Prescott Valley Planning Commission Votes 6-1 to Recommend 259-Unit Senior Living Rezoning
PRESCOTT VALLEY, ARIZONA — February 13, 2024

Prescott Valley Planning Commission Votes 6-1 to Recommend 259-Unit Senior Living Rezoning

Planning and Zoning Commission considered controversial rezoning of former university campus from public lands to senior living development, with significant community opposition centered on traffic impacts, broken school-use promises, water policy credibility, and conversion of public lands to private use.

Commission Backs Senior Living Rezoning Over Broken School Promises and Traffic Fears; Vote 6-1, with Process Questions Unresolved

The Prescott Valley Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 on February 13, 2024, to recommend Town Council approval of a zoning map change and preliminary development plan that would convert 49.3 acres of the long-vacant North Central University campus into a 259-unit senior living community. The decision came after intense neighborhood testimony focused on traffic diversion through residential streets, water policy credibility, alleged 2004-2016 promises that the site would remain for school use only, and concerns about drainage impacts on downhill properties. Vice Chair Evans cast the sole dissenting vote, citing process concerns rather than project merits.

Key Speeches

"If somebody walked into you today there was an RCU 18 site and they said I want to build a school but I want PL zoning would you recommend to them that they apply for a PL zoning or would you steer them towards an RS zoning?" — Vice Chair Evans, questioning whether 2005 Public Lands designation was improper

"I will take full responsibility for in the project narrative uh I wrote in there and submitted it would be a net water neutral project on the water aquifer uh turns out that is incorrect that was a misunderstanding of mine." — Steven Pulk, applicant attorney, correcting water statement after citizen complaint

"This project is a senior living community it's a low impact it's similar to the allowed uses you know this will be housing for seniors we need more Housing Solutions for seniors it's a low impact." — Steven Pulk, summarizing developer position

"There is a need in my opinion my folks lived in a facility very similar to this and it was beneficial to me as their son to be able to come and see them and help take care of them and transition them from one facility to the next." — Commissioner Herb, supporting approval based on 22% vacancy rate in existing senior facilities

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers: 9 formal speakers against; 2 speakers for alternative (school use); 1 speaker about wildlife corridors; majority of audience visibly opposed.

Main concerns:

  1. Traffic diversion through residential neighborhoods: Sheridan Lane (no sidewalks, narrow, 313+ homes served plus 91 on-street homes = 313 households) and Tonopa will become cut-through routes to avoid Navajo/Superstition congestion. Mailboxes "frequently get knocked down" by vehicles. Pedestrian safety risk. Residents walk dogs; no infrastructure for added traffic.

  2. Broken 2004-2016 school-use promises: Mayor Harvey Skoog and Council Member Laura Lee Nye allegedly assured residents zoning would remain for educational use only. 2011 rezoning attempt blocked after opposition; leaders "doubled down" on promise. Kevin Block and others claim they purchased homes based on this assurance. Converts "public lands" (rhetorical concept) to private commercial use.

  3. Drainage and runoff impacts: Gretchen Donella documented existing drainage problems from original university building; additional paving, roads, and improved egress will increase runoff to adjacent downhill properties and downstream Agua Fria River tributary. No detailed drainage remediation plan provided to affected residents prior to hearing.

  4. Water credibility and policy questions: Three different staff versions in one week; water attorney letter dated January 9 but emailed February 10 (one-month discrepancy). Jean Ma (citizen water advocate) pointed out effluent credits do not equal "net zero"—credits merely transfer obligation; aquifer still net negative. Patricia Bold questioned CAWS (Certificate of Assured Water Supply) analysis missing from public packet. Kenneth Freund called 100-year CAWS "smoking mirrors"—no one can predict rain 100 years out.

  5. Insufficient nurse/caregiver staffing: Kathy Smith presented handout showing all Prescott Valley senior facilities report critical staffing shortages, particularly for memory care. Applicant's nursing school partnership commitment remains speculative (three schools in discussion, no contracts signed). Where will 259-unit facility recruit adequate staff?

  6. Pronghorn antelope habitat squeeze: Bill Williams cited Prescott E-News article noting herd squeezed east by prior developments; new road and construction will further drive wildlife. Experts told Williams zero antelope will remain in Prescott Valley within his lifetime if squeeze continues.

  7. Fire evacuation and safety: Tim Reynolds noted memory care on upper floors difficult to evacuate; secondary egress roads (both heading west/southwest into prevailing wind direction) meet only "minimum standards" per fire marshal. Grass fire risk in surrounding open grasslands could trap 85+ homes; fire marshal three miles away cannot defend property during wind-driven fire. Sprinkler systems required in houses per fire marshal.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: Superstition Hills residents (Unit 20 subdivision) with consistent testimony on traffic, drainage, and broken school promises. Citizens water advocacy group (Jean Ma referenced) raised aquifer/effluent credit concerns.

Support

Number of speakers: 4 formal speakers in favor; 1 letter from Council Member Nye (read by Tasha Taylor); 1 letter from Terry Hancock (read by Tomas M); 1 developer letter (read by Devin White, representing Dylan A).

Main arguments:

  1. Demographic necessity: Matthew Fish cited national data: 73 million Baby Boomers; elderly (65+) will double by 2036 then double again by 2049. Arizona second-highest state for Baby Boomers (31.6% of Yavapai County). Senior Housing Industry $247 billion economic impact (2022); 2 million employees supported. Nationwide shortage of 986,000 assisted-living units to serve aging population.

  2. Better than alternatives: If PL zoning remains, site could accommodate university expansion, student dormitories, or other institutional uses with far higher traffic impact (5,000+ daily trips vs. 1,316 for senior living). University would not require effluent credits, Mesino extension, or secondary fire egress—no community accommodations.

  3. Senior facility design minimizes driving: Most residents independent-living cottages; majority do not drive or use golf carts/scooters internally. Memory care residents do not drive. Fewer cars than school (which generates peak-hour parent drop-off/pick-up congestion).

  4. Developer responsiveness: Richard Whitney and team incorporated neighborhood feedback: added Mesino extension (not originally proposed), secondary fire egress, walking trail improvements on University Drive, dog park planning. Restaurant open to public. Phased development allows monitoring and adjustment.

  5. Infrastructure improvements: Mesino extension and secondary egress benefit Unit 20 overall; reduce Navajo/Superstition congestion; provide direct SR-69 access previously unavailable.

  6. Water responsibility: Developer committed to effluent credits before new town policy required it; more responsible than pulling new groundwater.

Organized groups: None named; individual seniors, retirees, and prospective residents (Debbie O'Brien, Tomas M, Devon White letter).

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

ZMC 23-7 (Zoning Map Change):

PDP 23-5 (Preliminary Development Plan):

Outcome & Next Steps

Both ZMC 23-7 and PDP 23-5 advance to Prescott Valley Town Council for final hearing at the next available meeting (date not yet scheduled; staff indicated "next available" but no calendar date provided).

Conditions for approval (both items):

  1. Prior to first building permit issuance: Applicant must provide Certificate of Assured Water Supply (effluent credits purchased or other water rights secured).

  2. Site shall be developed in general conformity with the approved Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Map Change.

  3. North Mesino Drive extension (from Highway 69 north through project to University Drive intersection, then continuing to Superstition/Sheridan intersection) shall be completed to town specifications and required prior to Phase 1 completion. Must include curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of street per town collector road standards.

  4. Secondary emergency egress from proposed secondary access road (parallel to University Drive) shall be required, meeting CFMA (probably County Fire Marshal Association or Cottonwood Fire/Medical Authority) standards.

Developer commitments (beyond conditions):

Next step after Council approval: Final Development Plan (FDP) and building permits would follow Council approval; engineering finalization, additional state land studies for road easement, fire evacuation protocols, landscaping/irrigation details, and coordination with town utilities/public works ongoing.

Controversies & Context

2005 Zoning Legality Question (Unresolved)

Vice Chair Evans raised a substantive but historically complex concern: Is it legally proper for privately-held land to be designated "Public Lands" (PL) zoning? The town code defines Public Lands as "those lands held in ownership of public or quasi-public agencies." North Central University was a private institution when Ordinance 636 designated the site PL PAD in August 2005. Evans argued this was a zoning error and the property should have been designated Residential Services (RS) from inception. He sought to reframe the emotional/rhetorical "paving paradise" narrative (invoking Joni Mitchell reference) as a legitimate zoning correction rather than a broken promise about public land conversion.

Town Attorney Steven Z stated that property rights allow rezoning regardless of prior designation and declined to relitigate a decision made 20 years ago by a prior council. Ernest Ruby (staff) defended the 2005 decision as approved by ordinance and argued the commission cannot go back and declare it wrong. Outcome: Vice Chair Evans' question left unresolved; no retroactive zoning correction pursued.

Broken 2004-2016 School-Use Promises

Multiple residents (Kevin Block, Keith Block, Kenneth Freund, Dr. Ed Moody, Tim Reynolds) testified that Mayor Harvey Skoog and Council Member Laura Lee Nye made written/verbal assurances in 2004 that the site zoning would never change and would remain for educational use only (and even more narrowly, for administrative offices of an online university, not a residential campus). Residents claim they purchased homes based on these assurances. A 2011 rezoning attempt was blocked after intense neighborhood opposition; at that time, the mayor and councilmember "doubled down" on the promise, residents stated.

Council Member Nye's position (submitted via letter read by Tasha Taylor): Acknowledged the 2011 opposition was valid at that time but argued that by 2024, the urgent need for diverse senior housing justifies a change. Nye, now retired, noted she herself moved into independent living in Peoria and wondered whether this facility would have retained her in Superstition Hills.

Outcome: Council Member Nye's letter was submitted to the record; no council vote on the merits of the broken promise occurred (commission vote was advisory only). This will likely emerge as a key issue at Town Council hearing.

Water Policy Misstatement and Document Credibility Crisis

The staff report initially stated the project would be "net water neutral on the aquifer." This was factually incorrect (water-consuming homes cannot be aquifer-neutral merely because the town is obligated to recharge effluent). Steven Pulk, applicant attorney, took responsibility for the misstatement, attributing it to misunderstanding the town's 100-year certified capacity obligation. A corrected letter from the water attorney was dated January 9 but emailed to commissioners February 10—a one-month discrepancy that raised questions about when the information was available and why it was delayed. Dylan East House (hydrogeologist) clarified the correct framework: the project requires purchase of effluent credits (29.15 acre-feet annually) to offset water demand; the town is legally obligated to recharge the aquifer for the full amount of the water demand; the town has proven 100-year physical availability to ADWR; purchase of effluent credits is the most responsible approach (more so than pulling new groundwater).

Commissioner Laney expressed concern about the "credibility of information provided over one-week period." Patricia Bold requested postponement of the vote until all supplementary materials (CAWS analysis, full fire report, water supplements) were released to the public in the packet with adequate review time. Her request was not adopted; the meeting proceeded.

Outcome: Water framework clarified in hearing; applicant committed to purchase effluent credits as condition. Process concern (late/missing documents, three versions) noted but did not delay approval. This will likely be raised again at Council.

Drainage and Runoff Impacts on Downhill Properties

Gretchen Donella (9901 East Superstition Drive) documented that her property and two neighboring downhill properties have suffered drainage issues since the original university building was constructed. She has incurred engineering/drainage mitigation costs (a drainage system on the west side of her property, completed before her family's trust purchase). The watershed drains from the development site downhill and eventually toward the Agua Fria River tributary. Donella expressed concern that additional paving, buildings, roads, and improved egress would increase runoff onto these properties and downstream. She noted no detailed drainage remediation plan was provided to affected residents prior to the hearing.

Jesse Dowling (traffic engineer) and Doug Stro (architect) acknowledged the drainage concern in the hearing but noted that the civil engineers' commitment is to (1) not exceed historic drainage volumes leaving the site, (2) add swales/detention basins, and (3) redirect flows away from downhill properties. Stro named one property owner (Janet Francisco) but acknowledged that Gretchen Donella's notification may have been lost. Dowling committed to working with town public works and was confident the town would monitor.

Outcome: Drainage issue acknowledged; partially addressed by commitment to town standards and swale design. No separate drainage study or remediation plan for downhill properties finalized prior to vote. This remains a condition of phase 1 completion and will be subject to final engineering review.

Traffic Diversion to Residential Streets (Sheridan Lane Cut-Through)

Residents of Sheridan Lane and Tonopa Drive testified that the Mesino extension, while reducing traffic on Navajo/Superstition, will create a faster north-south route and incentivize drivers to cut through residential neighborhoods to reach Fain Road, Highway 69, and other destinations. Sheridan Lane is particularly vulnerable: it is narrow (no sidewalks), serves 313+ homes (principal egress/ingress) plus 91 on-street homes (total 313 households feeding into it), and already experiences above-average vehicle counts and mailbox damage. Commissioner Bordon questioned whether the TIA (traffic impact analysis) considered impacts to Sheridan other than the Superstition intersection; Jesse Dowling confirmed the TIA did not analyze Sheridan traffic specifically, only the intersection of Sheridan/Superstition.

Danny Woodward (4017 North Kerney, near Sheridan/Superstition corner) proposed an alternative: build the access road from Enterprise (which already has traffic signals on the highway and minimal usage) to the north, avoiding the Mesino/University routing and keeping traffic away from residential neighborhoods. Applicant declined, citing terrain difficulties (ravine near Enterprise), cost, and state land complications.

Outcome: Mesino extension approved as required condition; alternative routing rejected. TIA predicts traffic distribution; staff noted that Mesino extension itself was designed to reduce neighborhood impacts. Sheridan Lane traffic impact unquantified and not made a condition of approval. Residents stated they will pursue this at Town Council.

Nursing/Caregiver Staffing Shortage

Kathy Smith presented a handout documenting occupancy and caregiver staffing levels across all Prescott Valley senior facilities. She reported that when she contacted facility directors in summer 2023, all indicated critical staffing shortages, particularly for memory care units. The proposed 259-unit facility (with 19 memory care units in existing building and potential additional assisted-living units in new apartments) faces the same local labor market. Richard Whitney stated the development is exploring partnerships with nursing schools (three colleges in discussion) to offer on-site classroom/training and encourage graduates to stay on staff. Commissioner Laney questioned whether an on-site doctor would be present; Whitney said no but nurses would be on-site.

Outcome: Staffing shortage acknowledged; nursing school partnership remains exploratory (no contracts signed). Not made a binding condition of approval. Applicant committed to further exploration; specific staffing levels and care ratios will be determined during final development plan and operational licensing phases.

Healthcare Access and Hospital Proximity

Kenneth Frey and others noted that the site is isolated, far from Prescott Valley Hospital and other medical facilities. He argued that seniors in assisted living frequently require emergency care and hospital access. Dr. Ed Moody cited emergency response time and accessibility as concerns. Applicant countered that the development includes on-site amenities (restaurants, fitness, therapy) that reduce need to leave premises; staff will coordinate with local providers.

Outcome: Healthcare access concern noted but not made a binding condition. Applicant will coordinate with hospital/EMS during final planning.

Fire Evacuation and Wildfire Risk

Tim Reynolds raised specific concerns about fire evacuation and wildfire risk. He noted that memory care units on the upper (third) floor of the existing building present evacuation challenges; only two other Prescott Valley facilities have upper-floor assisted living/memory care, and it is difficult to evacuate. The secondary egress roads (both heading west/southwest) align with prevailing wind directions; a grass fire from the surrounding open grasslands (west and south of site) could drive flames toward the facility and prevent safe egress. He noted the fire marshal said the secondary roads meet "minimum standards" but that 85+ homes and 259+ residents cannot be safely evacuated if a wind-driven fire approaches from the west.

Fire Marshal (referenced but not present for direct testimony) required sprinkler systems in each house due to wildfire risk, not merely because the fire department is three miles away. Commissioner Herb noted fire safety is a personal concern given his 33-year background as deputy fire marshal and code enforcement officer.

Outcome: Fire safety concerns noted; applicant will coordinate with fire marshal on evacuation protocols, sprinkler systems, and access routes. Secondary egress and evacuation plan will be finalized during FDP phase. Wildfire risk study will be part of ongoing Arizona Game and Fish wildlife corridor review.

Pronghorn Antelope Habitat Squeeze

Bill Williams (author of Prescott E-News article on pronghorn habitat loss) testified that the herd has been progressively squeezed eastward by prior developments and is now concentrated on the east side of town (where this project is located). Experts told him that if the squeeze continues, zero pronghorn will remain in Prescott Valley within his lifetime. He requested the developer fund a wildlife corridor or habitat donation as a condition of approval, citing precedent from a prior Town Council decision (Vice Mayor approved conditional development payment to schools).

Outcome: Developer is working with Arizona Game and Fish on wildlife corridor studies; specific habitat mitigation will be determined during environmental review and final permitting. Not made a binding condition of ZMC/PDP approval but flagged as ongoing requirement (separate from zoning process).

State Preemption and Impact Fee Limitations

Commissioner Bordon noted that the state legislature has restricted cities and towns from charging many traditional development fees. While the town can require nexus-based improvements (like the Mesino extension, secondary egress, and water credits), it cannot charge impact fees to fund off-site regional improvements (like the SR-69 traffic signal). This limits the town's ability to condition development on broader infrastructure upgrades.

Outcome: Acknowledged; not a basis for denial. Applicant will fund roadway extension and secondary egress but is not required to fund signal installation (though applicant benefit exists because signal will be warranted by project traffic).

Duration

Other Notable Items

Approval of January 8, 2024 minutes passed unanimously (7-0). Introduction of new Commissioner Ted Herb (former deputy fire marshal, Washington state, 33 years fire service/code enforcement) and new town planners Brock San Johnson (principal planner) and John Jacobson (planner). No other substantive agenda items were heard.