Council tables Pueblo Viejo duplex after residents raise gentrification, privacy concerns

The Chandler City Council pulled and then tabled a consent agenda item proposing a two‑story duplex in the Pueblo Viejo neighborhood after a resident raised concerns about gentrification and privacy and staff outlined how recently enacted state middle‑housing legislation limits local controls.

Juliet Spence, a Chandler resident, told the council she lives in Pueblo Viejo and warned that allowing larger two‑story duplexes would change the neighborhood: “We're gonna lose the vibe with gentrification if we continue to allow 2 story or larger duplexes in, of all places, Pueblo Viejo,” she said.

City planning staff member Steph told the council the specific California Street request seeks two deviations from the city's existing zoning code: reducing a front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and increasing maximum lot coverage from 45% to 50%. Steph said all other aspects of the proposal — including the request for two stories — are consistent with current code. She also explained that a newly signed state middle‑housing bill will further change local controls around downtown, including by‑right allowances for one‑ to four‑unit buildings in and near the Central Business District.

Steph told the council the state law places limits on local requirements: the city cannot require side and rear setbacks greater than 5 feet, cannot require lot coverage thresholds below 50%, and cannot by local code limit middle‑housing to one‑ or two‑story structures. On the specific project, staff said the proposed duplex measures about 28 to 28½ feet tall and that the property's current MF‑2 zoning allows heights up to 45 feet by right. Steph said modest reductions in overall height — “maybe 18 inches” — are possible only by lowering floor ceiling heights and roof pitch, but such adjustments would not materially reduce second‑floor window sight lines into neighboring yards.

Council members asked several questions about privacy, design changes to avoid direct second‑floor views into backyards, and whether the units would be for sale or rental. Steph said the owner had not decided whether the units would be sold or rented. Vice Mayor Ellis asked whether applicants could redesign window placement to address privacy; developers’ response was not in the meeting record.

Mayor Hartke moved item 9 off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Later, Council member Harris moved to table the item for 30 days to allow additional questions and follow‑up; that motion passed unanimously. The motion to table was made in open session but the transcript does not specify a date certain — staff advised possible return dates of June 26 or July 17. The council also directed staff to contact the resident who spoke so city staff can follow up for the public record.

Why it matters: the case highlights how a state law expanding middle‑housing interacts with local zoning, and it raises resident concerns about neighborhood character, privacy and whether local design standards can meaningfully limit building height or second‑floor sight lines.

Next steps: staff will contact the citizen who spoke, gather additional information on design options and neighborhood notices, and the council will reconsider the item at the next meeting date determined by staff and council.