Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustments continues decision on 46-foot height variance at Cloud Crossing; applicant to consider redesign
Summary
The board continued variance V25002, which sought to raise the maximum residential height from 35 to 46 feet at 691 Cloud Crossing Circle; the continuance (4–2) allows the applicant to redraw plans and return with revised height or design.
The Prescott City Board of Adjustments on March 20, 2025, continued a request (V25002) to increase the maximum allowable height for a new single-family home at 691 Cloud Crossing Circle from 35 feet to 46 feet. Tom Davis moved to continue the matter to allow a redesign; the motion passed on a 4–2 vote.
Community Planner Kaylee Nunez presented the staff analysis, saying the lot is in the Ranch subdivision and has steep topography (about a 30% average slope) and that the city measures residential height from natural grade to the highest point. Nunez said the design as submitted would measure about 46 feet to the highest point, in part because the owner and the subdivision architectural committee proposed two cupolas (about 6 feet tall) that add to the roofline.
Architect Tom Terry, representing the applicant, said the design team lowered the house as far as possible and added cupolas to improve street appearance, but that the team was willing to consider removing or reducing cupolas to reduce the variance. Terry said removing the taller cupola would reduce the requested variance from about 11 feet to roughly 5–7 feet, but that the lot’s slope, the Ranch subdivision roof/pitch standards and required driveway grade mean the property likely will still need some relief.
Neighbor Jim Smith, who lives directly below the lot, testified in opposition, saying a tall house and cupolas would block the view from his living room and that he had not been aware of the proposal until shortly before the hearing. Board members discussed alternatives including redesign, replatting combined lots, or approving a smaller height increase. City staff noted other similarly steep lots remain in the subdivision and that additional variance requests are likely as the subdivision builds out.
After discussion, and with the applicant indicating willingness to reconsider architectural elements, the board voted to continue the application without a firm return date so the applicant may redesign and, if revised, the city will re-advertise the item and notify neighbors for additional comment.
