Gilbert council approves Tustin Ranch plan change, limits homes to single story after neighbor concerns

The Town of Gilbert Council voted unanimously on Feb. 25 to approve a developer request to amend a planned area development and the town general plan for a property at the southwest corner of Field and Pecos roads (case numbers Z24-12 and GP24-05).

The change, requested by Tri Point Homes, converts the site’s general plan designation from general commercial/general office back to a residential designation that conforms with the property’s existing single-family zoning (SF-10 and SF-15). The council approved the amendment after the applicant agreed to several concessions, including limiting homes to single‑story and adding a second full-access entrance.

Why it matters: The action lets the property owner proceed with a residential community consistent with zoning that has been in place for years while addressing neighbors’ concerns about scale, privacy and traffic. The council’s vote resolves a mismatch between the town’s general plan map and the property’s zoning that staff said dated to prior small-area planning and earlier, town-initiated general plan changes.

What the council approved: Senior planner Kristen Devine told the council staff recommended approval of Z24-12 and GP24-05. The applicant asked to incorporate a 1.5-acre outlier parcel into the PAD and requested deviations from prior PAD standards. The updated plan retains 76 lots with a slightly lower density (about 1.9 dwelling units per acre as presented) and shows two gated entrances — one from Greenfield Road and one from Columbus Drive — with private internal streets. The applicant added a dedicated right-turn lane on Greenfield and committed to working with the town on full turning movements at Pecos where feasible.

Key technical changes agreed by the applicant and described in staff materials included: - SF-10 setbacks: proposed front setbacks of 15 feet (livable) and 20 feet (garage); rear setback reduced to 25 feet (from a previous PAD approval). The town’s Land Development Code (LDC) requires a 25-foot front setback for the district and a 30-foot rear setback for some districts; staff explained the proposal aligns with LDC minimums in the updated submission. - SF-15 setbacks and lot coverage: the applicant proposed 20-foot (livable) and 25-foot (garage) front setbacks for SF-15, and requested to increase lot coverage from 35% to 40%; the applicant dropped a previous request to deviate rear setbacks below the LDC standard and instead proposed the 30-foot rear setback permitted by the code. - Open space and design: the plan shows roughly 18% open space and limits all homes to a single story; minimum lot dimensions proposed exceed LDC minima in several subdistricts.

Public comment and council questions: A resident directly adjacent to the site, Darren Hughes, urged the council to preserve the previously agreed 35-foot rear setback for lots along the south and west boundaries to preserve the character of adjacent one-acre lots. Hughes told the council the larger setback had been part of the original transition between the larger-lot neighborhood and the approved development. The applicant response noted the 30-foot rear yard setback is the current LDC standard; the developer said it had not yet evaluated whether all proposed product types could fit with a 35-foot rear yard but would consider working with neighbors on additional mitigation.

Traffic and off-site improvements: Both staff and the applicant said the developer will provide a dedicated right-turn lane at Greenfield Road to minimize queueing on Greenfield. In response to resident concern about left-turn movements and a potential bottleneck where Greenfield narrows from three lanes to two, the applicant said a traffic study was submitted to town traffic engineering and that the Pecos/Columbus access is being reworked to allow more turning movements if the town and transportation authorities agree. The developer also agreed to make improvements on Bonanza Road along the project’s frontage, and to work with the town on possible further improvements beyond the developer’s required frontage work.

Project scale, product and price: The applicant’s presentation said the property is roughly in the mid 30s-to-40-acre range (staff described it as “just under 40 acres,” the applicant said “about 34 acres”), and that the proposed houses would be larger, single‑story products (roughly 3,500 to 4,800 square feet) with pricing described by the applicant as “low to mid‑million” starting points.

Council action and outcome: Council member Kenny Buckland moved approval; the vice mayor seconded. The motion to approve the general plan amendment and PAD modifications with the concessions proposed by the applicant carried on a voice vote, recorded as unanimous (7–0).

What remains: The project will proceed through remaining permitting and pre-application reviews noted by staff; the applicant will continue to work with town traffic staff on the Pecos/Columbus turning movements and with neighbors about streetscape and landscaping treatments along Bonanza to address privacy and visual buffering.

Ending: Council members said they supported aligning the general plan and zoning to reduce confusion in future development reviews while noting comments from several members about the importance of protecting adjacent neighborhoods and monitoring traffic impacts as the project advances.