Florence planning commission recommends rezoning 40-acre Westland Village to PUD amid traffic and timing concerns

The Town of Florence Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday recommended that town council rezone a 40‑acre parcel at the southwest corner of Butte Avenue and Centennial Park Avenue from rural agricultural (RA‑10) to a planned unit development called Westland Village (PZ‑24‑36).

The commission’s 3–1 recommendation follows staff and applicant presentations, a traffic impact analysis and public testimony that flagged road capacity, timing and community benefits. Commissioner Lehman moved the recommendation; Vice Chair DeRosa seconded it. The motion included staff’s conditions; the commission recorded three votes in favor and one opposed and forwarded the item to town council for final action.

The rezoning request would allow about 27 acres for single‑family homes and 13 acres for a medium‑density residential (MDR) parcel, the applicant said. Land planner Greg Davis of iPlan Consulting told commissioners the PUD is intended “to lay the groundwork for the future” and that no builder is currently under contract to develop the site: “This project may not be ripe for development today. It's really more about laying the groundwork for the future.”

Why it matters: The change would replace the current RA‑10 zoning with a PUD framework that sets buffers, access and design expectations and reserves a 13‑acre area for a medium‑density product the applicant described as townhomes or patio‑home style units rather than traditional apartment buildings. The commission and multiple public speakers said traffic and road improvements are central community concerns before new rooftops are occupied.

Key facts and staff findings - Location and size: roughly 40 acres at the southwest corner of Butte Ave. and Centennial Park Ave. (site currently zoned RA‑10). (Staff presentation; Greg Davis.) - Proposed land use: about 27 acres proposed for single‑family housing and about 13 acres proposed for medium‑density residential (MDR). The MDR density was described as a range of roughly 6–12 units per acre; the applicant noted the project could yield “potentially 158” units if developed at the higher end of proposals. (Greg Davis) - Public notice and participation: a neighborhood meeting was held Feb. 19; staff reported no members of the public attended that meeting. Staff mailed 300‑foot notices per current practice; the commission later discussed whether to consider a 600‑foot notice threshold in a separate policy process. (Staff) - Technical review: the town held two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviews (Nov. 20, 2024 and Feb. 12, 2025). Staff flagged concerns about how proposed streets would connect to existing collectors and emergency access; the applicant revised access and street alignment after TAC input. (Staff) - Traffic impact analysis (TIA): The applicant submitted a TIA that, according to the applicant’s summary, shows most study intersections currently operate at Level‑of‑Service B and would operate at Level‑of‑Service C or better with the project; some intersections could fall to LOS D under a long‑term build‑out scenario that includes other future development. The applicant said required frontage and intersection improvements or in‑lieu payments would be used to mitigate impacts. (Greg Davis; traffic analysis in packet) - Buffers and access: the proposed PUD includes road frontage landscape buffers (20 feet typical along north/east/west, 30 feet on the south boundary) and a 40‑foot landscape buffer where MDR abuts single‑family. The plan shows five access points and a revised south alignment to reduce conflict at a collector curve near Bisbee Road. (Greg Davis; staff) - Design and maintenance: the applicant said single‑family portions would not be gated; the MDR portion was described as typically gated with private interior streets maintained by an HOA. The applicant also said the MDR product is intended to be ownership townhomes or patio‑homes (6–12 units/acre) rather than 3‑story apartment buildings. (Greg Davis) - Waiver of diminution claims: town counsel explained the PUD application package includes a standard Arizona waiver of statutory claims for diminution in value that many municipalities request of applicants; counsel characterized that practice as “standard in Arizona.” (Town Attorney Mattis)

Public comment and concerns - Traffic/roads: Several public speakers urged the commission to require road improvements before new homes are occupied. Resident Courtney Ramirez told the commission: “I'm a big no for this project until our roads get fixed.” Another commenter asked why Butte Avenue improvements were described only vaguely in the applicant’s materials. - Community character and alternatives: Harold Christ, owner of the adjacent Windmill Winery property, urged the commission to seek a stronger long‑term vision for the area and suggested a development agreement could help secure benefits for the town. - Neighborhood engagement: staff reported no attendance at the developer’s neighborhood meeting; residents asked for broader notice and clearer timelines for traffic and infrastructure commitments.

Commission discussion and next steps Commissioners spent substantial time questioning the applicant about timing, buffers, access alignments and the MDR product. Some commissioners expressed skepticism about approving a PUD at an early stage and emphasized the need to tie any final approvals to conditions limiting density and requiring specified infrastructure improvements. Staff and the applicant stressed the current application is a preliminary zoning decision; final engineering, plats and development standards would come later in preliminary and final PUD/plat submittals.

The commission’s vote forwards the recommendation to town council; council will hold further hearings before making a final decision. If council approves the rezoning, the applicant still must submit and obtain approval for subsequent entitlements (preliminary PUD, plats, site plans) and the required construction plans and permits for roads and utilities before building permits are issued.

Quotes (selected and attributed) - Greg Davis, land planner for the applicant: "This project may not be ripe for development today. It's really more about laying the groundwork for the future." (presentation) - Courtney Ramirez, resident: "I'm a big no for this project until our roads get fixed." (public comment) - Harold Christ, owner of the Windmill Winery (adjacent property): “I don't see this as being something that really enhances what is happening in the town of Florence.” (public comment)

Ending The commission’s recommendation does not authorize construction; it simply sends the rezoning request and staff conditions to town council for final action. Council review and any future preliminary‑plat or PUD submittals will reopen questions about exact lotting, street sections, timing for road improvements and the final design of the MDR product. The town and applicant both told commissioners they are open to further conversations about traffic mitigation; residents urged stronger, earlier commitments to street upgrades.