Gilbert council delays decision on Bellastoria PAD amendment after debate over 20% unit increase

Mayor Scott Anderson and the Gilbert Town Council on May 6 postponed action on a Planned Area Development (PAD) amendment for Bellastoria Parcel B after an hour of presentations and council discussion about a roughly 20% increase in apartment units and related impacts.

Town staff presented the amendment, which would replace the previously approved site plan with a redesigned multifamily development totaling 367 units on the Parcel B site in the Bellastoria PAD. The new plan would add a two‑level parking structure, increase open space to about 42.8%, and mix 2‑, 3‑ and partial 4‑story buildings to create a transition to adjacent single‑family lots. Staff recommended approval of the PAD amendment subject to conditions in the staff report.

The council’s debate centered on the increase in units (about 67 more than the previously approved plan), parking and traffic impacts, and the process of returning to the council after an earlier PAD approval in October 2023. Council members repeatedly said they wanted more time to review the traffic and parking studies and to discuss the policy implications of allowing a substantial redesign that raises unit counts.

In presenting the application, a staff member identified as Keith described the proposed site as “about 13 net acres, about 15–16 gross acres” and said the new design would yield roughly 23 dwelling units per acre, up from about 21 in the original plan approved in October 2023. Keith said the proposal contains nine buildings, a central parking garage with “over 200 parking spaces,” and about 607 total parking spaces overall. He said staff had determined the new design was not in “substantial conformance” with the original site plan and therefore required a PAD amendment before council.

Benjamin Tay, attorney with Withy Morris Baugh speaking for the applicant, emphasized that the proposal remained within the PAD’s approved development standards for medium‑density multifamily — including height and density limits — and that the redesign reflects the preferences of the developer, Vista Residential Partners. Tristan Charlesworth, identified as local partner and managing director for Vista Residential Partners, told the council the company typically takes a long‑term ownership position and that the added units enabled greater investment in landscaping, open space and building design.

Keith and the applicant said the town’s traffic engineering team had reviewed and accepted a traffic impact analysis. The applicant also said the change to add a two‑level parking structure reduced visible surface parking from the street while increasing overall parking supply compared with the original plan.

One public commenter, Noah James Markham of Tempe, urged the council to consider subsidized housing (he specified Section 8) when evaluating new multifamily development, but he did not address the PAD amendment’s technical details.

Several council members expressed reservations. Council Member Chuck Bongiovanni and Council Member Monte Lyons said they were concerned by the 20% increase in units, potential infrastructure and road wear impacts, and the lack of prior informal outreach to council members about the design change. Council Member Kenny Buckland said the applicant’s design made aesthetic improvements and created a better transition to nearby single‑family homes, but he also said he wanted more parking and traffic details. Council Member Jim Torgerson and others said they were uncomfortable with what they described as a second “bite at the apple” after the original PAD approval.

After discussion, Council Member Chuck Bongiovanni moved to postpone the PAD amendment to a specific later meeting so council members could review additional materials and meet with the applicant; Council Member Kenny Buckland seconded. The motion to continue the item to June 10 carried 6–0.

Next steps identified by staff and the applicant include: the council’s continued review on June 10; (staff noted they will not schedule a Design Review Board hearing until the council has decided on the PAD amendment); and follow‑up meetings between council members and the applicant to review the traffic and parking analyses and other design details.

Why it matters: council members said the outcome could set a precedent for projects that return to the council with design changes that increase density after PAD approvals. The project also affects nearby single‑family neighborhoods, traffic flows on Williams Field Road and Dela Torre Boulevard, and the appearance and open‑space layout of the Bellastoria development.

A council vote on the PAD amendment is expected to return to the council agenda on June 10, pending the applicant and staff providing the additional materials the council requested.