Planning staff previews 188‑unit Headwaters Gilbert, commissioners press for parking and landscaping details

The Planning Commission received a study‑session presentation on the Headwaters Gilbert project, a proposed PAD amendment, rezoning and design review for a 188‑unit, age‑restricted multifamily development on a roughly 6.37‑acre property just west of Gilbert Road and south of Warner Road. Staff said the applicant seeks a general plan amendment to change the land‑use designation to a residential density that would allow about 29.95 units per acre, removal of the site from the Gilbert Town Square planned area development (PAD), rezoning from Shopping Center to Multifamily High (MFH), and a design review for two four‑story residential buildings with a 6,025‑square‑foot clubhouse.

Staff described two primary deviations being requested: eliminating a 10‑foot northeastern landscape setback where the existing property line falls in a drive aisle, and a change to the town’s covered parking requirement. Under the current Land Development Code (LDC) staff said the code requires one covered parking space per dwelling unit with at least 25% of those spaces enclosed; the applicant is asking to provide 0.8 covered spaces per unit with about 21.3% enclosed. Staff also said the PAD’s landscaping standards require a minimum of two trees per dwelling unit (excluding street/perimeter trees), which would add roughly 362 trees on site; the applicant proposes a tree palette intended to complement existing Town Square landscaping.

Commissioners pressed staff on several topics. Commissioner Davis asked why the applicant seeks removal from the PAD rather than a PAD modification; Sal explained the Town Square PAD imposes stricter design and landscape standards than the current code and the applicant’s count adheres to the current LDC, while staff will still require design compatibility with Town Square. Multiple commissioners (Anderson, de Gravina, Vice Chair Faye and Davis) expressed concern about the proposed reduction in covered/enclosed parking and questioned the explanation that drainage necessitated lower covered parking; Vice Chair Faye and others said a roughly 24% overall parking reduction is large and asked for more substantiation. Commissioners also requested clearer elevations, rear garage treatments and 3‑D renderings to better judge the long, four‑story massing and proportions. Staff noted the parking administrative use permit and parking study are under review and more information will be provided at future hearings.

Staff described site layout, building sizes (Building A ≈69,955 sq ft; Building B ≈117,000 sq ft), and amenities including pickleball courts, a swimming pool and a dog park. Staff said the applicant will provide 23 additional parking spaces that were previously used to support commercial users across the street. The commission did not take action at the study session; staff requested direction on PAD removal, rezoning and design items and commissioners asked for additional documentation — especially a parking justification, clearer elevations or renderings, and clarification of landscape/setback compliance — before a formal hearing.