Council approves rezoning for Kim Chandler Place amid debate over future subdivisions and drainage

The City of Central Council on June 10 approved an ordinance rezoning 37.44 acres at Kim Chandler Place from R‑1 single‑family residential to RA rural agricultural and debated how future subdivisions of the parent tract could affect drainage and neighboring properties.

The rezoning ordinance, filed as AZ2501 and listing applicants Gary Wells, Steven and Bridget Caruso, and Jodi Ann Hilton, was approved on a roll call vote of 7‑0 after a public hearing was opened and no public comment was offered. Council member McKinney moved to approve and Council member Meyer seconded; the motion passed.

Council members and staff discussed how many dwelling units could ultimately be created from the parent tract and whether incremental splits could trigger additional engineering studies. Torres, a staff member, said, “So currently, there are 3 houses on the lots,” and added that the applicant is proposing two additional homes on newly created lots. Council members noted different counts during discussion but repeatedly raised the same concern: piecemeal subdivision can leave gaps in required studies. Council member McKinney said he worried that “a lot of the drainage studies don't have to be [done]” when property is split under certain thresholds and urged caution to avoid cumulative harm to neighbors.

Staff noted that stormwater management plans are required with each building permit and that elevations are reviewed by the city’s reviewers and ODA before permits issue. Supporters of the city’s revised rules pointed to the conveyance‑zone requirement and recent code changes intended to capture smaller projects: Mayor Evans said the city had “passed an ordinance to require an ODA [study] be ran on every single house that's built in our city” in conveyance zones and that the updated code raised submittal thresholds in rural areas to avoid missing impacts.

Council members also questioned how long a “parent tract” should remain subject to its original acreage for subdivision limits. One council member described hypothetical splits of large historic tracts and asked, “At what point does it no longer fit the parent tract?” Staff said the question of parent‑tract status will require follow‑up review and possible clarifying language.

The ordinance as passed rezones the identified parcels; no additional subdivisions or development approvals were granted at the June 10 meeting. Council members asked staff to monitor the property and return with clarifications on how parent‑tract calculations, previously approved lots, and pre‑code houses affect future subdivision allowances.

Council members said they expected future applications related to the parent tract might return to the council for review and that staff would provide clarification on how existing approvals count toward the parent‑tract total.