Commission reviews new four‑story Brundette Building elevations and landscaping plans

Planning staff presented a revised design review for the Brundette Building, a proposed four‑story mixed‑use structure on a 0.365‑acre lot in Gilbert’s Heritage District, and commissioners provided design feedback and asked for additional technical clarifications.

Lede: Veronica Gonzalez, principal planner, told the Redevelopment Commission that the proposed Brundette Building would total about 34,000 square feet on a site on the west side of Gilbert Road just south of Page Avenue. The project is zoned HVC (Heritage Village Center) and would include restaurant space with outdoor patios on the first floor, a retail showroom on the second floor, office on the third and a fourth‑floor restaurant with a rooftop terrace.

Why it matters: the site sits between established Heritage District buildings and the Water Tower Plaza. Commissioners said the building’s east and west elevations act like “two fronts” — Gilbert Road on one side and the Water Tower Plaza on the other — which raises streetscape and alleyway access questions.

Design and landscaping details - Proposed landscaping: the applicant’s plan lists Texas mountain laurel as the primary tree and Huntington rosemary and dwarf myrtle for shrubs/groundcover on east and west patios. Staff noted that some recent developments along Gilbert Road used the red push pistache as a street tree and asked the commission whether consistency or variety is preferred. - Materials: the building elevations show fiber‑cement panels, red masonry brick, and CMU block; balconies will use metal railing and a clear guard at the rooftop terrace. Staff identified one large block of CMU on the south elevation and requested commissioner feedback on material treatment to avoid an overly monolithic appearance. - Public realm: commissioners asked whether the existing Water Tower Plaza reconfiguration had accounted for narrower alley geometry; staff said the design team and internal town engineers would continue to coordinate and that staff would request clearer plan sheets showing the patio footprint, setbacks and any easements.

Commissioner feedback Commissioners generally praised the building’s material direction and recommended refinement rather than prescriptive design controls. Commissioner Webb asked specifically how the 16‑foot alley and proposed 8‑foot rear patio setback would operate in practice; staff said that detail will be clarified in subsequent submittals and engineering review. Commissioners recommended enhancing rooftop and balcony planting (potted plants, shade) and suggested introducing texture or honed block treatments to run lines across east‑west facades for continuity.

Discussion vs. decision Discussion — commissioners provided detailed feedback on material palettes, streetside landscaping, alley clearance and potential rooftop greenery. Direction/assignment — staff will request that the applicant provide clearer plan drawings showing where the patio and raised planters lie in relation to existing alley and any utilities/easements; staff will also include material and landscape suggestions in the next review packet. Formal action — none; the presentation was for preliminary feedback during study session.

What to watch for Subsequent design‑review submittals should include clarified site sections showing alley width and patio encroachment (if any), clearer landscape/species placement relative to the sidewalk, and revised elevations that address commissioner suggestions about the south elevation material treatment.