Florence council denies Westland Village PUD after debate over density, traffic and nearby winery

Florence Town Council denied a request to rezone roughly 40 acres at the southwest corner of Butte Avenue and Centennial Park Avenue to a planned unit development known as Westland Village, voting to deny PZ‑24‑36 at its April 1 meeting.

The proposal from a developer represented by Greg Davis of I Plan Consulting would have converted land currently shown in the town’s 2022 general plan as “town center” to a PUD that the applicant said would include roughly 20.27 acres of single‑family housing and 13 acres of multifamily (MDR) product, new local streets and extensions of Bisbee Ranch Road. The planning and zoning commission had recommended approval by a 3‑1 vote.

Council members and residents said the project raised unresolved questions about traffic, the scope of multifamily development adjacent to an established winery and the effect of a broad density range written into the PUD. The council’s decision leaves the property zoned as currently designated and requires the developer to reapply or pursue a different zoning path if it wishes to proceed.

Greg Davis, the project presenter, told the council the site is intended to act as a “catalyst” for nearby Territorial Square and that the MDR portion was designed to be flexible so the housing product could respond to future market demand. “Part of this project is bringing in rooftops, but it’s not only just bringing in single‑family homes,” Davis said during his presentation, describing the MDR parcel as a buffer and a place for 6–12 units per acre so the final product could be either ownership or rental depending on future market needs.

Council members repeatedly flagged the PUD’s allowed density range and the choice to use a PUD rather than a hard zoning district. “I don’t like leaving a PUD open to be decided some years down the road,” Council member Benzina said. Benzina added she was concerned residents who buy homes in and near the development would want a clear picture of future adjacent uses.

Several council members also raised concerns about protecting nearby businesses. Council member Neal said he was reluctant to place multifamily units near Windmill Winery, which he described as “one of our premier entertainment spots.” Harold Crist, owner of Windmill Winery, submitted a written letter to the council expressing interest in the area’s future development and urging preservation of the community character; the letter was read into the record.

Traffic and circulation were a focus of both the staff presentation and council questions. Town staff and the applicant cited a traffic impact analysis that showed intersections operating at acceptable levels of service under current volumes but with potential degradation as nearby development (including Territorial Square) is built out. The applicant said the project would contribute roughly $500,000 in transportation impact fees and about $1.3 million in total impact fees (transportation, parks, police and fire) to the town.

The council cited those unresolved issues when it took up a motion to deny PZ‑24‑36. The motion to deny the zone change passed on a reverse roll call 7‑0 (Mayor Eaton — yes; Vice Mayor Adam — yes; Council member Neal — yes; Council member Bucellato — yes; Council member Maldonado — yes; Council member Benzina — yes; Council member Bedford — yes). The formal action denies the applicant’s request to rezone the property to the proposed Westland Village PUD.

What happens next: the developer may revise the plan, pursue a different zoning route (for example a straight zoning application), or return to staff and the council with more information on traffic mitigation, design details and amenities. At the hearing the planning director confirmed staff had discussed both PUD and straight‑zoning options with the applicant during pre‑application and TAC (technical advisory committee) meetings.

Speakers at the hearing included planning staff presenting the application, the applicant’s land planner and several council members; Gordon Lehman and other members of the public spoke during the council’s call to the public about nearby road design and speeds.

The denial preserves the existing rural/agricultural designation and leaves unchanged the development’s current entitlements until a new application is filed or the owners request a different zoning action.

The council’s vote closed the public hearing on the Westland Village PUD. The applicant and staff were invited to return with revised plans that address the traffic and compatibility concerns raised by the council.