Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. All right.

We'd like to call the meeting of the... We'd like to call the meeting to order. Thank you so much everyone for coming tonight to our Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Chandler. For June 3rd of 2026, we will start with a roll call please. Chair Koeschel? Here. Vice Chair Bilstein?

Here.

Commissioner Quinn?

Here.

Commissioner Galla? Commissioner Schwartzer?

Here.

Commissioner Ducharme?

Here. Commissioner Gauthier?

Here.

We have quorum. Thank you very much. And as mentioned in our study session, Commissioner Galla has an excused absence for this evening. We will start our meeting off with our Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Schwartzer?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Great, thank you very much. All right, ladies and gentlemen, members of the audience may address any item on the agenda. State statute prohibits the board or commission from discussing any item not on the agenda, but we do listen to your concerns and we may have staff follow up on questions you raise. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the commission regarding an item that is not on our agenda tonight? All right, seeing none, we will move on in our agenda to a special recognition at this point in time. I'd like to welcome David forward to say some statements about our long time, longstanding Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. Rick Heumann. So David, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As I was preparing for this recognition for Rick Heumann, I was looking back at our records to find out when Rick's first meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission was. And it was September of 2000, so 26 years ago. When Rick first joined the Planning and Zoning Commission, it consisted of members Mike Perry, Phil Ryan, and Mike Flanders, among others. At that time, Chandler was growing exponentially and the agendas were pages long and meetings often ran into the late hours of the night. The commission at that time was like the A-Team that was equally feared and respected by all developers for holding all developments up to a high standard and not settling for subpar or mediocre designs. And the result is clear when you drive around the beautiful city that Chandler is today. More recently, the city has been approaching build-outs. We're at about 94% build-out right now. And the number of cases have slowed down, but Rick never lowered his standards for developments in Chandler. In his second appointment to the Planning and Zoning Commission, after being termed out for running for council, Rick led the Planning and Zoning Commission with passion and drive to protect neighborhoods, to protect or promote economic development, and make Chandler the best city to live in. As a commissioner, Rick reviewed countless single-family subdivisions, multifamily developments, gas stations, drive-throughs, commercial centers, data centers, industrial developments, office complexes, use permits and entertainment use permits, and guided staff through many, many zoning code amendments, area plan updates, and three major general plan updates. On behalf of the City of Chandler planning staff, I'd like to thank Rick Heumann for his leadership, his passion, and for his many years of service, all of which have had a lasting impact to the City of Chandler. In a minute, I'd like to ask Rick to come up and receive a plaque that we made for him. But I'd also like to give him a picture that is framed. One of our planners also made an image using AI that depicts Rick as a true guardian of Chandler. So it shows Rick as a superhero. So he has a superhero suit on with PZ on his chest and the city logo on his belt. He's holding a shield with words, community character, scale, quality, compatibility, and signs. Signs was always a big thing for Rick. And in the image, Rick is protecting Chandler from monsters that are in the form of buildings on the right-hand side of the image. And on those buildings it says, boring architecture, which really is meant to say blank walls. Rick was never a fan of blank walls. Data centers, ugly monument signs, giant parking lots, and inappropriately designed drive-thrus. So with all of this, Rick, I know this isn't very much, but thank you for all your years of service. And we're very appreciative of everything you've done for JAMA.

Thank you, Rick. Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm not sure that I could have said it better, but absolutely appreciate all of your involvement and guidance, frankly, for all of us who have been here for just a short period of time as compared to all of the engagement and involvement you've had over the years. So thank you so much for everything. And if anyone has any other comments or those commissioners online, speak now or forever hold your peace, I guess.

I just want to thank Wonderful, thank you. Thank you everyone.

All right. So we'll move now on to the consent agenda. For those of you who may not have been here for our prior study session, please note that item three, the rezoning of Arizona Avenue and Guadalupe Road preliminary development plan has actually been pulled to our action item agenda. But for the consent agenda, the items listed two, four, five, and six were discussed during the study session held prior to this meeting, and the commission will vote on all of these items on the consent agenda together in one motion and one vote. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any of the items on the consent agenda before the commission's vote, please indicate your desire to do so now. Yes, ma'am.

Well, I'm not sure if that's, I'm not sure if this is like the proper time because I don't, totally understand all of the action agenda, consent agenda points. But I do want to speak about the planning and zoning for number three, the Arizona Avenue, Guadalupe Road.

Wonderful. So I'll get to that in a moment. You'll definitely have a chance for that. Wonderful. But is there anyone who'd like to speak on the other consent agenda items two, four, five, or six? Oh, OK. No? OK, great. Therefore, is there a motion for the consent agenda? Okay. Commissioners, what is your pleasure? Is there a motion for the consent agenda?

Sure. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda items 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Thank you. Commissioner Swartzen?

Is there a number six on the consent? I'm not seeing a six here.

I think you're perhaps still on the study section.

Oh, thank you. Sorry. That's the difference. Thanks.

So we have a motion to approve consent agenda items two, four, five, and six. Is there a second? second thank you we have a motion a motion and a second to approve consent agenda items again two four five and six all in favor aye aye aye opposed any abstain okay motion passes six to zero for approval of the consent agenda All right. As mentioned, we are moving item 3, the rezoning PDP of Arizona Avenue and Guadalupe Road to action item agenda. We will move or we will start off with our staff presentation at this time from Darcy.

Good evening, Planning and Zoning Commission. Before you today is PLH 2506 Arizona Avenue and Guadalupe Road. The subject site is approximately 6.05 acres and is located half a mile north of the northeast corner of Arizona Avenue and Elliott Road. It is currently zoned agricultural district for AG1. Request is for a rezoning from AG1 to AG1 slash PAD for deviations and lot size and setbacks. There's also a preliminary development plan for the layout of six parcels ranging from 33,000 to 38,000. Some contextual background for Tremaine Park, the subdivision it's located within. In 1967, it received preliminary plat approval and developed in Maricopa County. And in 1988, it was annexed into the city of Chandler. The lots that were below an acre at the time of annexation became legal non-conforming. And the entire subdivision received sewer in the form of septic tanks, which will be relevant a little bit later in the presentation. Zoning code requires that a property zoned AG1 be a minimum of one acre to build, and most of the lots that are below the one acre requirement became legal non-conforming. The applicant is proposing to split the four parcels into six lots with lot sizes that are consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The intent of this proposal is to maintain the rural agrarian qualities of Tremaine Park neighborhood. And as you can see on the image on the right, the proposal is for six single family lots ranging from the 33,000 to 38,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting a deviation in the minimum lot size allowed under AG1 and a reduction in side yard setbacks to 15 feet, as shown in the red boxes below. All other AG1 requirements and allowances will remain in place, which includes permitted uses, agrarian uses, front and rear setbacks, and lot coverage. The request was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the city zoning code, and the applicant held two neighborhood meetings. The first neighborhood meeting was held on August 13, 2025, and there were 37 residents in attendance. The neighbors were concerned about the request to rezone to SF-33 due to the uses permitted by use permit section. The applicant agreed to rezone to AG-1 with the PAD overlay for the reduced setbacks. So some sewer background. The neighbors were concerned about the afghan having brought in a sewer lateral to the neighborhood and the proposal to extend it farther into the neighborhood. Any property within 300 feet of the sewer would be required to tie into the sewer should their septic system fail or need to be expanded. This could create a daisy chain effect to encompass a large portion of the neighborhood. The properties would be required to pay a significant amount as part of the buyback agreement with the owner of the property. The owner extinguished, sorry, the owner agreed to extinguish the buyback agreement and clarify which lots would be affected by the additional sewer being added to the neighborhood. So a second neighborhood meeting was held on April 22nd, 2026 and 19 residents attended. The residents were pleased with the changes they requested for AG1 and were okay with the reduced setbacks. And the applicant presented the termination of the sewer buyback agreement and showed a sewer feasibility memo that showed 12 lots that would be required to tie into the sewer lateral and that's shown in the image on the left following the second neighborhood meeting public works and utility staff re-reviewed the sewer feasibility agreement and determined that the sewer extension would be reduced from 12 to only four homes on the east side of washington street due to the size of the pipe and the depth of the sewer The applicant has been asked to rework the sewer feasibility memo to reflect the new findings to be attached to the council memo, and I have received that as of just this afternoon. As of today, staff has received four letters of opposition and two letters with a few proposed changes as depicted in the addendum memo before you. Staff finds the proposal is in conformance with general plan and existing zoning. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with existing lot sizes, and the proposed land use is a continuation of the existing land use. So staff recommends approval of the request with stipulations. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Darcy. Appreciate that. Planning Commission, I'll open it up. Oh, actually, hold on. I'm going to invite the applicant up, right, Thomas?

You could have Planning Commission ask questions of staff. That's fine. At some point, then you will.

I do have a question of staff. So am I allowed?

Yeah.

OK. Commission, does anyone have any questions for Darcy, is what I guess I'm asking?

Sure.

Yes.

One quick question for lots five and six that are shown on that site plan. What's the width of that driveway? that they're showing to access lot six. It looks a little tight to me, and it just feels a little forced without those two lots squeezed in there for the south corner of that property.

Through the chair, commissioner, I'm not entirely sure the width of that. The applicant is here and is giving the presentation next, so they'll be able to address that in a minute. Okay. Thank you.

Tom or Dan, do either of you have any questions for Darcy at this time?

CHAIR, THIS IS DAN. A QUICK QUESTION.

GO FOR IT.

DARCY, YOU MENTIONED THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE I THINK YOU CALLED IT THE BUYBACK AGREEMENT. DO YOU KNOW OR COULD YOU INFORM US IF THERE'S ANY ECONOMIC EFFECT TO THOSE REMAINING FOUR LOTS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BUYBACK AGREEMENT?

YEAH, THROUGH THE CHAIR. I'M LOOKING TO OUR PLANNING MANAGER OVER HERE

So yes, through the chair, Commissioner. So essentially, the buyback agreement was extinguished. So those four lots would not have to pay into that buyback agreement. However, there would still be fees from the city to tie into the sewer. Does that answer your question?

It does. Thank you.

Chair.

Yes.

Clarifying question. So does that mean those homes have the option in the future if there's a problem with their septic system to connect to it, but they're not obligated to?

Through the Chair, Commissioner Quinn, if their septic fails, they would be required by city code to tie into the sewer at that time.

But not the buyback agreement, just the charges for connection? Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. And so, Darcy, I just wanted to address the last bullet point that I think you have up here on the screen. So we did receive your memo here. Can you, and given the amount of time, there's a significant amount of information here. You mentioned here in your last bullet point two letters with a few proposed changes. Can you enlighten us a bit on what you mean by that, two letters with a few proposed changes.

Through the chair, it came from a resident named John. Some of his main requests were essentially stating actually lesser setbacks than what is required in AG1. So he requested that the rear yard setback would go from 40 feet to 15 feet. The front yard would increase from 20 to 25. The minimum lot size would go from the 33,000 to 31,600. And then maximum lot coverage increased from 40% to 50%. And his reasoning was that so that it matches more so with what's existing in Tremaine Park currently.

OK. And OK, I think I have a speaker card for Mr. Webster. So I'll go ahead and ask him more, perhaps, when he comes up. OK. Yes, go ahead.

So obviously in this little clip that's currently up, all of the homes in the existing neighborhood are less than an acre. How many of the homes are in the 33,000 or three quarters of an acre range and how many are below that? And if they're existing, wouldn't they have already been grandfathered in as buildable lots?

You're the chair. So the lots that are existing that are below an acre were annexed into the city that way, so they were allowed to be so. The lots that they are proposing today are coming in after the fact, so they would have to meet our current code requirement of the minimum of an acre, which is why they're requesting the deviations.

Follow-up? So, but the, I think it's a John Webster memo, indicates that there are lots that are as low as $3,600 in the existing property, but that would already be approved as buildable at $3,600, right?

Yes, that's the case because it would be the legal non-conforming.

Okay.

Chair, if I could clarify, the requests today for PAD, Ag 1 PAD, really only affects the proposed lots 1 through 6. It does not affect any of the existing lots in the neighborhood. So like you said, those are illegal non-performing. They can build on them. They're zoned AG1, so they abide by the AG1 standards and the AG1 rules. But the standards that we're considering today are really only applicable to lots one through six as proposed.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Darcy. We'll now go ahead and call up the applicant for their presentation.

Thank you, Chairman Koshio. My name is Andrew Miller. I'm an attorney at the law firm Virch and Cracchiolo, located at 1850 North Central, 1700. I'm here representing Babcock at Revison LLC, or I should just say Ross Babcock. Ross is over here in the front row. There he is and his wife with him. Also with us today is Kurt Johnson from CVL, who did a lot of the work on the engineering on the sewer as well as some of the planning and the documentation. We've had two pretty well-attended neighborhood meetings. We did them right there at Arizona Avenue Baptist Church. pretty convenient, and we united the neighborhood. Everybody came together. At first, there was a lot of concern just because these properties had been through other pre-development proposals in the past, some for townhomes, some for commercial uses. Churches had been interested in these parcels in the past. Mr. Babcock originally purchased the central lot back in 2006. for a friend who wanted to put a butterfly farm. And so he thought it'd be a good community amenity. His friend was gonna lease the parcel. He closed on it and then his friend had to back out a lease because he was not allowed under the zoning. That was something they had not verified. And so he's owned this property for a long time and has tried to do something with it. And I think this proposal more than anything will probably bring some certainty and a realistic development scenario to these properties so that they'll finally get built on and no longer be the brown dirt lots that they are today. This is an aerial of the site. As you can see, as staff has talked about, it's very green in this area, kind of a unique property, Tremaine Park, originally developed as a county island with large lots. We'll talk about the lot sizes in a little bit. And you can see in the far, The eastern edge here, the southeastern corner is the, I'm sorry, southwestern corner is the property. Three lots primarily. It says four. That's because one of the parcels, the one that's furthest to the north, lot 17, at one time, part of that was condemned by ADOT for some drainage, off-street drainage purposes for Arizona Avenue. They, I guess, condemned more than they needed and agreed to sell some of it back to Mr. Babcock and his Patrick Baur, separate parcel because that transaction we still consider it one so we're looking at basically three parcels there each about 75 to 77,000 square feet that will be split into basically three times 635,000 to 3737 to 33,000 square foot box. Patrick Baur, is currently zoned ag one in the tap in the city of Chandler and the poses to do a G one P ad. On the way here, in discussions with staff initially, we started back in 2022 on this application. There was a desire to do a PDP, do a full subdivision, do streetlights, curb, gutters, sidewalks, retention basins, a new HOA just for these six lots to maintain a detention basin. And we came back and staff worked with us over time to look at what can we do that maybe mirrors this actual subdivision. If we put curb, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, it would not look like the rest of Tremaine Park And they would hate us. And so we work with staff quite a bit to see if we can whittle down to street landscaping, street widths, and other improvements that look like the rest of Terminal Park. This is the original subdivision lot layout. As you can see on the left, there were 46 different lots. Our lots are lots 17, 31, and 46 at the bottom left corner. Of those original 46 lots, almost all of them didn't split. The blue star on the right-hand side, that is the church parcel. Oh, you only see this slide. Here we go. Okay. Your presentation shows both slides. Anyway, thank you. That kind of helps you to preview. The blue star is the church. That's a commercial parcel. Stay the same. The three black dots or stars are the Babcock-Drevison parcels. the six i'm sorry five red stars are the five lots that are still over one acre in size as you can see that the vast vast bulk of these parcels have all split to be less than one acre in size i believe most of those were split back before the property was annexed in the 1980s by the city of chandler and they remain in those same lot sizes ever since there is an interest by the neighborhood mr webster has i think submitted a pretty detailed memo and talked to some of those neighbors Paul Hoffman, That they would like to they asked us, can we amend ours and include everybody said well that'd be hard to do there's I was concerned about prop to seven issues at the end of the day, kind of get every single person to sign a waiver. Paul Hoffman, And we'd have to go back to square one, but I think what the neighbors someone would like to talk about is that. Paul Hoffman, After this application they'd like to look at maybe doing something to take the rest of the whole subdivision if they can get everybody to agree. to do something that would amend the standards would be similar to what we are asking for today, maybe a little more aggressive. And the primary concern is that then the zoning would match what's actually built in subdivision. And even though they're pre-existing, non-conforming, by way of background, I spent 30 years as a municipal lawyer, eight years as a senior deputy in Peoria, and 22 years at Paradise Valley. And even though someone has a pre-existing non-conforming grandfather lot, oftentimes it bugs them that their lot doesn't apply to the current zone. And there's always the risk that when you come in to amend or change the structure, if it's not within the setbacks, you've got to modify that structure to conform. So I think they're looking as a neighborhood to say, is there something we can do following your application to say, let's make the rest of the neighborhood also a PAD, an AG1 PAD district with certain standards. And I think that's what you'll see from the memo from Mr. Webster. We appreciated his support as well as his comments. And as you can see next, these are the lots we're talking about. There is a lot of interest in the first four, one, two, three, four at the top. And we're still looking for a buyer. We've got two people ready to purchase those offers, but they've said, we don't want to have to go through the zoning process and spend that money just because it's speculative and it takes time. And we've been in this for since 2022. So it's been about four years just to get to this point. We're hopeful we can get an approval recommendation tonight. Paul Minehart, and move on to the Council, so we can do that, and the biggest benefit I think of this application is one it mirrors the rest of the neighborhood if you look at the rest of the lots across the street there'll be. Paul Minehart, pretty much the same size and the same type houses, the same setbacks I think another really large benefit is that. This development will wall off through houses, through landscaping, through an eight-foot wall. These homes, we're having to look at Arizona Avenue every time they come into the subdivision. For some of the homes, that's their view is out towards Arizona Avenue. I think it'll give something attractive rather than the dirt and the cars whizzing by and the noise that exists today. Part of our proposal is to do an eight foot wall. We had started with six foot. Some of the people said you ought to do eight. We looked at seven. Talked about internally and said, you know, if eight gives a better noise buffer, we'll do that. So one of the stipulations is before we can do any of the lot splits, we'll have to go ahead and build that wall. And so that'll be built fairly early. The nice thing will be one consistent wall built all at the same time. So we'll give a consistent look all the way down Arizona Avenue. This is, I guess, one of our more important slides. What are the changes in the development standards? When we started, we were AG1 PAD staff that said, well, if the lots are gonna be as small as 33,000 square feet, we probably should do SF33. And we saw merit in that. We did SF-33, and the neighborhood said, we don't like some of the SF-33 uses, and we like the fact that it's AG1. Can you just do AG1 with a PAD? And so we looked at saying, yes, we'll do a PAD, which is all the AG1 standards except for two. The lot sizes. The minimum lot area on AG1 typically is 43,000 square feet. We're asking for 33,000 square feet. So I would say this is really a PAD application for lots of 33,000 square feet. But we believe that matches the vast bulk of the Trinity Park community and will match the homes that are there today. The second part of this is 15-foot side yard setbacks, both on the street and on side yards. If we go back to the lot layouts, the side yards are basically going to be between our own lots, between lots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6. That's the side yard setbacks that we're talking about, looking 15 to 30. And this was something that they would actually suggest it. We had our neighborhood meeting. They liked that part of the SF 33 standard rather than the 30 foot, because if they build a little bit wider house, that's more blocking of the traffic and the noise and the view of Arizona Avenue. And they also thought it'd be good to have these be lots that would be hopefully readily buildable, do a big enough building envelope that somebody will come in and want to do a custom home here that will match the rest of the neighborhood. These are pictures of the surrounding properties. As you can see, these are almost all flood irrigated lots within the Jermaine Park community. Mr. Babcock and I both live in central Phoenix on irrigated lots. We appreciate the beauty and the greenery and the cheap water. This is not treated surface water. This is coming right out of the canal, sometimes as efficient water. And the neighbors have said, if it's at all possible, can you irrigate these lots? And we would love to be able to do that. We'll have to figure out a way to get underneath Washington Street to make that connection. But if we can, we would love to be able to do that for these lots. And this is a clock of the existing lots. And here's what we're looking at today. There is one existing structure on the property. It's an old house built in, I think, the 1940s. That will be torn down. The rest of it's just dirt. And we do appreciate, I think the neighbors used this for like a neighborhood cleanup lot. And afterwards, one of the neighbors went ahead and dragged the dirt to make it all nice and clean. The bottom picture is, to me, the most important one. This is looking from Washington Street out across the lots, and this is what you would see if you had a house that looked in this direction. You would see those commercial buildings and all the traffic on Arizona Avenue. The eight-foot wall alone will block off a lot of the traffic view and the traffic noise, and the houses and the landscaping with those houses will improve it greatly. This is a revision to the sewer memo. Staff had asked us, we sent it, we thought it came in yesterday, but maybe staff didn't get it. We did ask staff to amend this slide. So the one staff had showed another eight lots going down Campbell Avenue that could potentially have to hook into the sewer. Again, Mr. Babcock believed that to develop these properties, he had to bring in sewer. It would make them more developable. He did so and had a payback agreement that would last 20 years and would go until... 2037. So he was back in 2017. So another 11 years for that agreement. He did that just because that was part of the process that the town city had. And there were probably about another, I'd say about 35 lots that could have had to potentially connect in. The amount of money he spent was $313,000. And the amount that a payback would be from any house within the subdivision developed, depending on lot size, is about $10,700 per acre. Mostly it's being a little smaller. You're still looking probably about $7,500 to $8,000 per home when they had to connect into the sewer system that they'd have to pay back to Mr. Babcock. He said, I didn't do this to get any kind of payback. And after the first neighborhood meeting, we talked with staff. We said we didn't do it to get a payback and we'd be glad to terminate his rights to paybacks. We did that a few months back. We recorded termination. Mr. Allen was very quick to help put that together and get it signed. And so we did that before we had our second neighborhood meeting. I think the neighbors were appreciative. And we did work with staff to look at and spend a lot of time analyzing the elevation and heights and the sizes of the pipes to see how many of these houses actually could connect into the sewer that Mr. Babcock brought in. That sewer right now, terminates at the intersection of Washington Street and Campbell. There's a little white dot right there. And when he develops, he'll have to extend that up to the next white dot, which is I think right next to the lot B2, as it's called. The only homes that can possibly connect into the future, and they'll only be required if their septic system fails, will be those four lots that are in blue. So it's come down quite a bit. We wish we could tell that nobody would ever have to connect because people really do like their septic tank systems out here. But it's a function of the town code. And I think there's policies in the code which favor getting people off a septic and onto sewer for environmental and other reasons. And so we're not here to fight that, but we're trying to make it as palatable as we can, given the past history of having put in the sewer. J. Con closing some of the big benefits of the proposal, when this is an infill property it's set for since 1967. J. These are thoughtfully designed info lots that are consistent in character scale density with existing to main park community. J. These homes will establish in the ways of visual buffer between Arizona avenue and the existing to main park homes, the homes will enhance the streetscape. presence along Arizona Avenue by creating a defined attractive edge, that wall, that screens the rear areas from the roadway. One of the things I'll mention is that we did have, through Mr. Webster and I think a few other neighbors, that interest in and still amending the setbacks to allow a 15-foot setback on the rear yards, which would be the sites facing Arizona Avenue. We did ask staff about that today in response to the neighbors' concerns. I talked to Mr. Babcock about it. He said, well, If that happened, it might give a place to park an RV, you know, an RV storage separate detached structure, which there's a lot of those throughout this neighborhood because the lot sizes allow that. So it's not out in front of the neighborhood. It's in the back. Staff got back to said staff would not favor that because they liked the idea of having that bigger separation between Arizona Avenue and structures on the property, that little bit of visual open space. So they would not be in favor of that. So We were saying we're Switzerland on that. If you like the 15 feet, we'd be willing to look at that. If you say no, we like 40, we're fine with that. We did really just try to keep with the AG1 standards. The only standards we had to change were the lot size, which we needed to do these splits to be consistent with the neighborhood as well, and the side yards, which that was neighborhood feedback that they think 15 feet more fits the neighborhood and was appropriate. And with that, I'll answer your questions. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I do have a couple of questions, but I'll put it out to the commissioners first and see if anyone else has any other any questions. Mr. Swartz.

So as a part of the street improvements, you mentioned the wall. Is there going to be any landscaping along that wall to soften it? It's the eight foot wall that's adjacent to Arizona Ave. Is that correct? It's an eight foot wall. Yes.

Okay. We don't own the rights to most of the land under the site. It's all owned by ADOT, and it's a retention basin area today. So it would be hard to landscape. One, we didn't anticipate that because then we'd have to drag utilities, water lines, electric controllers to do the utility boxes, the little control boxes to irrigate that. So we did not have plans to do that. We're trying to make this look like it's a subdivision that's separate and different from the rest of Tremaine Park. we're trying to do something that looks like it is the rest of metro main park and the one thing that may be slightly different is it's got a little bit taller wall but it's got a taller wall to help do a bopper and that's that's that's why that's proposed understood can i ask city staff is there any coordination with edot for this project at all

Through the chair, Commissioner Schwartz, no. This portion of Arizona Avenue is now owned by the city. Is that correct? Yes. ADOT is not the owner anymore.

Okay. So in that case, is it going to be required to be to City of Chandler landscaping requirements for street furniture? Correct. Okay. Because I personally believe that that eight-foot wall is going to be a stark contrast. And from the outside looking in, you know, the public is going to looking at this wall and it needs to be softened by somebody.

Thank you. Any other questions, commissioners, Dan or Tom, who are online? Okay. So Mr. Miller, just a couple of questions. Earlier, we had asked, or one of us had asked about the width of the dry vial into that most southern lot. Do you have that, or your engineer have that?

Yes, it's 20 feet.

20 feet.

I was going to mention the orientation of that lot. We did initially have those lots... sort of facing, kind of like as you see the development pattern is that most of those lots are north facing on Campbell Avenue. We did north facing lots. Some people thought that it'd be better to go ahead and make them like the other lots, east-west facing, so that the front faces to the east. And particularly the neighbor who's closest, it'd be this F4 designation on this sewer map, but that neighbor had said, I'd rather see, we call it a panhandle lot, but a lot where there's a driveway there that'll create a little bit better separation. And instead of looking at somebody's side yard wall, I'd rather see it broken up with two different homes from that view. That'd be the most effective person. And so that's why we came back with this panhandle orientation. It also allows for the rear yards of those two homes to be along Arizona Avenue, which is probably better than having a side yard on one home. with its closer setbacks or typically closer setbacks, it would probably not fit alongside Arizona Avenue. So we thought this would mirror, as you drive down Arizona Avenue, seeing the backs of all these same houses and the same rear yard wall for all these houses.

Okay. So the, although I really love this sewer map because I happen to be a civil engineer, would you mind just backing up to the prior? Thank you. So will lot, are you saying then that lot five The home will face east-west, and will they access off of that 20-foot drive aisle?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, that drive aisle will be, in a sense, an easement to get ice. That's a lot. It can have an easement there or it could have its own separate driveway. We haven't designed the homes. Ross is not a builder by trade. Again, he got into this to help put in a butterfly. farm facility originally. Um, he, uh, uh, we're, we're flexible. We probably look at the builder who comes to build these lots. Our plans are at least to sell the first one, two, three, four, uh, to one of the two parties who are interested, who didn't want to go through rezoning. Um, so once these are fully, uh, through the land division process, uh, then we've looked to sell those. And then, um, 5 and 6 would be at the window for the next builder. But I'm assuming you might see a driveway alone for lot 6, or you can see shared driveways. Where I came from, Paradise Valley, shared driveways were pretty common just because it kept down the amount of concrete, asphalt, pavers. People seemed to like doing that. So we would probably leave that flexibility. Some people don't. So I'd assume there might just be a driveway that comes, one driveway and then a second driveway to get into that property. preference would be to be as far away from Arizona Avenue as possible for that driveway, which is another reason for this orientation instead of two lots where that home that would be, if we took these and put them north-south, that home closest would have a driveway pretty close to Arizona Avenue, which is generally not good traffic planning.

Right. So possible consolidation to the one-drive aisle access through an easement. Okay. Thank you very much. Quick question on the walls. So will the dividing walls between the individual lots also be the eight-foot wall, or are you just planning to do a standard builder wall?

I think a standard wall between the different lots is what we're looking at. Eight was just to get a little bit better noise buffered to the homes. That was some comments we heard from some of the residents as well, so we were responsive to that.

Wonderful. Okay, thank you. And then would you mind going back to that sewer exhibit? So on this exhibit, I'm seeing the magenta service stubs out to F1 through F4. Has Mr. Babcock committed to installing those stubs to the property owner's right-of-way lines with his construction plans?

We haven't got that far. We would do whatever code requires. If it's something additional that staff believes is needed or they'd like to see. We were trying to do our best not to force anybody else to have to connect to the sewer. We did hear from one of the residents who's already had to redo their septic system and was within the 300 feet that they were able to get an exception based upon some of the factors that were looked at by the engineering staff. So I don't know if extending those just makes it even more feasible that they'd have to connect or not. We're, I think, flexible on however staff and the city codes would approach that. If you comment on that piece of magenta, little stub outlines of those required by code to be built at one extensive sewer.

All right, Dana, I'll be just through the chair. It is not required. It is something that we have asked applicant to do since they're going to have construction in that roadway. It makes sense to just put those in now because those would be the four lots that would be required per code to connect should they need to either upsize their sewer or septic or if it fails. So that is something that we have requested.

Okay. Thank you. So install it now while they're under construction, while the roads open, and then just cap the end of it so it could or may not ever need to be used. But at least it's right there at their property line is the idea with that. That was our intent. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. I think that's the extent of my questions. Yes?

My question is, is there a way to make that sewer requirement optional for those four homeowners?

It'd be kind of a Herculean effort. We'd have to amend the sewer code to create an exception. So this is just purely out of the standards that are in the sewer code today. We did talk to staff about that, about doing a carve-out exception in the sewer code that would call out that certain rural lots, you know, say north of the Arizona Canal. I'm sorry, the... I missed the Arizona Canal. Mark Warren, Western yeah north of the Western canal would not have to connect and steps that we we just feel that's kind of an unusual amendment to the ordinance we'd like to be consistent and not have to do that, but. Mark Warren, And they they've got a policy that sort of suggests we'd like properties connect when they can so that's something we don't want to diverge from. Andrew Tucci, And you know i've been an attorney for cities, you carve out an exception one place, then you get other people and other people. Andrew Tucci, And pretty soon it gets kind of out of control with people saying I want an exception, because I don't want to have to connect so. Andrew Tucci, I can see why there'd be kind of like policy reasons not to, but we we did as much as we could to lower the costs by getting rid of the payback agreement by doing a lot of engineering analysis today to determine where the. Elevations were that in the pipe sizes that would decrease from 12 lots potentially down to just four. When they did the original payback agreement, there were about 35 to 36 lots that potentially would have had to connect. And that's how you got to that $313,000 less his own lots payback amount. But we've gotten rid of that requirement for anybody and it would again lasted through 2027.

Thank you. Did that answer your question? Okay, great. Dan or Tom, any questions from you? Great. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

This is Tom. Nothing for me.

Go ahead. Oh, did he say nothing? Okay, wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Miller. We'll open now the meeting to the public. So we're going to be I have some cards up here that I'll be calling up or I'll be calling on you in order that I received them. If there's anyone else who would be interested in speaking, again, these yellow cards are in the back. Please go ahead and fill those out and bring them up here to the front. All right. So we will go ahead and start with Gail Deal. Gail, if you could come up and please state your name and your address.

I'm Gail Deal. I am one of the five stars in the middle. I bought my house.

I'm sorry. I want to set the parameters. So you'll have three minutes to speak, and you'll see for everyone who's wanting to speak, there's lights right in front of you.

I'm lost.

green, yellow, and red. So when that turns to yellow, you have a few more seconds. When it's red, your three minutes will be done.

Gotcha. I'll keep it short.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

I bought in 69 out there. I built the house in 70. I built my second house in 85 for my in-laws. When I bought my property, I had two acres. I owned half of the dirt road. Now the city of Chandler's taking that away from me. I don't have my two acres. I've got two houses. I'm not going to live forever. I got 14 more years to live, and then I'm going to give it to my kids. Now I got two houses. How do I dispose of them? Because I don't have enough property. I hope you will pass what Mr. Babcock is trying to do. I'd love to have houses up there instead of dirt lots. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. I'm in favor of it.

Thank you, Mr. Deal. We appreciate you. All right. Now I'd like to call forward Mr. John Webster. Thank you. John, if you could come forward, state your name and your address. As I mentioned, you'll have three minutes for your presentation. When the light turns yellow, you'll have a few more seconds. You can wrap up and then it'll be read.

John Webster, 324 East Romaine Drive. So a true foundation of a Republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management. That was a guy that we know, Thomas Jefferson. And sometimes our government gets a little bit out of their driving lane, a little over-regulating. You know, I approached the city when Mr. Babcock was looking at SF-33, knowing the city had driven the change to SF-33. And I said, AG-1... with lot sizes that are the same as what our neighborhood has, predominantly less than one acre, which is legal non-conforming, seems appropriate. But we have 85% plus of our neighborhood that is legal non-conforming based on square footage. I wanna see, and why I gave you guys a document was I wanna see the characteristics of... Mr. Babcock's PAD be a template that could template across the neighborhood. If neighbors wanted to be PAD overlaid with AG1, they could become conforming. And so we've got lots in our neighborhood that are down to 31,665 in lot size. That's why I put 31,600 as a minimum lot size. It won't give Mr. Babcock any more lots than he's currently asking for, but it would lay the template that would be fitting to make all legal non-conforming lots potentially conforming and legal. And the setbacks I requested that, and we've had meetings amongst the neighborhood, talked to 25 plus of the property owners, had two public meetings with our neighborhood, where over 20 residents came and participated. We talked through details of 15 foot side setbacks, 15 foot rear setbacks. What you'll find is Mr. Babcock's lots against Arizona Avenue are much shorter in depth. than our average lot. And I feel confined to not having the use of the center of my lot with a much deeper lot than he has. Therefore, we need 15 foot rear setbacks in order to help with that. There's ongoing problems with the sewer agreement that took place because the city, and you need to address the four lots that may be affected by sewer tie-in because it's not just that they have to hook up because they can't get a do not serve letter from the city. It's that they have to then run the sewer lines and put in the manhole and run it to the furthest extent of their lot. And that cost, when you check with your city engineers, what the cost is for a tie-in, impact fees, development of 300 feet of sewer line and a manhole, it's pretty significant. So I recommend that instead of the city looking at a 207 case, they probably should look at creating a way for an optional do not serve letter so that if someone is impacted by their septic failure, they can go back to the county to do repairs and replacement of their septic system if they wish to. If they want to tie into the city sewer, by all means. But the residents were not a part of that sewer development plan. And it was mapped out as though it was a resident plan project.

Okay, great. So your three minutes is up. I have you wrap up your thoughts in just a few seconds.

I have another card in there for someone that would be willing to give me their time if you're willing to allow that.

all right okay i have a card from a megan webster yes ma'am yes ma'am so um i think we're a little bit over so i'll give you another two minutes thank you sir so gail deal's uh situation was one that i ran into as i i looked at the whole scope of our neighborhood

the non-conforming lots, I asked what Gail's plans were when he graduated from this planet. And he said, give one to my daughter, my son. And I said, you don't have a magical lot line in the middle of that. And at 1.75 acres, the city won't allow that lot to be divided into two greater than one acre lots. that's part of why this pad overlay and laying the template that could carry across the lots that wanted to participate in the neighborhood is really important. Also fitting in some of the side boundary lines that were allowed under county planning because our setbacks were smaller when we had county and we had street. So you'll see I reduced the, or I increased the, lot coverage from 40 to 50 that's because we lost about 20 of our lot size to the street when the city took the street they took that square footage off the lots and so i i put in the template 50 lot coverage 15 foot side setbacks 15 foot rear and uh and maintaining the ag1 front uh setbacks um i Our hope in getting the details right on this one, which is adjusting a few details, could help to carry it across and bring conformity to the neighborhood if they want to participate. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Webster. Appreciate all of your feedback. Okay. It sounded to me as though you were wrapping up with your thoughts. Okay. Thank you very much.

If you have any questions.

Wonderful okay, I have a Josh Steele Yeah, Josh Steele You're giving your time to mr.. Webster.

Yes, okay.

Okay. Thank you, sir, okay um If the Planning Committee has any questions Can we ask questions Thomas

It's up to the chair. I'd refer to you if you'd want to do that. Normally we go through the residents all the way, but you're provided.

Let's do that, and then we'll come back and see if we have any questions from the commission.

Thank you, Mr. Webster. Appreciate it.

All right. I have my next card is from Robin Anderton. Robin, would you like? Okay, wonderful. Oh, of course. Thank you. Please come up and state your name. Um, and then as mentioned, you'll have your three minutes and you'll get the yellow and red warning. Thank you.

Hello. My name. Oh, sorry. My name is Robin Anderton. I live at two 48 East Campbell road in the Tremaine park neighborhood. And I'm attending this meeting tonight to register my objection, my objection as a resident to the planning and rezoning petition. concerning Arizona Avenue and Guadalupe Road. I respectfully urge the commission not to advance rezoning in this instance because the applicant has stated he does not intend to build on the subject property. Permitting rezoning for a party that is not the prospective owner-builder is procedurally and substantively improper. Rezoning determinations should be made when the actual owner developer intends to proceed with that so that the proposed site development can be fully and accurately vetted. I've already heard a number of questions that haven't been addressed or even looked into very much because we are talking about an idea and not an actual development. It's for somebody else to do that doesn't even own the property yet. Approving rezoning now merely transfers the burden of review to a future party and risks repeated piecemeal review of the same lots. And then as a member of the Trevain Park neighborhood, I would also like to attest that the community has not hired or elected anyone to speak on the behalf of the entire neighborhood. Anyone that does assert they are speaking for the neighborhood is giving false attribution. I have a couple of concerns about the progression of the development to this point with the attorney stating that the neighborhood's in consensus. I think I've been to both of the meetings that were mentioned earlier over the years, and I would say 19 people is not a reflection of the 80-plus homes in the neighborhood, nor does it at all demonstrate a majority consensus. So those are the points I'd like to bring up. Thank you.

And the final speaker card that I have here, unless there's someone else who would like to fill out a card and bring it on up. The last one I have is from Zoe Balto. Hi, Zoe.

Hello.

You state your name and address, and then you'll have three minutes for your presentation.

All right. Thank you. My name is Zoe Alto. I live at 225 East Campo Road. It's a bit of a minor question, really, probably more towards the actual subdivisions. But the eight-foot wall and the terraforming or the terrain that would go on around that, I have a few concerns about the possibility of it obstructing the view. when you're turning left out of Campbell onto the street, and it being a possible issue for traffic as well as accidents. And I was wondering if there's any way it could be guaranteed it won't be fully obstructive to the views for seeing any oncoming bikers off of the canal, as well as just general safety purposes.

Are you referring to as you're turning out of the community out onto Arizona? Okay, great. We will definitely get that question answered. Did you have any other comments? I believe that was it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Zoe. Appreciate that. All right.

And Chair, we do have our traffic engineer here. If that would be a good time to go ahead and answer that.

Yes, I think that'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Thomas. Thank you, Chair. As far as that, we would look at that in the design process. So we would not allow a wall that would be within that site distance. Obviously, we want to maintain safety there. So that is something we will look for as we get development plans in.

Thank you. So they'll chamfer the wall or set it back so that turning movements aren't obstructed?

Yep.

Okay. Thank you very much. Hopefully that answers your question, Zoe. All right. If there are no other speaker cards, we'll move on to Commission questions. Commission? Yes.

There was a gentleman that was going to give up his time, but it wasn't needed. Does he still want to talk?

Oh, was that Josh? Mr. Steele?

No, I don't have anything.

Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Commission, do we have any questions for... at this point in time for either staff or the applicant or any of the speakers.

One final question. What's going on with on-site retention for this property? Is it expected that all the individual parcels are going to have on-site retention or is it draining off-site into the street, into the road?

On-site retention, okay.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Okay. Now, is there any concern on the city side with the increased request for building coverage for onsite retention. Is there is there any concerns. HAB-Jacques Juilland, In regard to the site change there.

Through the Chair, Commissioner Schwartz, are you referring to the request to increase lot coverage to 50%? Correct. Staff would be in support of keeping it at 40% just to be consistent with all Ag 1 properties. And I think having the, you know, the large size lots there, 40% would be more than enough to add additional structures in the backyard and additions to the house and things like that.

While keeping the on-site retention as? Correct. Okay. Gotcha. Understood.

Thank you. Tom or Dan, do you have any questions?

This is Tom. I do not have any questions. No questions. Sure.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, so just a couple of things from my perspective. David, could you explain to us what the next steps in the process would be for whomever, whether it's the landowner or a future developer? Once properties are rezoned, what is the process from there to get it to a point where it's actually developed and constructed and built? the rezoning being the first step, but then from there, there are some other processes that anyone would need to go through to actually develop these lots.

Yes, Chair. So after if and when the City Council approves the zoning, the next step would be to replat those properties that are the subject properties. Staff would review the plat, there would be a preliminary plat, and then a final plat approved. or reviewed and approved. And during that process, staff would make sure that all of the requirements are being met, all the city code requirements, including the site visibility, the question that came up before, setbacks for the wall, easements, that kind of thing. So after those plans are approved, then they can move forward with a permit in construction and begin installing the sewer, installing the wall, and any landscaping on the west side of the wall. And at that point, once they're finished with the construction, at that point they would be able to sell off those lots for individual property owners.

Great, thank you. So in a nutshell, once the rezoning is in place, you will use that as future documents come through to a staff level for review of things like you mentioned, plots, construction plans, and so forth to make sure they're in conformance with both city codes as well as any approved PAD.

That's correct.

Thank you. I think I'll go to the applicant. Would you like to come up and, or applicants, representatives, or engineer, would you like to come up and have any final comments before we close the public meeting?

Chairman Kolsch, I'll move to the commission. We think that staff did a really thorough job of review and laying this out, and we did get a lot of feedback. I will say that when we looked at the standards, we did get a lot of feedback that the neighborhood liked 15, but we didn't hear a lot of opposition to that. There have been a few letters saying that some people still like whatever AG1 is, and then you've got competing interests where people say, no, we'd rather have it match what's existing in the neighborhood versus AG1. We tried to keep as many of the AG1 standards as we could, but we did want to be responsive to a lot of the feedback we got, which is that they thought the 50-foot side yard setbacks would be better for these particular lots, mostly because that's what a lot of the lots that have already been built out currently have. And again, as Mr. Webster said, some of the neighbors, putting Mr. Dale looking at this and saying, if I want to split my lot in the future or if I want my lot to be conforming, can we do an application as a bunch of neighbors together? not our application, but their own, to mirror some of what's part of our proposal. And that's, I think, why the ambassador's staff has recommended it.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Miller. All right. I'm going to go ahead and close the floor unless there are any other comments or those who would wish to come forward and speak. All right. So we'll go ahead and close the floor, and we'll now move on to commission discussion. Commissioners, is there any feedback or discussion that you'd like to bring forward on this?

Chair?

Yes.

I just want to make comment that, you know, A, thank you to the neighbors for coming out and expressing your concerns and concerns. everything that's been noted in the meeting today. Generally, I think that it helps the neighborhood all in all to see neighbors come out either in support or expressing their concerns. So thank you to the neighbors for being good neighbors with this community. In general, I think this use is actually probably one of the better suited uses. It's much better than the alternative townhomes or another product that would potentially go in on the site. So I generally think that it's a good plan with the exception that lots B5 and B6 feel a bit forced, and I would urge us to reconsider maybe leaving that as a larger lot in that case. But outside of that, I think it's generally a good plan.

Great. Thank you, Ryan. Tom or Dan, any comments from either of you?

This is Tom. I would just like to say, after reviewing the plans, I've seen a lot of people kick around different ideas of what could go on the site for many years now. And I think this is probably the closest that I've ever seen to mirroring what is existing there in that neighborhood and respecting large lots. And I like the fact that a developer has been able to figure out a way to put large lots on that site.

Thank you. Dan, any comments?

No additional comments from me. Thanks, Sherry.

Great, thank you. I would definitely echo what Mr. Swartzer had to say as far as engagement and public involvement and coming together, whether you are for or against, really coming together as a community is really what we all strive for at the end of the day. We don't always get exactly what we want. Like I tell my kids, they don't always get what they think they want. But for the most part, I think if we can find ways to find common ground and work together and be good neighbors, I do really appreciate all of the time that it appears that you've put in and the effort to be thoughtful on this. Thank you to Mr. Babcock and Mrs. Babcock and to your staff or your consultants. Sorry. One thing I would like to... think highlight is if you would really work closely with staff and perhaps engaging those four neighbors on F1 through F4 on those future what I would call future tie-in options for them doing those now installing them now really saves on the future just have it right at your property line as an option if the sewer the sewer septic systems are no longer viable or you're not able to get an alternative option from the city to have that stub right there and not having to dig up a street and put that in it really would be most efficient to do that now so I would encourage mr. Babcock and your team to work with those neighbors and to fully understand and help those neighbors understand what that benefit may be for them in the future so

Chair, if I may, just for clarification, are you requesting that a STIP be added to the zoning to that effect?

I'm not necessarily requesting a STIP. I'm just expressing my experience in the industry and what I feel is now is the time to put those in as future options. But again, I'm not suggesting that we add it as a stipulation. I'd like them to work with the neighbors and make sure everybody's understanding of what the process could be in the future if their septic fails. All right. So with that, if there's no other comments from commission, no other discussion. Okay. Do we have a motion for our action item? And I don't have the number up here. Well, I'll go ahead and let whoever makes the motion mention the actual number. Do we have a motion for action item number three?

Chair?

Yes, sir.

Motion to approve action item number three as presented.

Is there a second?

Second. Second.

been moved and seconded to approve PLH 25-0006 Arizona Avenue and Guadalupe Road rezoning to AG 1 PAD.

Aye. Aye.

All in favor?

Sorry, got ahead of myself.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right, so we have five to one. The action item is approved. Thank you all very much. All right, we will move on to member comments and announcements. Do we have any commission members who would like to make any announcements? Okay. Staff comments or announcements? No? Okay, wonderful. All right. Well, I just want to make a note that our commission is a recommending body to our city council. So for any of you who would be interested in providing further feedback, the city council will make the final determination on this particular, actually on everything on our agenda today. we would recommend that you check the schedule, check with staff if you need to on when the council date and when this will be on their hearing schedule. That's when the final decision will actually be made. So, did I get that right? Okay, great. Okay, so our next regular meeting is gonna be on Wednesday, June 17th, right here in these chambers, and we will look forward to seeing everyone back then. Thank you.

And there's a whole bunch of stuff we're doing.