A. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-200 Definitions of the Zoning Code relating to mid-rise development, bar, and other updates, as recommended by Planning staff.
B. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-305 Use Permit, relating to renewal enforcement, as recommended by Planning staff.
C. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to articles IV. AG-1-Agricultural District, V. SF-33-Single Family District, VI. SF-18-Single Family District, VI.1. SF-10 Single Family District, VIII. MF-1-Medium Density Residential District, IX. MF-2-Multiple Family Residential District, and X. MF-3-High Density Residential District of Chapter 35 Land Use and Zoning, cleaning up language and permitting single family homes on parcels zoned multifamily residential that are less than 12,000 square feet, as recommended by Planning staff.
D. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to sections 35-1203, 35-1503, 35-1703, and 35-1902.4, granting authority to the Planning Administrator to reduce front yard setbacks within the Infill Incentive District, as recommended by Planning staff.
E. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to sections 35-1802 General Requirements and 35-1804 Parking Schedule, relating to parking requirements, as recommended by Planning staff.
F. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-1902.8(c) Site Development Plan, allowing the Planning Administrator to administratively approve more than two free-standing pads, as recommended by Planning staff.
G. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-1902 Site Development Plan, relating to drive-through requirements, use of shipping containers, and screening of roof-mounted equipment, as recommended by Planning staff.
H. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-2100 Table of Permitted Uses for Nonresidential Districts, modifying the layout, adding new previously unlisted uses, clarifying ancillary use provisions, and other related changes, as recommended by Planning staff.
I. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-2202 Accessory Buildings and Guest Quarters, permitting accessory dwelling units within single-family lots, as recommended by Planning staff.
J. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to section 35-2204 General, relating to perimeter wall requirements, as recommended by Planning staff.
K. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to sections 35-2202.1, 35-2205, and 35-2208, relating to open-air ramadas, swimming pool setbacks, and satellite dish antenna requirements, as recommended by Planning staff.
L. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of adding section 35-2215 Home Occupation, as recommended by Planning staff.
M. Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed text amendments to Chapter 39 Sign Code, relating to murals and temporary sign requirements, as recommended by Planning staff. |
- April 2023- City Council Work Session occurred to discuss potential code amendments referred as Cornucopia Code Amendments; City Council requested additional research
- August 2023- Proposed code amendments divided into two categorizes to align with City Council's adopted Strategic Framework; the Neighborhoods and Economic Vitality Council Subcommittees met to discuss potential zoning code amendments
- September 2023- Planning Commission Work Session occurred for feedback and guidance regarding potential zoning code amendments
- Revisions made to address concerns from both City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
Proposed Zoning Code Amendment-
Economic Vitality |
Intent |
Amendment Summary |
| Allow administrative review to modify building setbacks within properties located within Infill Incentive District when quality of design is warranted |
Developers are walking away from potential projects that would've improved older areas of the City because they require PAD and/or PDP amendments. The 8-month (average) process can't be reduced without infringing on critical components such as staff review, neighborhood outreach or statutory notification periods for public hearings.
In order to facilitate infill and redevelopment in older areas of Chandler, staff is proposing the ability to administratively review and approve waivers to building setbacks if the proposed design exceeds the intent of commercial design standards and the precedence for high quality design in lieu of the public hearing process for commercial and industrial properties.
The amendment would encourage developers to provide higher quality designs in lieu of going through the 8-month public hearing process.
Certain City Council members and Planning and Zoning Commissioners expressed concerns with waiving the public process, but were willing to look at criteria for allowing administrative approval. |
In order to accommodate, encourage, and promote infill development or redevelopment for properties located within the Infill Incentive District (properties located north of the SanTan 202 Freeway), the Zoning Administrator may reduce front yard building setbacks prescribed herein after having made a finding that such deviation, on balance, will result in environmental and design quality superior to that otherwise attainable without such deviation.
Criteria established to qualify for reduced setbacks identifying high quality of architectural design, buffers in place from residential, minimum landscaping, and safe traffic practices including sufficient parking. Maximum reduction for front yard setback identified as up to twenty (25) feet along arterial street and up to fifteen (15) feet along collector streets.
See pages 14-18 of draft attached |
| Allow administrative ability to
allow more than one free-standing pad
per arterial street
in lieu of amending the Preliminary Development Plan
|
Staff has seen a heighten request for more free-standing pads within larger developments due to consumer trends and the market. In order to accommodate desired development within the city, administratively allow more than one free-standing pad per arterial street if proposed design exceeds the intent of commercial design standards and the precedence for high quality design in lieu of the public hearing process. The intent of the following standard is to encourage creative and innovative design techniques, quality and merit administratively.
Certain Council members and Commissioners expressed concerned with waiving the public process, but were willing to look at criteria for allowing administrative approval. |
In order to accommodate, encourage, and promote infill development or redevelopment, the Zoning Administrator may approve more than two free-standing pads per development after having made a finding that such deviation, on balance, will result in environmental quality superior to that otherwise attainable without such deviation.
Criteria established requiring high quality of design, design of site, and ensuring all traffic circulations remains on-site.
See pages 26-27 of draft attached
|
| Modify requirements for drive-through queuing lanes |
Double drive-thru lanes have become very common in recent years. The zoning code requires 150 feet of queuing from start of queuing lane to pick-up window and also provide a minimum of six (6) vehicles from order box to start of queuing lane for high turn-over users. Businesses propose to divide the required queuing length between two lanes. However, this could create traffic circulation issues when businesses close one of the lanes and causes queuing to spill onto adjacent parcels or streets. |
The proposed amendment would require total queuing to occur within one lane and any additional lanes would be extra, but not be counted towards the requirement.
The amendment would also replace six (6) vehicles with 120 feet to avoid unclear dimensions for developers.
See page 27 of rough draft attached |
| Establish minimum queuing length for secondary pick-up windows used for online orders |
Businesses providing pick-up windows for preorder or online orders only request a shorter queuing lane as orders are prepared prior to the customer arriving on-site and customers are given a time for pick-up. Currently, code does not differentiate between online orders or onsite orders and requires 150 feet for all queuing lanes.
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended more queuing during the work session meeting, the request has been increased from forty feet to sixty feet. |
The proposed amendment would require a minimum of sixty (60) feet of queuing from start of queuing lane to pick-up window for pick-up windows used for preorders. Menu boards would be prohibited.
See pages 27 of rough draft attached |
| Use of Shipping Containers for non-residential and residential development |
Staff has seen multiple request for shipping containers to be used for development. Current code prohibits the use of metal buildings if seen from arterial streets. The intent was to prohibit pre-manufactured metal buildings. |
The proposed amendment would permit shipping containers if designed creatively with additional material for both residential and non-residential development.
See page 26 of draft attached |
| Increase height that would require a Mid-Rise Overlay |
A Mid-Rise Overlay (MRO) is required for buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height and processed through a rezoning. MRO was intended to regulate buildings five-stories or taller. The issue is that 3 and 4-story buildings are frequently surpassing MRO heights because of increases in height between floors and of roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The intent is to allow 3 to 4-story buildings to increase height of parapets to completely screen all roof mounted equipment without having to obtain a MRO. |
Increase requirement for Mid-Rise Development from forty-five (45) feet to fifty-five (55) feet to accommodate the screening of large roof-mounted equipment.
|
| Reducing requirements to completely screen roof-mounted equipment |
The current code requires all roof-mounted equipment to be completely screened from all views. For new development the preference is to screen equipment by top of parapet. If a secondary screening method is used to screen equipment on an existing building, material and massing needs to be architecturally integrated with the building's design to avoid a box around a box.
Developers have claimed Chandler is more restrictive than other cities. Upon further review, other cities require complete screening as viewed from across the street. The potential code amendment is to not lessen screening requirements but to allow for flexibly for aging industrial business parks or situations were screening can be waived.
City Council wanted to ensure screening occurred adjacent to residential. |
In order to accommodate, third generation users of aging industrial buildings within larger business parks not seen from arterial roads, the proposed amendment would allow the Zoning Administrator to waive roof-mounted screening.
The proposed amendment also allows the Zoning Administrator to reduce or waive requirements to screen roof-mounted equipment on buildings fifty-five (55) feet or taller, if located as to not be visible.
As proposed, the code would continue to require all equipment to be screened if the development is adjacent to residential or visible from an arterial street. No changes to commercial development.
See page 25 of draft attached |
| Permit "For Lease" banners signs |
Per the Sign Code, temporary banners shall not be displayed for more than thirty (30) days within each six (6) month period. Property owners have asked to display "For Lease" or "Space Available" banners as long as the suite is unoccupied.
Some Council members were not okay with unlimited amount of time, but were willing to establish a longer time for unoccupied spaces. |
The proposed amendment allows 'space available' or 'for lease' banners for nonresidential uses to remain over unoccupied spaces for one (1) year. A permit is required and shall be renewed yearly to assist in maintenance of the temporary signs.
See page 34 of draft attached |
| Murals |
The Sign Code is currently silent regarding murals. The concern is deciphering murals as either art or signage. Murals with associated text can be considered signage. |
The proposed amendment would clearly distinguish signage from murals by adding definition and clarifying that images depicting commercial message are signs. Murals consisting of no commercial message, would be allowed by right.
Staff would provide a precursory review to ensure no commercial message were depicted within proposed murals.
See page 33 of draft attached |
| Medical parking |
Current code only classifies two types of medical regarding uses and parking; hospitals three (3) spaces per bed and medical, dental offices, clinic one (1) space per one hundred and fifty (150) square feet. The medical market has evolved to include several out patient services, which require different amounts of parking since they do not operate like a general doctor's office serving multiple patients within an hour. |
The proposed amendment would categorize types of medical uses and associated parking requirements. For specialist medical users or out-patient surgery centers, a parking ratio of one (1) space per two-hundred (200) square feet is the recommended ratio by Urban Land Institute (ULI).
See page 21 of draft attached |
| Flex industrial parking |
Industrial development has grown exponentially in the past five years. Currently, the City has approximately 2.4 million square feet of flex industrial buildings under construction. The current parking ratio for industrial is either:
Manufacturing at one (1) space per one-thousand (1,000) square feet; or
Warehousing requiring one (1) space per five hundred (500) square feet for the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet plus one (1) space/five thousand (5,000) square feet for remaining warehouse. Both uses shall park office at a rate of one (1) per two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet.
Recent flex industrial developments have been attracting users that require more parking due to their mix of office, manufacturing and other similar more intensive uses. As such, staff has been administratively requiring 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. on all flex industrial development for at least the last year. |
The proposed amendment would codify the parking ratio that staff has been administratively requiring; a minimum parking ratio of two (2) parking spaces per one-thousand (1,000) square feet. The proposed ratio would accommodate various industrial users including research and development and all ancillary offices.
See page 23 of draft attached |
| Revise the Table of Permitted uses |
Three objectives proposed:
1. Reorganize the table to group by common uses; currently the list is sorted in alphabetical order. There are numerous repeated uses. For example "hotels, motels, tourist homes" is listed later in the list as "motels, hotels, tourist homes" and "tourist homes, hotels and motels". Grouping by common land uses will eliminate repeated entries and make it easier to search for uses.
2. Update relevant uses to include but not limited to brewery, cloud kitchen, adult day care, and film studios
3. Identify ancillary uses and percentage permitted; Currently, staff has administratively been allowing ten (10) percent of building areas to be ancillary uses. This has been too restrictive for some employers that wish to move into an existing industrial zoning. For this reason, staff is proposing permitting up to 40% ancillary office within industrial properties.
|
See attached draft Table of Permitted Uses |
| Enforcement of Use Permit renewal |
The current code is silent regarding enforcement of Entertainment Use Permit or Use Permit renewal when time stipulation is due and an application for renewal has been submitted. |
The proposed amendment would clarify when an application is filed and under the review process, enforcement may be stayed.
See pages 3-7 of draft attached |
| Eliminating Use Permits for a Series 7 Beer and Wine Bar License |
In 2018, Liquor Use Permits were eliminated and replaced with Entertainment Use Permits to regulate establishments that sold alcohol to the public and had entertainment activity. The exception was that bars would continue to require Use Permits even if they did not plan to have entertainment. The Arizona Department of Liquor issues two types of bar licenses; Series 6 Bar License and Series 7 Beer and Wine Bar License. Series 7 liquor license are utilized by establishments that do not create negative impacts to surrounding properties. Examples of such establishments include Game Show Battle Rooms and Pickleball Kingdom. Staff believes that the Use Permit requirement for bars was intended for Series 6 Bar licenses, which are the typical bar establishments that are more likely to impact surrounding properties. |
The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for a Use Permit for an establishment operating under a Series 7 Beer and Wine Bar License.
See page 1 of draft attached |
| Proposed Zoning Code Amendment- Neighborhoods |
Intent |
Amendment Summary |
| Permit a single-family home within properties zoned multi-family |
Areas in and around the downtown were given multi-family zoning in 1960 to align with conditions at that time. Many single-family lots located in those areas had a second dwelling for servant quarters, therefore, determined it was multi-family.
Due to the blanket multi-family zoning over those neighborhoods, today single-family homes cannot be built on vacant properties or rebuilt in case of a fire, without obtaining a Use Permit. While those areas are currently, single-family neighborhoods, all of those lots are legal non-conforming. |
In order to preserve the existing single-family neighborhoods in the downtown area, the proposed amendment would permit one single-family dwelling by right on multi-family zoned properties not exceeding 12,000 square feet. |
| Eliminate requirement for front yard driveways to connect within residential |
The current code requires all parking areas on single-family lots to be connected to the required off-street parking spaces (i.e., garage or carport). Staff has seen this create a reoccurring issue for residents who want to add a driveway that leads to a gate on the property's side yard. Currently, code does not allow parking on the driveway, unless it is connected to the garage. This encourages residents to pave over most of their front yard and creates less desirable curb appeal for neighborhoods. |
The proposed amendment would eliminate requirements for on-site parking surfaces to be connected to the garage in order to reduce the amount of pavement used and provide more landscaping within residential front yards.
See page 19 of draft attached |
| Permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) within single-family lots |
Under the 2020 approved zoning code amendments, guest quarters were permitted on single-family lots. Guest quarters did not permit built-in cooking facilities, (i.e. stove or oven). Residents overwhelmingly request to build ADU's with full kitchens to house an aging parent or adult children.
Guest quarters will still be permitted as defined above. |
Permit accessory dwelling units on single-family lots meeting requirements of the accessory building, which one (1) accessory building is permitted per lot, must meet property's building setbacks, maximum height fifteen (15) feet, and must be architecturally integrated with the main residence. The proposal requires one (1) additional uncovered off-street parking space not obstructing any required off-street parking for the main dwelling. In order to not change the character of the single-family neighborhood, ADU's shall not be used as a short term rental vacation property.
See pages 28-29 of draft attached
|
| Home Occupations |
Home occupations are currently permitted within residential properties if completely conduced within the dwelling unit, by a member of the family residing therein, and no customers or employees are allowed to come to the dwelling. |
The proposed amendment would permit additional uses such as but not limited to personal services, beauty services, photographer, consulting, or therapist allowing one employee or customer appointment at a time to visit during the hours of 8 am to 7 pm. The home occupation can occur within an accessory building or garage if the use does not replace required garage parking spaces. No home occupation shall be permitted that is noxious, offensive, or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, generation or emission of noise, vibration, smoke, dust, or other particulate matter, odorous matter, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions.
See pages 32-33 of draft attached |
| Reduce setbacks for residential swimming pools |
Currently, the zoning code requires a setback of five feet. This setback was originally derived from the Building Code, which has since been amended.The pool setback is dictated by the building code. |
Remove required building setback from Zoning Code as it's regulated by the Building Code.
See page 30-31 of draft attached |
| Increase size of residential open air ramadas |
An open air ramada is a structure open on the sides and supporting a roof used for the purpose of providing shade. Permitted open air ramadas cannot exceed 150 square feet, maximum height is ten (10) feet, and setback five (5) feet from property line. Currently, there is no limit to the amount of ramadas that can be placed in a rear yard, however, they must be separated by one (1) horizontal foot.
A majority of pre-manufactured ramadas or shade structures exceed maximum square footage permitted per the current code. |
Proposal to eliminate maximum square footage and limit total square footage of all ramadas to not exceed thirty (30) percent of the rear yard as measured from the back plane of the house; excluding accessory buildings which can occupy thirty (30) percent of the rear yard as well. Total lot coverage for the property shall be met. Maximum height and setbacks for ramadas will remain unchanged. Ramadas may have one solid wall not exceeding seven (7) feet in height used for the purpose of a media wall and shall exclude chimmeys.
Without the amendment a property owner can currently cover the entire backyard with ramadas only separating them by one foot and meeting the five (5) foot setback from property lines. The proposed amendment although removing maximum square footage establishes total area of a rear yard where ramadas can occur.
See pages 30 of draft attached |
| Require perimeter walls within new development adjacent to residential |
The current code does not require minimum wall height or consider grade differences between adjacent developments. Potential grade differences could create privacy concerns. |
For new developments abutting residential areas, add a requirement to maintain or provide a minimum six (6) foot high perimeter wall, as measured from the highest grade within five (5) feet of the new wall.
See page 30 of draft attached |
| Prohibit double walls |
The current code is silent but by policy when new development occurs adjacent to existing development staff avoids permitting double walls due to safety concerns. Developers insist on building a new wall adjacent to an existing perimeter wall to avoid having to work with adjacent property owners. Areas between the walls can range from centimeters to in some cases wide enough to access the area. Safety concerns include children or animals getting stuck between or one wall compromising the other wall. |
Prohibit double walls; the developer shall work with adjacent property owners to use or replace the existing wall.
See pages 30 of draft attached |
| Multi-family parking requirements |
The current code requires covered and uncovered parking spaces per unit based on bedroom counts. The code is silent on requiring guest parking spaces. Through the public hearing process, developers can request to deviate from the required parking spaces.
Developments that requested a deviation to the parking requirements have since built and city staff now have observed a parking problem. Residents often park outside the development within neighboring streets as either parking is not available or the development charges residents an extra fee to park within the apartment complex.
Certain City Council members and Planning and Zoning Commissioners had concerns with the proposed .25 spaces per unit and concerns the additional parking spaces would result in less landscaping or less units to be built. |
The proposed amendment is to require 0.2 additional parking spaces per unit evenly distributed throughout the development for guest parking. Staff researched other municipalities and found Chandler's parking requirements for multi-family is average, however, Chandler is one of the few cities that currently does not require additional spaces for guests.
The proposed code amendment would also prohibit apartments from charging separate fees for parking spaces required by the code.
See pages 19-20 of draft attached |
| Guest parking spaces- Residential |
The current zoning code does not require designated guest parking spaces within residential development; this amendment is for all residential development excluding apartments.
While not currently in code, staff is implementing a policy that requires developments to provide guest parking spaces evenly distributed throughout the development when on-street parking is not available. By codifying the policy, staff can continue to require adequate guest parking spaces within residential developments while at the same time provide more certainty to developers.
|
If on-street parking is not available, guest parking spaces evenly distributed throughout the development shall occur at the following rate:
0.25 spaces per lot
0.5 spaces per lot without private driveways
See pages 19-20 of draft attached |
Satellite dishes
|
The zoning code restricts height, location, and size of satellite dishes within different zoning districts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates and protects requirements for satellite dishes. During a City Council Subcommittee meeting, a Council member raised concerns about completely eliminating satellites dish regulations. |
Staff proposes to amend the requirements for satellite dishes to protect visual impacts on neighboring properties while concurrently aligning with requirements of the FCC in lieu of removing completely.
See pages 31-32 of draft attached |
While the Planning and Zoning Commission's purview is limited to Chapters 35 (land use and zoning) and 39 (signs), staff is relaying the following information regarding a couple of proposed code amendments in other chapters. As part of this City Code Amendment, staff is also proposing changes to clarify code to align with current practice when a neighborhood votes to convert from alley to curbside collection for garbage within Chapter 44 and changes to Property Maintenance within Chapter 30.
Public Outreach
- Proposed Zoning Code Amendment were posted on City's website for public and stakeholders feedback
- This request was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Chandler Zoning Code
- Staff met in-person with the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership (DCCP) and Multi-Housing Association representees; each subsequently provided comments via email (see attachment)
- The DCCP suggested possible future amendments and the only comment relating to the proposed code amendment was to allow for illuminated signage for businesses adjacent to residential within the downtown
- The Multi-housing Association is strongly opposed to parking requirements for multi-family; In response, staff reduced the proposed requirement to provide guest parking spaces from .25 to .20 spaces per unit
- All comments submitted through the city's website are attached as public comment
|
