Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chandler council pulls California Street duplex from consent, tables decision 30 days after resident objections
Summary
Council moved item 9 (a duplex on California Street) from the consent agenda to action after resident concerns about neighborhood character and privacy; council later voted to table the item for 30 days to a date certain (July 17) for further review and staff follow-up.
The Chandler City Council moved a proposed duplex on California Street off the consent agenda and then voted to table consideration for 30 days after neighborhood objections to height and privacy.
A resident, Juliet Spence, told the council she lives in Pueblo Viejo and warned the project would accelerate gentrification: "We're gonna lose the vibe with gentrification of Pueblo Viejo if we continue to allow 2 story or larger duplexes in, of all places, Pueblo Viejo." The comment came during the consent-agenda period and prompted councilmembers to remove the item for separate consideration.
Planning staff described the application as a request for two limited deviations from the city's current zoning code: a reduction of the front-yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet and an increase in maximum lot coverage from 45% to 50%. Staff said all other aspects of the proposal, including height, are consistent with existing code. Staff also warned the council that a recently enacted state middle-housing law will require broader allowances later this year for two- to four-unit housing in and around downtown.
Staff told the council the duplex is two stories and that "it's at 28, 28 and a half feet tall"; the underlying MF-2 zoning in the area allows heights up to 45 feet by right. Planning staff explained that modest reductions to floor-to-ceiling heights and roof pitch could lower total building height by at most about 18 inches, but would not meaningfully change the elevation of second-floor windows that neighbors cited as the primary privacy concern.
Council member Ann Harris moved to table the item for 30 days to a date certain, and the motion carried unanimously; staff and council said they will return the item to council on July 17. Before the tabling motion, council voted to remove the item from the consent agenda and consider it as an action item so councilmembers could question staff and hear public concerns.
Council and staff noted that neighborhood notification had occurred and that letters of opposition were on file. Staff said they would reach out to the resident who spoke to ensure the record is complete and to provide follow-up information about the application and the upcoming state law changes.
The tabling vote leaves the project unresolved; no permit or final approval was granted. The item will return to council on the date certain for additional discussion and possible action.
