Planning commission sends mixed recommendation on Harvest Grove master plan and rezoning after traffic and character-area concerns

The Gilbert Planning Commission on Thursday recommended mixed actions on Harvest Grove, a 311‑acre Lennar Homes proposal near the southeast corner of Germain Road and Val Vista Drive, forwarding a minor general‑plan amendment to the Town Council by a 5–1 vote and later recommending approval of the associated rezoning by a separate 4–2 vote after negotiating revised conditions.

The project would change about 179 acres of an existing Residential 2–3.5 dwelling units per acre designation to a mix that includes regional commercial and multiple multi‑family and single‑family density bands. The developer’s package shows roughly 1,739 dwelling units overall, about 45 acres of commercial and roughly 69 acres of open space, including a roughly 4.2‑acre central park.

Town staff urged denial, saying the proposal departs from the San Tan Character Area’s vision of predominantly low‑ and medium‑density lots and rural‑agricultural character. “The San Tan Character area… was created to capture the unique qualities of the South portion of Gilbert, which historically, prior to development, consisted of farming, agricultural land,” planning staffer Keith Newman read from the general plan during his presentation. Newman told commissioners that about 483 of the proposed 1,013 single‑family lots would be under 6,000 square feet, a concentration staff said is inconsistent with the character area.

Susanna Struble, town engineer, told the commission staff’s safety and traffic concerns were a primary reason for the denial recommendation. She said the town’s Transportation Master Plan calls for collector roadways that the applicant’s plan does not place where the town anticipates. Struble described the proposed central spine — called Rome Street in the application — as carrying an estimated 3,000 vehicle trips per day and noted the applicant sought technical variances for roadway cross‑sections, on‑street parking and bike‑lane configuration that staff had not approved.

Lennar’s representative, Bridal Ray, said the company disagrees with the denial recommendation and emphasized safety and design work done with staff. “Lennar, in its 71 year history of building over a million homes has not compromised on safety,” Ray told the commission. He said the site sits at a transition between higher‑intensity uses near Loop 202 and the San Tan Character Area and that the project provides a mix of housing types, trails and commercial uses intended to satisfy multiple general‑plan goals. Ray also noted the developer reduced on‑street parking along the Rome collector from 342 spaces in the initial submittal to 74 in response to staff concerns.

Commissioners and the applicant debated which north–south collector — the applicant’s Rome alignment through the project or the town’s mapped Coronado alignment on the project’s eastern edge — would better preserve circulation and emergency access for surrounding neighborhoods and Perry High School. The applicant’s traffic consultant presented model runs that compared scenarios; staff said their analysis assumed Coronado would be built as a collector and that scenario drove some of staff’s level‑of‑service conclusions.

Public commenters raised safety concerns near schools and neighboring parks and urged commissioners to require more traffic mitigation. Perry High School families and nearby residents, along with the operator of adjacent soccer fields, asked commissioners to account for pedestrian and bike safety and potential complaints about field lighting.

After discussion, the commission voted 5–1 to recommend approval of the minor general‑plan amendment (GP 2503). On a subsequent vote on the rezoning (Z 2503) the commission ultimately approved a motion recommending council approve the rezoning with conditions, including roadway dedications, construction of off‑site improvements per the project’s phasing plan, and traffic‑signal design and reimbursement provisions; that motion passed 4–2. The commission also negotiated language about responsibility for certain maintenance obligations and timing for rights‑of‑way dedications. Staff said the conditions would apply only if the commission forwarded a favorable recommendation; if the commission upheld staff’s denial recommendation those conditions would not apply.

Discussion versus decision: staff characterized much of the record as unresolved “discussion only” matters — safety, collector alignment, and variances — while the commission made formal decisions to forward both the general‑plan amendment and the rezoning recommendation to Town Council with conditions. The Town Council will receive both items with the commission’s recommendations.

What happens next: the items will go to Gilbert Town Council for final action. The commission’s motions and the revised conditions negotiated in the meeting will be part of the staff report and the council packet.

Sources: Planning staff presentation by Keith Newman; town‑engineer remarks by Susanna Struble; applicant remarks by Bridal Ray (Lennar Homes); public comments recorded in the meeting transcript. No final Town Council action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting.

Ending: The commission debated technical variances, collector alignment and neighborhood character at length before splitting its recommendations. The Town Council will consider the general‑plan amendment and rezoning with the commission’s recorded votes and the updated conditions when the items are scheduled for council consideration.