have lived there for 30 or 40 years, often feel uneasy about nearby new developments. He 
appreciated that the city has tools to require developers to consider existing conditions. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE added that redevelopment often applies to aging commercial or office properties. 
He referenced an example along Chandler Boulevard where a lower-grade office building was 
converted into a dense apartment complex after a full public process with neighbors.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN explained that while the example focused on multifamily uses, a clearer 
illustration is the 2007 Chandler Farms rezoning at Arizona Avenue and Queen Creek Road. Initially 
zoned for office, hotel, and retail, it later became multifamily with commercial at the corner. The 
city required setbacks and used an amenity area along the western boundary to buffer adjacent 
single-family homes. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS raised concerns about the long-term land-use effects of school 
closures, highlighting their economic and community impacts and questioning their inclusion in 
the General Plan.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN noted most schools are in neighborhood zones, and redevelopments would likely 
involve lower- to medium-density residential areas adjacent to single-family subdivisions. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS raised concerns about limitations under state law and questioned 
whether the city is restricted in how former school properties can be repurposed.  
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that any zoning change that Council votes must be consistent with 
the General Plan, schools are permitted land use within the neighborhoods category. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS mentioned that recent developments in school closures could lead to 
changing trends in school usage in the neighborhoods land use. He said that the General Plan 
should allow for flexibility in this area to anticipate any future changes.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE clarified that redevelopment of former school sites must align with surrounding 
land uses and the General Plan. While residential redevelopment might be compatible in many 
cases, other uses could be considered. He emphasized that incompatible uses would not be 
permitted.

Page 6 of 14 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO commented that the density of the area would affect future land 
use. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if any schools that closed could be converted to a residential 
land use or another type of educational facility.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE commented that he thought these types of land uses were allowable under the 
current General Plan.  
 
MR. POMBIER said the city would coordinate with affected school districts and the community on 
potential school site changes. The location and needs of the community and the wishes of the 
school board and district would be considered before implementing any change to site use.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS asked if Chandler has discussed facility and site usage with local school 
districts.  
 
MR. POMBIER said the city has had conversations with the Kyrene, Mesa, and Chandler school 
districts. He stressed coordination to prepare for changes and allow time to address community 
impacts. The city will also gather public input and assess opportunities based on location, 
community needs, and district goals. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS expressed that the 2016 General Plan did not fully incorporate forward-
looking considerations of this nature. He suggested that the updated document should include 
footnotes identifying current trends and emerging issues, such as the evolving role of technology 
and its impact on land use. He emphasized the importance of thinking ahead to what Chandler 
may look like in ten years and ensuring that school-related considerations are acknowledged 
within the plan, even if only as guidance for future councils. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE responded that planning decisions are based on the best available information 
at the time. He noted that circumstances have changed significantly over the past decade, 
particularly with shifts in education policy, and will likely continue to evolve. He stated that while 
future conditions may differ, the city is applying its best analysis today to plan responsibly for 
tomorrow. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN thanked the group for considering future implications. She noted they discussed 
only part of the process; a full presentation would come at the public hearing. She clarified that

Page 7 of 14 
 
the yellow designation is not just for residential use but also includes commercial, institutional, 
church, and hospital uses, as listed in the document. She stressed that the yellow area should not 
be seen as solely residential. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.  
• Future Land Use Map (FLUM) 
• South Price Road Corridor Growth Area  
• South Price Road Corridor Growth Area  
o 1985-Identified as Employment Corridor  
o 1998-Introduced campus-like settings  
o 2001-Promote & protect corridor for “large high-tech corporations in a single-use, 
campus-like environment”; 15 acre minimum  
o 2016-Eliminated 15-acre minimum  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked if Chandler could attract developments like Axon in Scottsdale, considering 
whether a company like Axon might have chosen Chandler if a similar model was available. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN confirmed this was correct, explaining that the city’s General Plan currently 
prohibits residential use in these areas, which were reserved for employment-based 
development. The proposed policy would allow residential if approved by City Council in certain 
cases. She cited the Wells Fargo site, noting it still owns 16 acres south of its property, where 
current entitlements permit two nine-story office buildings. The new policy would also consider 
building housing with shared amenities in a campus-like setting, not a standalone multifamily 
complex, but a connected campus with walkways, drives, and shared amenities in a vertical mixed-
use development. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON asked if the General Plan would tie residential use to employee 
housing. She questioned if the city could legally require housing be reserved for employees, 
expressing concern that a company might build standard apartments for profit, meeting design 
standards like walkways and connectivity. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN deferred the legal question to the City Attorney, stating that she did not believe 
the city could legally require that housing be limited strictly to employees. 
 
MS. SCHWAB noted the city can't legally mandate housing solely for employees, but any residential 
project must go through zoning and approval. Conditions could be set to make housing more 
attractive to employees, though the city can't guarantee exclusive service. All proposals would 
require Council review and approval.

Page 8 of 14 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON expressed concern not about Wells Fargo building housing for 
employees, but about the risk if the company later sold the property, allowing another 
organization to take over and run the buildings differently. 
 
MS. SCHWAB agreed that the concern was valid and stated that the city would need to carefully 
consider the conditions that could be imposed on such developments. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON reiterated that she wanted to avoid a scenario in which a major 
employment corridor could eventually be filled with apartment complexes. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE responded that developments of this type would still be governed through the 
Planned Area Development (PAD) process and potentially through development agreements. He 
noted that city staff are typically very thorough in ensuring the long-term viability of projects and 
that the Council would retain significant control through those agreements and conditions. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked whether a PAD would be required for these types of projects. 
 
MS. SCHWAB noted most properties already have PAD zoning, and staff typically won't bring 
projects to Council without it. A development agreement, which can impose additional restrictions 
via negotiated terms that run with the land, could also be used. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO then asked whether all the properties currently under discussion 
are zoned PAD. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN explained that the yellow-highlighted vacant properties are zoned PAD, yet some 
have remained undeveloped for 10-20 years despite approvals. Not all will develop residential tied 
to employment. Some parcels are small, but assembling multiple parcels could enable larger 
campus-style developments, like the Axon campus model. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON then asked whether the city’s Economic Development Division had 
heard from developers that this type of mixed-use flexibility was becoming a trend or if there was 
real development opportunity tied to it. She said she was not completely opposed to the idea but 
was concerned about unintended consequences. She asked whether the current limitations were 
discouraging potential investment, aside from one company she had heard about previously. 
 
MR. POMBIER responded that developers have emphasized the need for flexibility to create 
walkable, campus-style environments where housing and workplaces are close together. He noted 
that many younger workers prefer walkability and that the lack of nearby housing is viewed as a 
limitation. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER POSTON stated that she believed the “Next 20” report the city received 
previously also highlighted the importance of walkability. She recalled that the report indicated

Page 9 of 14 
 
that large businesses increasingly prefer environments resembling downtown districts rather 
than traditional isolated office campuses. While she remained open to the proposal, she reiterated 
her concerns. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ENCINAS inquired about the policy's application to existing buildings not 
highlighted in yellow, asking if a company could retrofit part of an office building, such as 
converting upper floors into employee housing. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN said the city could consider such proposals if they remain true to a mixed-use 
development. Parking challenges are likely, especially since office and residential uses have 
different requirements, and the city hasn't waived these. Some sites, like the PayPal building, may 
lack space for the needed parking. Any proposal would need City Council review to determine the 
best use of the property. She noted that, under the current General Plan, such proposals can't be 
considered without a policy update. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS asked about infrastructure concerns if the city were to allow this type 
of development. Since the area was originally planned for employment use, she wondered 
whether adding residential density might create infrastructure challenges. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that the infrastructure along the Price Road corridor is relatively new. 
While she did not want to speak on behalf of other departments not present at the meeting, she 
indicated that infrastructure impacts would still be evaluated as part of the review process. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS clarified that her question was whether the higher density associated 
with residential uses could create issues compared with what the area was originally designed to 
support. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN acknowledged that in other parts of the city, such as North Arizona Avenue, 
infrastructure upgrades might be needed to support higher-density development. However, she 
noted that the Price Road area is relatively new compared to those older corridors. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.  
• Map 
• Map 
• South Price Road Corridor Growth Area  
o New Policy: Enhance the campus-like environment by supporting development that 
includes true vertical mixed uses, allowing for employee and residential uses centered 
on a common design theme. Urban residential (26+ dwelling units per acre) with 
vertically integrated uses may be considered when ground floor uses include non-
residential uses that directly support residents and employees (e.g., retail, restaurants, 
coworking space, or business services) and it is part of a larger employment campus that 
offers shared amenities and enhanced pedestrian connections.

Page 10 of 14 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO expressed concern that property owners might convert existing 
buildings into condominiums if office demand drops. He asked if the language could be revised 
to emphasize new development or prevent conversions mainly to residential use. While not 
wanting to block redevelopment, he worried the current wording might unintentionally promote 
residential conversions. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that because the item was scheduled for action that evening, Council 
could still direct staff to add clarifying language if desired, such as specifying new development. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO reiterated that his concern was that someone might take advantage 
of the policy by converting existing buildings rather than creating true mixed-use employment 
campuses. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted that these developments would still require approval through the Planned 
Area Development (PAD) process and potentially a development agreement. He emphasized that 
the Council would retain discretion to approve or deny such proposals and ensure they support 
economic development. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO acknowledged that point but said he remained concerned about 
potential legal challenges if property owners argued the city was preventing reasonable use of 
their property. 
 
MS. SCHWAB explained that all the properties are currently zoned PAD and do not allow 
residential uses. Any change would require a formal application, public hearings, and City Council 
approval. She emphasized that rezoning is a discretionary decision, meaning property owners are 
not automatically entitled to new uses 
MR. MAYO suggested clarifying the language to state that residential and retail uses must be 
ancillary to the primary employment use, reinforcing that housing would support the campus 
rather than become the main land use. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO said such language would make him more comfortable, noting he 
wanted to avoid a situation where residential development became the primary use. 
 
MR. MAYO added that the policy could allow employee and ancillary residential uses subordinate 
to a primary employment use centered on a common campus design. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS agreed that additional guardrails in the language would help prevent 
the policy from being interpreted too broadly elsewhere. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE reiterated that the PAD process already provides significant safeguards because 
proposals must return to Council for approval, but he supported strengthening the language if it 
provided additional clarity.

Page 11 of 14 
 
MS. SCHWAB noted that because the item was scheduled for action that evening, failing to act 
would delay it until the general election due to ballot deadlines. 
 
MR. POMBIER concluded that staff could work quickly to refine language that would clarify the 
intent while preserving flexibility. He emphasized that vertical mixed-use design and Council 
discretion would remain key safeguards in ensuring the policy supports the City’s goals. 
 
MR. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.  
• 2026 Neighborhood Category  
o 2016 
 The predominant land use in this category is residential, however; a variety of 
other uses are allowed based on location and other compatibility criteria 
described below. The following residential densities and non-residential land use 
are allowed in the Neighborhoods category subject to the following criteria: 
• High-density residential (12-18 dwelling units per acre) … 
• Urban residential (densities exceeding 18 dwelling units per acre) … 
o 2026 
 The predominant land use in this category is residential; however, a variety of 
other uses are allowed based on location and other compatibility criteria 
described below. The following residential densities and non-residential land use 
are allowed in the Neighborhoods category, subject to the following criteria: 
• High-density residential (13-25 dwelling units per acre) … 
• Urban residential (26+ dwelling units per acre) … 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked whether these definitions align with those used in other cities or if each 
city defines them differently. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN explained that each city is unique. She noted Chandler has historically used four 
broad categories with supporting text, unlike some neighbors that use up to 20 map designations 
for densities. She added Chandler’s approach offers more flexibility and that the proposed 
language reflects current development trends. 
 
MR. MAYO added that, broadly speaking, the approach is fairly consistent nationwide and that 
Chandler’s policy is not outside typical market practices. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN continued the presentation.  
• 2026 Regional Commercial Category  
o 2016 
 This category includes major regional commercial developments such as malls, 
power centers, large single-use retail, and other major commercial centers. 
Regional commercial locations are shown on the Future Land Use Plan Map and

Page 12 of 14 
 
are also eligible for consideration of urban-style mixed-use developments, large 
office users, and a compatible mix of residential densities. 
o 2026 
 This category includes major regional commercial developments such as malls, 
power centers, large single-use retail, and other major commercial centers. 
Regional commercial locations are shown on the FLUM and are also eligible for 
consideration of urban residential and large office users. 
 The maximum allowable density for urban residential (26+ dwelling units per 
acre) will be determined at the time of development plan approval by the city and 
based on such considerations as existing and planned capacities for water and 
sewer infrastructure, adequate transportation facilities, compatibility with 
adjoining land uses, ability to transition to adjacent existing lower-density 
residential if applicable, and other factors. 
• 2026 Employment Category  
o 2016 
 The Future Land Use Plan Map focuses attention on strengthening the 
community’s economic base by expanding the growth areas and identifying a 
variety of employment areas for future growth. Major employers, knowledge-
based industries, and industrial/business parks are allowed within Employment. 
A compatible mix of industrial support uses and residential densities as an 
integral component may be considered. 
 Light industrial business parks may be considered in campus-like settings 
containing knowledge-based employers, corporate offices, manufacturing, and 
warehouse and distribution. A compatible mix of industrial support uses and 
residential densities may also be considered as an integral component of a 
planned mixed-use development. 
o 2026 
 The FLUM focuses attention on strengthening the community’s economic base by 
identifying a variety of employment areas for future growth. As Chandler 
approaches build-out, most of the available land is designated for employment; 
therefore, it is imperative to target key industries for healthy growth of the city. 
For more than 50 years, Chandler has welcomed high-tech manufacturing, 
pioneering research, and emerging technologies that have shaped our 
community. We will continue to prioritize employment uses of advanced 
manufacturing, knowledge-based industries, advanced business services, next-
generation software engineering, and healthcare services. 
 Light industrial business parks are also permitted, prioritizing manufacturing, 
research and development, and emerging technologies. Corporate and large 
office developments are allowed uses within employment designation. 
 Residential can be considered with employment if designed as part of an integral 
component to the campus, see growth area polices and area plans for additional 
criteria. The maximum allowable density for urban residential (26+ dwelling units

Page 13 of 14 
 
per acre) will be determined at the time of development plan approval by the city 
and based on such considerations as existing and planned capacities for water 
and sewer infrastructure, adequate transportation facilities, compatibility with 
adjoining land uses, ability to transition to adjacent existing lower-density 
residential if applicable, and other factors. 
• Implementation Action Plan  
o CHAPTER 5 – CHANDLER HONORS 
o The purpose of this chapter is to honor the community’s vision for Chandler by 
articulating a systematic action plan. The 73 actions below are organized by chapter 
theme and topic areas and are meant to be implemented within short- (1–5 years), mid- 
(5–10 years), or long- (10 or more years) term timeframes and on an ongoing basis. 
These actions and timeframes will assist the city in complying with the statutory general 
plan reporting requirements detailed in ARS §9-461.07. More importantly, these actions 
are a guide and roadmap forward to help the city realize the community’s vision; 
however, they remain flexible and subject to staffing and financial resources. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how the timeframes for short-, mid-, and long-term were defined. 
 
MS. SCHUMANN responded that short-term refers to one to five years, mid-term refers to five to 
ten years, and long-term refers to anything beyond ten years. 
 
Continued the presentation.  
• Questions? 
o Next Steps: 
 City Council February 23, 2026 – Public Hearing 
 Primary Ballot for Ratification July 21, 2026 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked staff to explain why it was important to place the item on the primary 
election ballot rather than the general election ballot. 
 
MR. POMBIER explained that, while the General Plan is vital to Chandler, a November election 
ballot is lengthy and crowded. Placing the item on the primary ballot would increase visibility and 
attention, helping voters better understand its importance rather than risk it being overlooked 
among many November issues. 
 
Public Comment 
JACK SELLERS, Vice Chair of the General Plan Resident Advisory Committee, spoke and expressed 
his views. He commended the Council and the committee they assembled, noting that he was a 
member. He highlighted that the group included a former mayor, two former vice mayors, a CEO 
of the Chamber of Commerce, zoning attorneys, and highly informed citizens. He mentioned that 
nearly all topics discussed this evening had been covered in those meetings, which were lengthy.

Page 14 of 14 
 
Additionally, he advised that if there was anything in the general plan update that residents did 
not like within the next month, it could be changed through the proper process. He pointed out 
that the last update, done ten years ago, has never been modified. From a high-level perspective, 
the general plan provides a vision for the city’s development. He praised the committee for their 
excellent work, emphasizing the importance of maintaining flexibility for the Council’s future 
decisions, especially given the limited space remaining for development.  
 
MR. MAYO noted that staff will plan to present a revised version of the policy language that 
evening during the public hearing. He read the proposed amended policy, explaining that it would 
enhance the campus-like environment by supporting development that includes true vertical 
mixed use. The policy would allow employee and ancillary residential uses that are subordinate 
to the primary employment use and centered around a common design theme. Urban residential 
uses of 26 or more dwelling units per acre may be considered when ground-floor uses include 
nonresidential uses that directly support employees and residents, such as retail, restaurants, 
coworking spaces, or business services. He added that these uses must remain ancillary to and a 
subordinate part of a larger employment campus offering shared amenities and enhanced 
pedestrian connections. 
 
 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m. 
 
 
 
ATTEST:  _______________________  
______________________________ 
                       City Clerk                                                   Mayor 
 
 
Approval Date of Minutes:  March 23, 2026 
 
 
Certification 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work 
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 23rd day of February 2026.  I further 
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
DATED this _______ day of March, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
                                                         
           City Clerk