Commissioners Criticize South Anchor Design, Raise Parking and Streetscape Concerns

Gilbert Redevelopment Commission members on June 10 reviewed plans for the South Anchor mixed-use project at the northwest corner of Gilbert and Elliott roads and voiced strong concerns about the design, visibility of a proposed parking structure and the project’s pedestrian character.

The study-session presentation by staff member Kristen described the site as roughly 2.8 acres in the Heritage District, with a development agreement that requires at least 14,600 square feet of active commercial use along Gilbert and Elliott roads, 175 to 203 residential units, and a minimum of 287 parking stalls plus 45 additional public parking spaces. Kristen said the applicant has proposed 367 total parking spaces, applied for a reduction of 10 spaces for the commercial portion, and has requested a conditional use permit to allow some ground-floor residential units on Ash Street, the alley and internal site locations.

The project as presented includes a two-story commercial building at the Gilbert/Elliott corner, a four-story residential building wrapping a parking structure, and a Paseo-style walkway with sidewalk seating and festival lighting between the two buildings. Kristen said the second submittal arrived the day before the meeting and noted that the Gilbert/Elliott corner height was increased from roughly 30 feet to about 35 feet in the update. She also said the land development code requires a minimum of three stories to allow a rooftop sign, so the proposed two-story commercial building would not qualify for a rooftop sign.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the corner is a critical gateway to the Heritage District and stressed the need to “get it right” before construction begins because the site sets expectations for the downtown area.

Commissioner reactions were direct and wide-ranging. Council member Torreyson said, “This looks nothing like the RFP. Nothing. This looks like a dorm with a parking structure.” Commissioner Bigelow called the current elevations “terrible” and warned the project “looks like an apartment complex that has retail.” Commissioner Claussen, who said he works leasing commercial space, urged attention to retail viability: “Nothing is uglier long term than a vacant space and nothing kills your sense of arrival more than a dark storefront.”

Several commissioners focused on the parking structure’s visibility from Gilbert Road and the blank stucco treatment that staff showed in the renderings. Claussen said the parking structure should be “an appealing thing to look at” because it will be one of the first views driving into the district. Bigelow suggested planters, greenery or public art to activate the garage façade.

Commissioners also debated the residential elevations along Ash Street and whether the proposed row‑house elements meet the development agreement’s intent for a brownstone/row‑home character with stoops, courtyards and front doors facing Ash. Kristen noted staff is working with the applicant on alternatives and that the updated submittal added small steps to some ground-floor units to create a stoop-like feel.

Other details from the staff presentation: the residential building proposes studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units; the residential building would wrap a parking structure with about 359 spaces (as presented); first-floor programing was described as 5,470 square feet of retail, 3,930 square feet of restaurant, and 10,860 square feet of residential indoor amenities, with an additional 2,600 square feet of indoor restaurant use and 2,600 square feet of outdoor patio on the second floor. Kristen said the applicant proposes Chinese pistachio street trees along Elliott, Gilbert and Ash and live oak trees along the alley; staff noted live oaks are not in the Heritage District landscape palette and would require approval.

Multiple commissioners asked about larger connectivity and long-term infrastructure plans tied to this site. Commissioner Mehan asked whether planned Paseos would connect to other downtown improvements; staff member Sydney answered that a pedestrian bridge project (referred to as Veterans Memorial Bridge tying into Veterans Park) is in the town’s capital improvement plan but is approximately 10 years out.

No formal action or vote was taken; the study session was used to gather commissioner feedback. Kristen said the application has completed one staff review, a resubmittal was received the day before the meeting, and staff will continue formal review of the updated materials.