Prescott City Council denies design for proposed 47‑room Prescott Plaza Hotel on Whiskey Row

Mayor Goode and the Prescott City Council voted on Aug. 5 to deny the current design for the Prescott Plaza Hotel, a proposed four‑story, 47‑room hotel at 136–140 South Montezuma Street, after a lengthy hearing focused on whether the design complies with Prescott—s historic‑district design criteria.

The council—s action came after staff, the city attorney and the architect reviewed the project—s revisions and the Prescott Preservation Commission—s 3–1 recommendation against approval. City Attorney Joseph Young told the council that in appeals from the Preservation Commission they sit "in a quasi‑judicial role" and must evaluate the design "based on the historic design guidelines, which is codified in ordinance number 3744."

Why this matters: the site sits within the Courthouse Plaza local historic district on Whiskey Row, Prescott—s most prominent historic block. Council deliberations centered on whether the hotel—s massing, fourth‑floor terrace and certain storefront and window materials meet the preservation criteria and the master plan the city adopted in 1998.

What the council considered and found

City planning manager Alex Bramlett told the council the project is a four‑story, 47‑room hotel with a stepped‑back fourth floor and a roof‑top terrace; the submitted elevations list the top of parapet at 36 feet 6 inches, total roof/roof‑deck height at about 43 feet 6 inches, and an elevator overrun reaching about 48 feet. Bramlett said hotels are allowed by right in the downtown business (DTB) zoning district but that council—s review is limited to design compliance with the Historic Preservation master plan and ordinance 3‑7‑44.

Architect Doug Stroh, representing the applicant and owner Jim Grissett, described changes since earlier submissions: removal of one story compared with a prior design, reconfiguration of the rooftop terrace to a set‑back fourth floor, addition of Juliet balconies on middle floors and revised storefront treatment. Stroh said the team was prepared to add opaque lower panels to rear storefront glazing and that the material proposed for window and door frames "looks just like wood." He also argued the rooftop terrace was stepped back to reduce perceived massing, saying the design "will read more like a 36‑foot high building."

Preservation commission members and many public speakers disagreed. Rick Sprank, chair of the Prescott Preservation Commission, told council the design "does not meet any of the criteria" related to an open fourth‑floor terrace and noted the guidelines repeatedly state a limit of three stories. Several speakers, including preservation commissioners who testified individually, urged the city to hold to the criteria that emphasize 0‑setback to the roofline for the front facade and historic‑scale massing.

The two elements the staff and council identified as unresolved were: the required use/appearance of wood for storefronts and window framing (staff categorized that as "partially met") and the fourth‑floor setback/roofline requirement (staff categorized that as not met). Bramlett and Young repeatedly reminded council that approval of design is separate from later zoning, special‑use permits and building permits that the applicant would need to obtain.

Public comment and legal context

About 37 members of the public spoke during the hearing. Speakers were divided: some property‑owners and preservation advocates asked the council to deny the design to protect Whiskey Row—s historic character and nearby businesses; others, including the developer—s attorney John Riches of the Goldwater Institute and local supporters, urged approval and stressed property‑rights and economic arguments. Riches argued the guidelines are a policy document and urged council to approve the plan; he said an awning could satisfy the setback requirement and that the applicant had been responsive to prior critiques.

Council action and next steps

A motion to deny the design of HP25‑005 was moved and seconded; the motion passed. The transcript and public record provided for this package do not include a full roll‑call vote tally. Councilmembers and staff noted an applicant may redesign and return to the same review process; the city attorney said project decisions at prior meetings (including a council decision in March 2024 that upheld an earlier denial and the PPC—s July 22, 2025 3–1 recommendation to deny the revised plan) remain part of the procedural history.

What was not decided

Council—s denial in this session addressed the submitted design only. Staff and the city attorney emphasized that a denial of design does not prevent the owner from submitting a new design, nor does it determine future zoning or building‑permit outcomes. Specific issues raised during public comment—parking capacity, construction staging impacts on adjacent businesses, or the exact numerical vote on the council motion—were discussed but the formal council action recorded in the meeting applies only to the design application on the table.

Ending

The developer may revise the design and return to the Historic Preservation process, which would include review by the historic preservation specialist, a hearing before the Prescott Preservation Commission and, should the PPC act, a potential further appeal to council. For now, the council concluded the submitted Prescott Plaza Hotel design did not meet the city—s Historic Preservation criteria and denied the application presented on Aug. 5, 2025.