Prescott commission denies design review for proposed Prescott Plaza Hotel, 3-2

The Prescott Preservation Commission on Oct. 20 denied the design review for the proposed Prescott Plaza Hotel, a 47-room infill project at 136–140 S. Montezuma St., voting 3-2 to reject the application (record referenced in the meeting as HP25006/HHP25-six).

The proposal called for a four-story building with an open-air terrace and retractable roof on a fourth-story patio, Juliet and full balconies facing South Montezuma Street, red brick veneer with natural stone wainscoting, and an elevator overrun. The commission's decision followed extended testimony from staff, the applicant, a contracted consultant, and 12 members of the public who raised conflicting views about compliance with the Historic Preservation Master Plan (adopted 1998) and local district design guidelines.

The denial followed a months-long review in which the city engaged Broadbent and Associates for a design analysis and solicited a voluntary review from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Alex Bramlett, the City of Prescott planning manager for community development, summarized staff materials and stated the project was before the commission for design-review approval under the Courthouse Plaza local historic district guidelines. Bramlett said the submittal was recorded as HHP25-six in city files.

Courtney Mooney of Broadbent and Associates reviewed the submission against the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and told commissioners she used those standards because the local guidelines are silent on a fourth story. "I still think that it would be set back, sufficiently to be not visually obtrusive," Mooney said after visiting the site to evaluate visibility from the public right of way.

Members of the public emphasized two main legal and design questions: whether the preservation plan and local ordinance prohibit a fourth story on Whiskey Row, and whether the proposed fourth floor and projecting balconies are compatible with the district's character. David Siegel, a public commenter, argued that the preservation master plan's repeated references to a three-story maximum meant a fourth story would violate the city's code and said, "Any vote to approve is a vote contrary to law." Other residents cited specific pages of the master plan and the design guidelines that they said limit buildings to one-to-three stories and require zero setbacks for facades.

The applicant and supporters urged approval. Doug Stroh, speaking for the applicant, said the design intentionally steps back the top story to appear as a three-story building from the street and described the project as a positive addition to downtown. "I think it'll be a great contributor and a supporter for the fellow historic buildings downtown," Stroh said.

Tim Sandefer, an attorney with the Goldwater Institute representing the applicant, urged commissioners to apply the city's objective standards and state law, citing Arizona statutes referenced in the hearing record (identified in the meeting as 9-843 and 11-16023). He told the commission that the guidelines do not implement a three-story numeric limit and that the city's explicit height limit of 48 feet had been met by the proposal.

Commission discussion referenced the preservation master plan and the local ordinance adopted alongside it. Several commissioners noted the ordinance sets a 48-foot maximum height even as the plan repeatedly discusses one- to three-story ranges. Commissioner Diane Travis pointed to the ordinance language that establishes a 48-foot maximum and said that provision provides the commission latitude on the number of floors so long as the height limit is not exceeded. Other commissioners and many members of the public disagreed, urging that the master-plan language and historic-district drawings effectively preclude a fourth story.

The State Historic Preservation Office provided a voluntary advisory review indicating the proposed façade and materials revisions were improvements from an earlier five-story proposal but recommended that upper stories be set back and that materials for the roof/patio be reconsidered to minimize conspicuousness. Broadbent's analysis found the project met many design criteria and the Secretary of the Interior standards for new construction when the fourth story is sufficiently stepped back.

After additional commissioner remarks reflecting differing interpretations of the master plan and ordinance, Commissioner [motion maker not recorded in the transcript] moved to deny the application referred to in the meeting record as HP25006. The motion carried 3-2. The hearing record does not identify an individual roll-call vote for each commissioner; the outcome was announced as denied by a 3-2 margin.

The denial is a design-review outcome under the Courthouse Plaza local historic district process and does not by itself approve or disapprove subsequent land-use approvals the project may require, including a special use permit, water-service agreement, or building permits. City staff and the applicant may seek further review or revise the submittal to address the design and legal concerns raised by commissioners and residents.

No timeline for an appeal or revised application was stated during the hearing.