Casa Grande council OKs several annexations and industrial rezones in Bianco–Clayton corridor despite resident concerns

CASA GRANDE, Ariz. — The Casa Grande City Council approved several annexations, minor general-plan amendments and zone-change ordinances Tuesday that expand the city's industrial land supply in the Bianco–Clayton corridor, drawing both developer support and heated objections from nearby residents.

Council action included annexation ordinances and infrastructure‑service plans, minor general-plan amendments to change growth phases from Phase 2 to Phase 1, and multiple zone changes to General Industrial (I‑2). The package of actions is intended by staff and developers to create contiguous industrial acreage to attract manufacturers and to enable roadway and infrastructure work in areas now under county jurisdiction.

Planning staff described a series of related requests: the Bianco annexation and initial Urban Ranch zoning (Resolution No. 5747; Ordinance No. 3457), several minor general-plan amendments and rezones converting roughly 66 acres (including a 10‑acre switch from rural to manufacturing) to I‑2 (Resolutions No. 5273.35 and 5273.36; Ordinance No. 1178.463), a large Clayton annexation (Resolution No. 5748; Ordinance No. 3456), an approximately 283‑acre general-plan amendment and zone change at Bianco and Clayton that would convert Phase 2 land to Phase 1 and to I‑2 (Resolution No. 5273.37; Ordinance No. 1178.460), and a separate rezone at Thornton and Lawrence from I‑1 to I‑2 (Ordinance No. 1178.462). The council also approved an earlier Treckle Road rezoning (Ordinance No. 1178.458) that had been postponed from a prior meeting.

Jacqueline (planning staff) explained procedural and statutory requirements for annexation petitions, including the two‑part statutory test: a majority of property owners and a majority of the value of the property being annexed. For one annexation staff said two of three owners consented and those signatures represented 50.4% of the valuation necessary under state statute. Staff also said that, by statute and county practice, the city is annexing 33 feet of right‑of‑way along Clayton Road so the city can legally maintain and improve that portion of roadway.

Several nearby residents who spoke during the items told council they opposed parts of the annexations. Bert Kennedy and Doug Keeling asked how valuations and owner counts were computed and said they did not want their lands brought into the city, raising concerns about increased traffic, heavy trucks and loss of rural character. "How do you get 50.4%?" asked Bert Kennedy, seeking clarification about the valuation test. Opponents also argued annexation could lead to increased police responses and changes to property rights and fees.

Land‑use representatives pushed back. Kirk McCarville of the Land Advisors Organization, who said he has worked in the area for years, told council the industrial expansions are intended to accommodate large manufacturers and create jobs and tax base. "We've affected about a $1,000,000,000 worth of investment on Mr. Keeling's property," McCarville said, and argued extending industrial zoning would build on successful earlier developments in the corridor. He urged council to approve the annexations and rezones to allow more industrial users to locate in the corridor.

Planning staff and city attorneys addressed residents' questions about county islands, saying state law forbids creating county islands and that maps were drawn so unincorporated parcels to the west and north would not be isolated. Staff also told residents the city will take responsibility for improving Clayton Road after annexation; staff said the improvement would be a chip‑seal/pavement project and that the city cannot legally improve county roads that remain outside the city.

Councilmember Bedellin recorded dissent on at least one zoning vote and voiced concern about density and placement of new buildings; most other council votes on the multiple items were unanimous. The Clayton annexation (Resolution No. 5748 / Ordinance No. 3456) passed with a 6–1 vote (Bedellin voting no). The Treckle Road rezoning (Ordinance No. 1178.458) passed but drew a recorded "no" from Councilmember Huddleston.

Votes at a glance - Ordinance No. 1178.458: Approve rezoning at 2060 North Treckle Road from Multi‑Family R‑3 to Planned Area Development (PAD). Outcome: approved; recorded vote: Romo yes; Dugan yes; Bedellin yes; Edwards yes; Huddleston no; Herrmann yes; Fitzgibbons yes. - Resolution No. 5747 / Ordinance No. 3457: Bianco annexation infrastructure plan and annexation with initial Urban Ranch zoning. Outcome: both approved (unanimous). - Resolution No. 5273.35: Minor General Plan amendment (growth area Phase 2 → Phase 1) for ~66 acres at Bianco & Illinois. Outcome: approved (unanimous). - Resolution No. 5273.36: Minor General Plan amendment (rural → manufacturing for ~10 acres). Outcome: approved (unanimous). - Ordinance No. 1178.463: Zone change to I‑2 on ~66 acres at Bianco & Illinois. Outcome: approved (unanimous at roll call shown). - Resolution No. 5748 / Ordinance No. 3456: Clayton annexation and infrastructure plan (approx. 520 acres). Outcome: approved, vote 6–1 (Councilmember Bedellin voted no). - Resolution No. 5273.37 / Ordinance No. 1178.460: Minor GP amendment and rezone to I‑2 for ~283 acres at Bianco & Clayton. Outcome: approved (unanimous). - Ordinance No. 1178.462: Zone change from I‑1 to I‑2 at Thornton & Lawrence (approx. 18 acres). Outcome: approved (unanimous).

What council approved are initial annexations, map and zoning changes. Staff noted that major site plans would return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for use‑specific review and additional public notice; at that later stage the council and public will have further opportunities to weigh compatibility measures such as screening and limits on volatile or explosive materials. Planning staff also said conditions of record prohibit certain heavy or volatile uses and require masonry screening for outdoor storage unless additional compatibility measures are added during site‑plan review.

The actions clear the way for the city to extend infrastructure and to market more industrial land; opponents asked the council to consider quality‑of‑life impacts for adjacent rural residents and to ensure promised roadway improvements occur.

Council meeting records include the ordinances and resolutions approved and the staff reports with maps, signatures and the infrastructure/service plans.