Tempe council continues decision on 2‑story ADU after heated neighborhood appeal

Tempe City Council on May 6 continued a contested appeal of a Development Review Commission approval for a two‑story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 2021 South College Avenue after hours of testimony from neighbors, attorneys and the project team.

Neighbors argued the proposed 24‑foot ADU would be out of scale with adjacent single‑story homes in the Broadmoor neighborhood and that the project violates the area’s character and longstanding deed restrictions. The applicant and contractor said the project complies with Tempe’s ADU rules and that the additional story is legally permitted with a use permit. After more than an hour of legal and neighborhood testimony, council voted 4–3 to continue the matter to the May 22 regular meeting for additional review and possible follow‑up discussions.

The appeal stems from the Development Review Commission’s earlier approval of two use permits: one to add a second story and another to exceed the ADU height threshold. Appellant Michael Zamora and attorney Tim Lasota told council the proposal is not “subordinate” to the main house, would limit privacy and sunset views, and would establish a precedent allowing two‑story ADUs in a neighborhood that is largely single‑story. Lasota also said the applicant’s original lot‑coverage numbers were in error; he told council the packet showed 36.7 percent when the correct calculation was closer to 25–27 percent, and that a single‑story alternative would meet city rules while avoiding the visual impact.

Hickory Wind Construction’s representative Mike Wolf and owner Ed Cox said the ADU meets the technical ADU rules, is under the state‑mandated size limit and would be used by the family rather than as a rental. They emphasized the addition had been designed with privacy measures: obscured windows on the side facing the neighbor, elimination of rear balconies and other changes made after neighbor comments.

City staff explained that Tempe’s ADU rules incorporate state law that limits how municipalities can regulate ADUs; local officials said the use‑permit review for a second story is a reasonable interpretation of the city code and that the commission had followed the normal process. The council’s continuation motion, made by Councilmember Hodge and approved on a 4–3 vote, directs staff and the parties to return with clarifying legal analysis and, if possible, agreed mitigation measures.

The continuation leaves the Development Review Commission’s approval in place for now; council members who pushed for more time said they wanted to verify legal interpretations and allow staff, the applicant and neighbors to seek potential compromises before a final vote.

If the council accepts staff and legal recommendations at the May 22 meeting it will render a final outcome on whether the second‑story ADU may proceed under conditions, or whether the appeal will be sustained and the commission’s approval overturned.