Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chandler adopts middle-housing ordinance for one-mile downtown zone amid historic-preservation concerns
Summary
The Chandler City Council on Nov. 10 approved Ordinance No. 5,141 to implement the state—9s middle-housing requirement within a one-mile radius of the city—9s Central Business District, prompting objections from Silk Stocking neighborhood residents and calls from council members to seek legislative fixes to protect historic districts.
The Chandler City Council on Nov. 10 adopted Ordinance No. 5,141, establishing a middle-housing overlay that allows duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes within a one-mile radius of the city—9s Central Business District to comply with a state law that takes effect Jan. 1, 2026.
Planning staff told the council the state law requires municipalities to approve middle housing in specified areas and offers limited local discretion to define "compatible uses." Planning staff said the measure before the council preserves as much local control as possible by applying the overlay to the Central Business District rather than letting the law default to citywide application if the city fails to adopt implementing regulations before the effective date.
"This was a house bill that got approved last year. It has to be approved by 01/01/2026," planning staff said, explaining the statute—9s timeline and the one-mile radius requirement.
Residents from the Silk Stocking Historic Neighborhood urged the council to protect historically designated blocks. Julia Palazzi, who said she lives in the Silk Stocking Historic Neighborhood, read a letter opposing the ordinance, calling it "in direct contradiction to the historic preservation district overlay that the city council adopted in April 2024 for a portion of the Silk Stocking Neighborhood District." Melissa Lalich, another Silk Stocking resident, said the one-mile radius around downtown places historic neighborhoods at risk and warned new, denser housing could "destroy the whole flavor" of older blocks.
Council members pressed staff on how the Central Business District boundary was defined. Planning staff said the CBD boundary had been approved previously by resolution (staff cited 2012 and a 2019 resolution in discussion) and that changing the statutory district now could have unintended consequences for programs and funding tied to the CBD. The city attorney told the council federal historic designations do not preempt the state action in this case.
Several council members expressed reluctance but cited limited options under the state law and the risk that failing to adopt a local ordinance would allow the law to apply citywide. Council member Poston said he would "be voting yes in protest" but urged city staff and lobbyists to seek legislative relief that could exempt historic districts. Council member Harris said she shared the concern for preserving historic neighborhoods and requested staff return with maps and additional analysis.
The council moved the consent agenda with an addendum to change an occupancy definition in Exhibit A (amending the number of independent households from two to four). The clerk recorded that two council members would vote "no" on item 3; the clerk announced that items 1, 2 and 4 carried and that item 3 (the ordinance) passed by majority vote.
Next steps: staff indicated they would provide additional information and maps at the second reading on Thursday and said the city would pursue legislative conversations to seek carve-outs for historic districts.
