Planning commission rejects rezoning that would add 16 apartments near downtown

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.