The Chandler Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 Oct. 15 to recommend City Council approve PLH-2446, the Price Road Innovation Campus, a rezoning and preliminary development plan to allow a standalone AI data center plus five speculative research-and-development/office buildings on a 40-acre site at 3380 S. Price Road.

Staff framed the proposal as inconsistent with South Price Road corridor policies in the city general plan, recommending denial. David (staff member) told commissioners the corridor’s policies give priority to knowledge‑based industries, single‑user campus settings and higher‑job uses, and staff concluded a primary data center does not meet those policies and would set a precedent for additional data centers in the corridor.

The applicant said the project is an "AI data center" and an accompanying tech park that they said would enable and subsidize new R&D buildings, demolition of the obsolete existing structure and new employment. "Calling this a data center is like calling my Walkman and an iPhone the same thing," said Adam Baugh, the applicant’s representative. Jeff Zigler, founder and CEO of Active Infrastructure, said demolition would take about six months and described a phased build that would place the data center on the west side of the site and R&D/office buildings to the north and along Dobson Road.

The preliminary plan proposes three development phases. Phase 1 includes Building A, a standalone data center of 422,877 square feet, and Building B, a speculative R&D/flex office building to the north. Phase 2 would add two R&D/flex buildings (each about 42,674 sq. ft. in the applicant's plan). Phase 3 would add two larger R&D/flex buildings (Building C about 66,476 sq. ft. and Building D about 71,420 sq. ft.). The applicant said the data center footprint is nine acres of the 40-acre parcel and that the project includes roughly 520 surplus parking spaces on the current plan; the developer also said mezzanines could raise total occupiable area substantially.

Staff described height and design details and sought a campuslike layout that fronts a water feature and connects buildings with a boulevard and pedestrian paths. The applicant’s presentation included architectural renderings and a request for a mid‑rise overlay across the entire site to allow buildings up to 90 feet; the data center was described as 75 feet to the parapet and 85 feet to mechanical screening, with the applicant seeking the full 90‑foot allowance for flexibility.

Several environmental, water-use and utility capacity questions were raised in public comment and by commissioners. The applicant said the proposed AI facility will use modern closed‑loop cooling (direct‑to‑chip and closed‑loop systems), that the data center would be restricted to the west side by deed/legal description and that they agreed to decommission existing water chillers within 60 days and begin demolition within 90 days of zoning approval. The applicant also told commissioners that a Salt River Project cluster study returned a cost estimate of about $242 million to create the required power and noted developers would pay a share (the applicant said 30 percent, roughly $72 million) as part of that process.

To address jobs concerns, the applicant said the development agreement discussions include a target of two jobs per 1,000 square feet for the tech‑park buildings with a monetary penalty ($2,000 per missing job) if the threshold is not met; the applicant described additional annual payments if fronting Dobson Road or middle buildings are not built on schedule. The applicant emphasized that the data center would underwrite the speculative R&D buildings and argued the combination would attract AI‑dependent companies that require low‑latency compute nearby.

After discussion, commissioners voted to recommend approval with staff‑provided stipulations. Key rezoning and PDP stipulations in the alternative motion that commissioners forwarded to council include: limit permitted uses broadly to knowledge‑intensive uses but allow a primary data center only in the defined Building A footprint shown on the site plan; exclude call centers, warehousing and similar low‑job uses; cap mid‑rise overlay at 90 feet; require substantial conformance with the development booklet and architectural materials shown; require closed‑loop mechanical cooling and limit generators to backup or SRP demand‑response events; require a one‑inch water meter for the data center unless additional allocation is approved via city water review; require a minimum percentage of EV charging (3%); and require the developer to redesign phases 2 and 3 to create a more campuslike arrangement that uses the water feature as a focal point, connects buildings with pedestrian pathways and provides a boulevard‑type drive. Commissioners added that the campus redesign should return to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for review before final approvals.

Commissioners and public speakers were divided. Several business, economic development and technology representatives spoke in support, including former U.S. Senator Kirsten Sinema and Taryn Kimball, president and CEO of the Chandler Chamber, who said the project would support advanced manufacturing and AI workforce training locally. Nearby residents and other speakers urged caution on environmental, noise, water and public‑health effects and asked for more testing and notification. Staff reiterated a recommendation of denial based on general‑plan consistency, while the applicant stressed the site’s long vacancy, regional competition for employers and the contention that an AI data center differs from older enterprise/colocation facilities.

The commission voted 5‑1 to recommend approval; one commissioner announced a no vote citing general‑plan compatibility concerns. The recommendation now moves to City Council; the commission noted the council hearing is scheduled for Nov. 13. The development agreement between the applicant and the city had not been finalized at the time of the commission vote and several of the applicant’s operational commitments were described as terms under negotiation in the DA rather than completed, signed conditions.

Questions or disputes about precise DA terms, SRP cluster‑study allocations, and some timing and financial guarantees remain subject to council review and the final development agreement negotiation.