Neighbors press Tempe council over townhome plan’s privacy, wall and scorpion concerns

Neighbors opposing a 20‑unit townhouse proposal at 966 East Guadalupe Road told Tempe City Council on May 6 they fear the project will intrude on backyards, rely on an aging shared wall in disrepair and disturb bark scorpions that shelter in the old masonry. The Development Review Commission had approved the use permit and plan review; the matter was presented to council as a quasi‑judicial hearing with attorneys, neighbors and the project architect speaking.

Attorney Steven Brower, representing appellant Laura Carey and other adjacent homeowners, said the existing block wall between the proposed townhouses and the single‑story residences is more than 45 years old, uneven in height and cracked in places. Brower asked the developer to repair or replace the wall to a uniform height, to install an 8‑foot privacy wall or otherwise provide scorpion‑mitigation steps and to plant a screen hedge of non‑invasive trees (the neighbors proposed female olive trees) to protect privacy and reduce root damage.

Lance Baker, architect for Synectic Design (the applicant’s representative), told council the project meets Tempe’s zoning requirements for height and setbacks and that the design team reversed balconies on the back of the units and raised sill heights and used obscure glass to reduce the chance of overlooking neighbors’ yards. He said the existing perimeter wall sits largely on neighbors’ property and does not require a taller replacement under the city’s code; he rejected the idea that the townhome project should be required to fund a new shared wall.

Neighbors described visible cracks, settled blocks and irrigation‑worn foundations in the wall; one witness said pool plumbing and equipment lie within 10 feet of the wall and worried about roots and debris if mature canopy trees were planted too close. Several neighbors and realtor letters said two‑story units immediately adjacent to single‑story yards could reduce property values and that trees with invasive roots (e.g., Indian laurel ficus) would be a poor choice for a narrow buffer.

City staff noted that the perimeter wall was not required by zoning and that an eight‑foot wall is required only in certain multifamily cases; the proposal uses a 6‑foot wall where adjacent zoning treats the development as single‑family. The Development Review Commission had included conditions requiring larger tree sizes and window/fenestration changes to address privacy; the applicant said it will continue to work with staff and neighbors on plant selection and screening.

Council heard public testimony and attorney presentations as part of the appeal record. Council did not overturn the Development Review Commission action that evening; council’s formal vote on the project was not recorded in the public hearing segment as a separate final action during the non‑consent portion of the agenda. City staff noted homeowners’ responsibility for private boundary maintenance but said they would continue to work with the applicant and neighbors about screening and construction‑period impacts.

Brower told council neighbors seek “an olive branch” — a narrow, non‑invasive tree screen and repairs to the existing wall — to protect privacy and limit pests. The developer said it is willing to negotiate plant species and will adhere to the city’s approved plans and conditions.

Because the wall is on private property belonging to the Winchester neighborhood association, staff told council that any repairs to the wall are the responsibility of those property owners unless a voluntary agreement is reached.

The item remains subject to the normal post‑entitlement process (permits, inspections and construction) and staff said it will continue to coordinate with the applicant and adjacent residents on screening, plant species and construction staging.