Gilbert redevelopment commissioners review proposal to raise downtown height limits from 55 to 75 feet

Redevelopment Commission members spent a study-session hour discussing a proposed Land Development Code text amendment that would raise the by-right height in parts of Gilbert’s Heritage District from 55 feet (four stories) to 75 feet, and create a bonus pathway to reach roughly 90 feet for projects that provide specified public benefits.

The amendment stems from the town’s redevelopment planning work and an economic analysis by Urban3 that staff summarized for the commission. Urban3’s analysis, staff said, argues that compact, mixed‑use development in the Heritage District yields higher tax revenue per acre than lower‑density development and that modest vertical increases can make more efficient use of limited downtown land.

Why it matters: the Heritage District contains small parcels where horizontal mixed use is difficult; increasing allowable height is intended to encourage “gentle density” and additional commercial and housing floor area without expanding the district footprint. Staff noted the town’s redevelopment plan includes a goal of creating an “18‑hour downtown” where people can live, work and play within the same area.

Key proposal details - Existing standard: a by‑right maximum of 55 feet or four stories, with stepbacks above two stories adjacent to single‑family lots. - Proposed baseline: a 75‑foot maximum for areas zoned HVC (Heritage Village Center) with required stepbacks along single‑family adjacencies and on parcels that touch Gilbert Road. - Bonus pathway: parcels off Gilbert Road could earn an additional ~15 feet (to about 90 feet) if they implement specified “exceptional items,” or by combining smaller bonus items. Staff provided two categories: a “choose‑one” list of substantial items (for example, excess public parking, underground parking, or non‑combustible construction), and a “choose‑two” list of smaller items (open space/landscaping, on‑site public art, public amenities, stepbacks, sustainability features).

Staff and consultant comments Planning staff and a consultant emphasized that modest increases of one to two stories can materially increase productive floor area in a constrained district. Staff repeated a consultant phrase presented in the workshop: “stacking your stories means stacking your dollars,” attributing it to the Urban3 economic framing.

Commissioner questions and concerns Commissioners supported the goal of increasing downtown density but pressed staff on several practical points. Suggestions included applying a distance buffer from Gilbert Road rather than tying the 75‑foot allowance to any parcel that merely touches the street; Commissioner Baugh recommended testing a centerline buffer (for example, 200–300 feet) so the height allowance better follows the district core rather than narrow parcel frontages.

Several commissioners raised parking and timing issues. One commissioner asked how many additional occupants a 20‑foot increase would generate and whether the district’s parking supply could support that demand; staff noted commercial uses may continue to use Administrative Use Permits (AUPs) to rely on off‑site parking but that residential uses must provide their own parking and that small lots likely would need to build underground to meet residential parking requirements once on‑street and shared lots are used.

Preservation and scale concerns came up as well: commissioners asked how taller buildings would affect views of the Heritage District water tower and whether taller new buildings would be compatible next to existing, recently constructed four‑story buildings and older, historic structures. Staff said they walked the district to evaluate visual impacts and showed renderings of potential 55‑, 75‑ and 90‑foot conditions.

Next steps and procedural notes This was a study session; no action or vote was taken. Staff said the text amendment is a multi‑step process: continued research and stakeholder outreach, a Planning Commission study session and public hearings, outreach to the Chamber of Commerce, study sessions with Town Council, and public hearings before Council if recommended. Commissioners suggested further work on measurable definitions for bonus items (for example, a proposed 10% open‑space minimum; percent‑of‑construction‑cost set‑aside for public art) and evaluating whether the topic should be addressed as a text amendment now or deferred into the larger redevelopment plan update scheduled for 2028.

Discussion vs. decisions Discussion — commissioners provided feedback and requested additional analysis on buffer approaches, parking demand modeling, the draft bonus structure, and visual impacts. Direction/assignment — staff was asked to explore a distance‑based buffer alternative, refine bonus item metrics (for example, a percent open‑space requirement and an art funding threshold), and to return with comparative data on permitted heights elsewhere in town. Formal action — none taken at the study session.

What to watch for A formal text amendment and any associated changes (for example, permitting of rooftop signs on lower buildings) will return in public hearings if staff and the commission decide to proceed. Commissioners signaled that parking metrics and precise bonus requirements will be decisive in whether they support any permanent change.