[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6392395,"mediaKeyId","2109668-be1963ecaa3a72b8eb29b867bbbf863a","parentId",2109668,"title","Planning commission rejects rezoning that would add 16 apartments near downtown","audioSeconds",3817,"startMs",432000,"endMs",4249000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109668-be1963ecaa3a72b8eb29b867bbbf863a&start=432&end=4249","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109668-be1963ecaa3a72b8eb29b867bbbf863a/thumbnail_432000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6392395/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-rejects-rezoning-that-would-add-16-apartments-near-downtown","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392395-bbf58ba2a0b156cd87562179ae9f8f92/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156936&Signature=bQmnVTK7tLnFqzrCYV3NViJMICuj71-G7T6p~gUd04L6Jrv-2rLNtKdXGYdQ1NZmJjAODHw8-QC1IqElMJOibyyywGmeNHIUCLcKTfHYZLn9P8rvZcJdqehEebppwmNFLR0M642Figz8Iy2YvjAtdhPP1BQZzsiQM78e3nMaQVIwqM5eCiLnwmsGGcyc-SuXs5hMc9ONBxI5Pm6N34eXCeJj3y7BXAtvQLcCPg13kJ2kN2zPsgL9ex5zgi7ZDinamygY-~t-4rwHWYahN3izYgqRlHrNj3XI4wzCPZClj5bWBjdMnb16RpxBbMs~hAKfs~swOZRWSp9ANxZagrXQdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Of Prescott","date","2025-01-09T00:00:00Z","article","The Prescott City Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 9 voted 4-2 to deny a rezoning (REZ24-003) and associated minor general-plan map amendment (GPA24-001) that would have allowed a 106-unit apartment complex on three parcels near downtown.

The commission rejected a motion to approve the rezoning and plan change after roughly two hours of presentation, questions and public comment. Vice Chair Tom Riley moved to approve the applications; Commissioner Tom Hutchison seconded. Commissioners Jim Klazewski, Susan Graham, Tom Davis and Chair Don Michelman voted no. Riley and Hutchison voted yes.

Tammy DeWitt, community planner, told the commission the request would rezone three lots historically used as parking and change the future land-use designation from low-to-medium residential to medium-high residential for that area. DeWitt said the existing zoning would allow up to 90 units on the overall site; the rezoning would permit a maximum of 106 units, including adding some three-story buildings, within the city’s multifamily-high density standards. DeWitt also said the proposal included a minor general-plan map amendment to match the rezoning.

The applicant described the revised site plan as an improvement. Johnny Stewart, representing the developer, said the taller buildings will include elevators, and that the three-story buildings would meet the 35-foot height limit. Mark Van Womer, who identified himself as representing ownership, said rents would be about $2 per square foot and estimated one-bedroom units could start around $1,500, and he said topography reduces view impacts for nearby homes.

Neighbors and several commissioners focused their remarks on three recurring concerns: parking, building height/location and the developer’s newly increased unit count. Residents who live adjacent to the site said the change from the plan approved by the commission in May — originally 90 units, mostly two stories — to a 106‑unit plan with two additional three‑story buildings represented an unwelcome change that would increase traffic, construction impacts and harm neighborhood character.

Paul Landis, whose property adjoins the project, asked the commission to “make it a little harder on these guys when they’re coming back for a second bite at the apple,” citing what he said were discrepancies in the developer’s parking calculations. Veronica Grace, who owns nearby rental properties, urged the commission to require a residential transition zoning buffer between multifamily-high density and nearby single-family homes, citing Land Development Code section LDC 9.15.5 as one of the standards the commission should weigh.

Tammy DeWitt and the applicant provided the commission with supporting figures during the hearing. DeWitt said the current plan shows 153 parking spaces for the proposed 106 units; she also said the original May submission showed 146 spaces and that five units were designated as senior at that time. DeWitt and the applicant acknowledged the project proposes 27 units identified for “senior” occupancy; staff noted that designating units as senior affects the parking requirement but also explained that the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) requires 80% of units to meet age criteria to receive an exemption from Fair Housing Act rules — a threshold the applicant does not meet.

Neighbors told the commission they consider that reduction in required parking to be unsupported because a large share of seniors still own two cars, and they disputed the developer’s parking breakdown. Paul Landis said the plan presented at a community meeting showed 133 resident spaces and 24 visitor spaces rather than 153 resident spaces.

Commissioners also probed topography and view impacts. The applicant said the site’s grade means some adjacent houses are high above the proposed three‑story buildings and that the design intentionally places two‑story buildings next to the most sensitive neighbors. The applicant said mechanical equipment would be internal where feasible and that rooftop equipment would be painted to reduce reflectivity.

Commission discussion revealed split views among commissioners. Several, including Klazewski and Graham, said they were disappointed that plans changed after the May recommendation and expressed concern about the increased density and reduced parking. Hutchison and Riley said the project fits broader goals for infill housing near downtown and supported the application as consistent with the city’s stated need for varied housing types.

The motion to approve REZ24-003 and GPA24-001 failed 4-2; the applicant may appeal to the City Council. DeWitt told commissioners that a denial at the commission would send the application to the council with the commission’s recommendation and that if the rezoning is denied, the site in the red-outlined lots could continue to be used for parking and the property owner could develop up to 90 units under existing zoning.

Planning staff said a traffic impact analysis has not been required at the rezoning stage and would be required before building permits are issued. The project remains conceptual; staff emphasized that detailed plans, including exact unit locations for the 27 units described as for seniors, would be required at permitting.

The commission’s vote followed more than a dozen public speakers and roughly two hours of presentation and discussion. The commission and several speakers asked the applicant and staff to clarify acreage and parking calculations if the matter proceeds to the City Council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning & Zoning Commission - January 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Prescott City Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 9 voted 4-2 to deny a rezoning (REZ24-003) and minor general-plan amendment (GPA24-001) that would have allowed an additional building and increased apartments on a downtown‑adjacent site from 90 to 106 units.","taxTitle","Prescott City, Yavapai County, Arizona","taxId",53183,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6392394,"Planning commission reviews draft 2025 general plan; public raises concerns on scope, dark‑sky language and statutory compliance",1484,4769000,6253000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109668-be1963ecaa3a72b8eb29b867bbbf863a&start=4769&end=6253","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109668-be1963ecaa3a72b8eb29b867bbbf863a/thumbnail_4769000.jpg","/articles/6392394/Prescott-City/Yavapai-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-reviews-draft-2025-general-plan-public-raises-concerns-on-scope-darksky-language-and-statutory-compliance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392394-03841868a4b6a129c1fe9422f96c4bc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156936&Signature=KmiO7bLO0jjBhkfa5Nxy5-8y6o3QLs6t-8GC-bYkoJdVuABKYVareoi2aVOykWPr-1IDb~MF3FjLVbNDFtPAzDinLmOuy2YEanY05fVcEO8dcV9R2k22F8VpckWNgtJsT1veME-Pry77mLXPuuEVq34hPj9eGBFXLxV9DrZYn4JUzVjxa~vNoVgyu3mZKxYMqiGUvTZFQbj1qS7FfTFRPNKOoDXrLZ0VcepoxHGDL2fmHkTa2z4~p5h0hvPAfizN8wiR8blHGVSPjDU8pK2Uww60~R1anWexps2h4dkvDjXNolUyrrdJwSL6NxTFJAsl8ozz1fCKNHj8VY2nMZYjdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff and members of the citizen general-plan committee presented the draft 2025 Prescott general plan (GPA22-001) to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 9, outlining a three-year process of public outreach and recommended changes to the city’s future land-use map.

Tammy DeWitt, community planner, said the update began in 2022 with census analysis and public outreach, included an 11‑member citizen review committee, an extended 60‑day public comment period and two open houses. The draft groups required plan elements into five themes staff described as resiliency and sustainability, community connected, great places and neighborhoods, economic competitiveness and prosperity, and community quality.

DeWitt told the commission the draft was adjusted to comply with state statute (Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-461.06) after staff identified land‑use categories that could conflict with state limits on designating private or state trust land as open space. Staff said the draft removes a “very low density” category in places and reclassifies some areas as low-to-medium density to ensure statutory compliance.

Public commenters and several commissioners raised questions about other plan content, implementation and clarity. Multiple speakers asked for a short, plain‑language summary (a “cliff‑notes” version) that could make the plan easier for council members and voters to understand. DeWitt said staff and consultants plan to produce a condensed summary if and after the council adopts the draft for placement on a ballot.

Several speakers objected to specific policy proposals or to content they said is either legally sensitive or not directly relevant to a land‑use plan. Linda Nichols, a long‑time resident, said parts of the document were out of date and listed examples where statistics and program names appeared stale; she recommended keeping the plan at a higher, less transitory level and maintaining version control.

Anne Breckwold urged caution before enshrining nondiscrimination advocacy language in a municipal planning document, saying it could create the perception that the city is an advocate in ways that raise legal and liability questions. Ralph Hess, a member of the general-plan committee, suggested staff and the city attorney review the statute’s text to confirm whether the map changes staff proposed are necessary or reflect a conservative reading of state law; he also proposed a simple change to preserve a very-low-density category if the statutory interpretation allows it.

Environmental and programmatic items also drew comment. Several speakers asked about the plan’s inclusion of dark‑sky language and a Tree City USA objective. Tammy DeWitt said dark‑sky goals reflect survey results and interest from the community and economic development inquiries; she noted that extending dark‑sky standards to single‑family residential areas would require public education and code amendments. Public Works staff indicated the city already meets some Tree City USA criteria and is pursuing that designation.

Speakers also questioned sections they said rely on older information, particularly for water resources and emergency services. DeWitt acknowledged the plan is a 30,000‑foot view and said detailed, department‑level plans and master plans would address technical updates; she and George Whirling, planning manager, said Community Development will track goals and strategies and coordinate implementation with department heads.

The commission did not take a formal vote on the general plan. Staff asked commissioners to read the draft, submit written questions and send suggested edits before the commission’s Jan. 30 meeting, which will be held at the Prescott Centennial Center as required by state law for a remote-location meeting. Staff said they will collect commissioners’ comments in a spreadsheet and include responses in the next packet so the public can review them.

Speakers urged the commission and staff to update dated data, clarify the nondiscrimination language and ensure statutory compliance for land‑use categories before the document advances to City Council and, if necessary, a public referendum.","City staff and the general plan committee presented the draft 2025 general plan (GPA22-001). Commissioners asked for written questions and public commenters voiced concerns about nondiscrimination language, dark‑sky and tree‑city initiatives, outdated data on water and emergency services, and state statute compliance for land‑use designations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission rejects rezoning that would add 16 apartments near downtown

Planning commission reviews draft 2025 general plan; public raises concerns on scope, dark‑sky language and statutory compliance