Board grants height variance for single‑family home in Hassayampa neighborhood

The City of Prescott Board of Adjustments on Aug. 21 approved a variance to allow a single-family residence in the Hassayampa planned neighborhood to exceed the 35‑foot maximum height measured from natural grade. Staff told the board the request stemmed from a steep, sloped lot that requires substantial fill to create a buildable pad and noted recent fire code and driveway-slope constraints that have increased similar requests.

Tammy Duwitt, community planner, said the lot is steep, requires roughly 10 to 15 feet of fill to create the building pad and that the city measures building height from natural grade. Duwitt told the board staff mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet, posted the property and published notice in the local paper. She also reported two written letters of opposition, two letters of support and a letter of support from the homeowners association.

Applicant and property owner Larry Evans told the board the cul‑de‑sac’s street grade is about 5,620 feet, and the rear of the lot drops substantially; he said the lot topography and fire-department driveway slope limit (the fire reviewer required a maximum grade) constrained the buildable area. Evans summarized his design choices and said the apparent height from the street would look like a single story while the rear elevation steps down the hillside.

Evans also said he believes the finished house will measure about 47 feet from the lowest grade, though the application asked for an increase up to 55 feet. He told the board he angled the house to minimize impact on an adjacent neighbor who submitted a protest, and added, “I’m not trying to overpower him.”

Two neighbors who signed speaker cards—Hank Goodman and Steven Childers—told the board they had no additional remarks beyond what the applicant and packet materials showed. Board members asked about neighborhood context; Mary Frederickson said she visited the cul‑de‑sac and compared other nearby houses, noting one larger home under construction nearby that the applicant’s proposal resembled in scale.

Duwitt said staff found a hardship attributable to the lot’s slope and that the application met the variance criteria in the packet. The motion to approve the variance (V25‑011) was made by Mary Frederickson and seconded by Miriam Haberich; the chair announced the motion carried.

The packet included elevation drawings, a site plan showing the proposed pad and cross sections indicating the natural grade and the portions of the structure that encroach above the 35‑foot line. No new conditions or implementation timeline were announced at the hearing.