Chandler Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing – October 16, 2025

The Chandler Planning & Zoning Commission convened on October 16, 2025, to consider several agenda items. The primary action item was Item 7, PLH 2446 Price Road Innovation Campus, a request to rezone a 40-acre site at 3380 South Price Road to Planned Area Development (PAD) for a data center, knowledge-intensive uses, advanced business services, and ancillary commercial, along with a mid-rise overlay up to 90 feet and preliminary development plan approval. The commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval to the City Council with stipulations, following a study session on items 1-6 which were approved on the consent calendar.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1 through 6 were approved unanimously without discussion or public testimony.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bean Simon III (Chandler resident near the site) expressed strong support, praising the applicant’s financial commitment and architectural design, and urged the commission to approve the project.
• Kyrsten Sinema (former U.S. Senator, on behalf of Active Infrastructure) spoke in favor, emphasizing the national importance of AI infrastructure and warning of potential federal preemption. She argued the project aligns with the spirit of Chandler’s general plan and would attract future jobs.
• Terry Kimball (President/CEO Chandler Chamber of Commerce, Chandler resident) supported the project, citing changes in the workforce and the need for advanced manufacturing and AI infrastructure.
• Jeff Stickelman (President of Siena at Aguatillo, opposite the site) supported the project, noting the long vacancy of the existing building.
• Linda Lennox (Chandler resident) expressed concerns about the project’s long timeline, potential for empty buildings, and lack of clarity on future tenants.
• Rob Stein (Global VP of semiconductor for a large engineering firm, Chandler resident) spoke in favor, noting that similar AI data centers are already operating in Arizona and that the project supports R&D and job creation.
• Sipand Alizada (Arizona Technology Council) supported the project, highlighting job opportunities and the life-saving role of data centers (citing his personal experience with 911 dispatch).
• Carla Hofer (Chandler resident near the site) voiced concerns about health impacts of electromagnetic fields, PFAS chemicals, cumulative effects of multiple data centers, and lack of neighbor awareness. She requested further studies.
• Dwayne Littman (41-year Chandler resident) commented on water usage and noted the one-inch water meter suggests low employee count.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Staff recommended denial of the rezoning and PDP, citing inconsistency with the South Price Road Corridor general plan policies. Key concerns: data centers are not knowledge-based industries (more akin to storage); the proposed layout lacks a campus-like environment; approval could set a precedent for more data centers; and job creation per square foot is low compared to targeted uses. Staff also noted that seven emails in opposition and three in support were received.
• Applicant Presentation (Adam Baugh, Active Infrastructure): The applicant argued that this is an AI data center, fundamentally different from traditional data centers, as defined by the city’s own development agreement draft. They emphasized the project is a 40-acre tech park with six other buildings designed for knowledge-intensive uses (R&D flex, office). The data center is placed on the west side to buffer the odor from the adjacent water reclamation plant. The applicant committed to phasing: decommission of existing water chillers within 60 days, demolition within 90 days, concurrent construction of the data center and a neighboring building, and building permits for additional buildings within 12-36 months of data center CO. They noted a development agreement (still under negotiation) would include job guarantees (2 FTEs per 1,000 sq ft in tech park buildings) with financial penalties, a $200,000 annual penalty for delays on Dobson Road buildings, and a $2 million upfront payment for potential underground utility conflicts. They argued the project meets the general plan’s goals of diversifying knowledge-based industry and providing flexibility for vacant parcels.
• Commission Discussion: Commissioners questioned the campus definition, employment numbers, build timelines, and the status of the development agreement. Staff clarified that prior site plan iterations were more campus-like. Commissioner Billstein noted the challenge of reconciling staff’s finding that data centers are not knowledge-intensive with the proposed use. Vice Chair Koschel moved to approve with staff’s alternative stipulations, adding that the required redesign for a campus-like environment should go through the Design Review Committee (DRC). Chair Human voted no, citing inconsistency with the general plan.

Key Outcomes

• Vote: The commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of PLH 2446 to the City Council. Chair Human was the sole dissenting vote.
• Stipulations: The motion adopted all 14 rezoning stipulations and 6 PDP stipulations from staff’s alternative motion, with the addition that the revised site plan for phases 2 and 3 (campus-like redesign) must go through the Design Review Committee.
• Rezoning stipulations include: limiting uses to knowledge-intensive uses; restricting the data center (primary use) to Exhibit A location; permitting ancillary data centers (≤10% floor area in flex buildings); excluding call centers, warehousing, etc.; allowing ancillary commercial up to 15% of building footprint; mid-rise overlay up to 90 feet; substantial conformance with development booklet; standard improvements; one-inch water meter for data center; closed-loop water cooling; generators for backup/emergency only.
• PDP stipulations include: substantial conformance with development booklet; non-final approval; minimum 3% EV charging stations; removal of existing pedestrian crosswalk on Price Road; redesign of phases 2/3 for campus-like environment (to be reviewed by DRC); phasing per development booklet unless superseded by a Development Agreement.
• Next Steps: The recommendation will go to the Chandler City Council for a final decision, likely on November 13, 2025. The public will have another opportunity to comment at that hearing.