Gilbert planning commission recommends rezoning for Higley and Aato retail center despite neighborhood opposition

The Gilbert Planning Commission voted 6–1 to recommend approval of Z25-13, a rezoning for the southeast corner of Higley Road and Aato/Ocoto (to allow a 128,660-square-foot anchor and two outparcels), after hours of presentation, public comment and back-and-forth with staff and the applicant. The motion to approve was made by Commissioner Gage and seconded by Commissioner Degravina; the item moves to the Town Council for final action in April.

Planning staff presented the case (Sal Des Santo, Planner II), describing a three-pad master plan on approximately 16.14 gross acres (about 13.10 net acres within the PAD). Staff said the proposal would change the zoning from Shopping Center (SC) to General Commercial (GC) so a single user above the SC 75,000 sq ft limit can occupy the anchor pad. The package includes an administrative use permit request for a 12.5% parking reduction (staff calculated the code-required parking at 614 spaces and the proposed total at 537) and several PAD deviations: a reduced landscape setback adjacent to residential in one narrow area (40 ft to 25 ft where parking is closest) and an exception to allow 12 continuous pickup spaces without an intervening landscape island to support online order pickup operations. Sal told commissioners the design generally meets or exceeds landscaping and building standards elsewhere on site and that some requested deviations are necessary to provide safer circulation and place parking further from neighboring homes.

The applicant, representing the owner under contract, said the retention basin immediately south of the property is owned and maintained by the Marbella HOA and that the project would provide more than double the minimum required open space (staff and the applicant cited different numbers in presentation materials, with the applicant noting open space provided is roughly 30–38% versus a 15% code minimum). Reese Anderson, the applicant representative, told the commission a traffic study had been submitted and coordinated with the town’s transportation and CIP teams and argued a single-anchor layout concentrates deliveries and service functions away from residences.

Neighbors who spoke at public comment urged denial. Resident Kagan Silly told the commission there is a digital petition “with over 500 digital signatures opposing this” and asked commissioners to consider neighborhood character. Architect and resident Chad Brosman warned that the plan relies on a parking reduction to fit a “monster” building on a constrained site and said semi-truck deliveries would need to use or cross residential streets near Fire Station 9. John Girkin, another nearby resident, asked why the council would rezone the parcel when it had been dedicated for smaller-scale shopping-center uses and asked for proof the community needs another big-box anchor.

The applicant and staff responded that many operational concerns would apply whether the site is developed as an SC shopping center or as a single GC anchor; that the GC request is primarily to allow a single larger tenant rather than multiple smaller tenants with many loading docks; and that staff had conditioned approvals and stipulated design and landscape commitments. The applicant also cited a town economic-development estimate of roughly $13 million in direct fiscal impact over 10 years based on project assumptions provided by the applicant.

Commission debate centered on two questions: (1) consistency with the general plan and (2) consistency with the neighborhood. Several commissioners noted the proposal largely matches or exceeds SC standards for height and most setbacks, with the exception of a limited southern landscape width adjustment the applicant asked to waive to achieve a more functional circulation plan; commissioners also discussed moving the proposed 8-foot perimeter wall and increasing landscape between the wall and the sidewalk so that visible landscaping sits outside the wall. Vice Chair Fay and others said those adjustments and the applicant’s agreement to conditions made the rezoning acceptable in their view. Opponents urged the commission to prioritize neighborhood scale and traffic concerns; supporters pointed out that the owner has the right to develop the commercially zoned corner and that other commercial configurations could produce similar or worse impacts.

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council for final consideration in April. If council approves the rezoning and the applicant pursues construction, formal design-review approvals and any administratively granted AUPs will follow with additional plan-submittal and building-permit review steps.