Casa Grande council reviews proposal to allow smaller residential lots while maintaining general‑plan density caps

Casa Grande city staff presented a draft approach to rewrite portions of the PAD (Planned Area Development) residential design standards that would allow average-based smaller lots while leaving the city’s general‑plan density limits intact.

Dan, a city staff member leading the presentation, told the council the proposal is intended to create a clearer, more predictable framework for residential developers and to reflect market conditions. "What we're not proposing tonight is any increase in the general plan densities," Dan said, and outlined draft baselines that would shift from fixed minimums to averages: a 4,500‑square‑foot average lot size, a 45‑foot average lot width with no lot under 35 feet, a 10‑foot aggregate side‑yard setback and a proposal to raise improved open space to about 65 percent.

The proposal would not change the general plan’s density cap. Dan noted the neighborhoods land‑use category allows up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre and that the PAD revisions are intended to remain consistent with those limits.

Council members repeatedly raised concerns about parking and localized congestion. One council member said, "My biggest concern is the parking," noting that while most homes are required to provide two on‑site spaces, smaller lots can increase on‑street spillover when residents store vehicles in garages or visitors arrive. Staff responded that design tools — distributed guest parking, street bumpouts, enhanced landscaping and transition standards where small lots abut existing neighborhoods — can mitigate many of those impacts.

Members also warned that an "average" standard could allow dense pockets balanced by very sparse areas elsewhere in the PAD. One council member argued for controls to avoid a situation where "one half of it is just jam‑packed at nine and the other is at one." Staff said the overall general‑plan cap prevents increases in total allowed dwelling units unless the general plan itself is amended, and noted that design review and exceptions would remain part of the public review process.

Staff presented an illustrative example showing a mix of lots from about 3,800 to 7,600 square feet producing roughly 4.47 units per acre — near the neighborhood category limit — and noted the illustration fell short on required open space (15 percent provided versus about 20 percent required), which would likely reduce the number of lots or prompt an exception request. The illustration also estimated additional parking demands that could reduce available open space.

Council members recommended alternatives and safeguards: keeping a fixed percentage of larger lots (staff noted an existing requirement that 25 percent of lots be at least 6,500 square feet, which staff is considering lowering to 6,000), using percentage requirements to preserve a product mix, and asking staff to provide comparative standards from nearby jurisdictions. Several members asked staff to analyze how smaller‑lot baselines would affect developer decisions and homebuyer costs so the council can weigh tradeoffs between affordability and neighborhood impacts.

Dan said staff will prepare a draft text amendment for public review and send the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation before the council considers formal action. The council did not take any votes or adopt any policy in the session.

The immediate next steps are for staff to provide the presentation materials to all council members, prepare scenario analyses and comparative data from neighboring jurisdictions, and draft proposed ordinance language for Planning and Zoning review and public comment.