Prescott Valley postpones 385-unit Villas, 90-room hotel; approves expanded marijuana dispensary rules
PRESCOTT VALLEY, ARIZONA — May 9, 2023

Prescott Valley postpones 385-unit Villas, 90-room hotel; approves expanded marijuana dispensary rules

Planning commission tabled two significant development projects (385-unit rental community and 90-room hotel) due to unresolved traffic, infrastructure, and neighborhood compatibility concerns, while approving relaxed marijuana dispensary performance standards.

Planning Commission Defers 385-Unit Rental Development and Four-Story Hotel Amid Traffic, Retaining Wall, and Neighborhood Safety Objections

The Prescott Valley Planning and Zoning Commission halted consideration of two significant projects this evening—a 385-unit rental community and a 90-room hotel—directing applicants to coordinate with town staff on unresolved traffic routing, site drainage, and neighborhood compatibility concerns. In a contrasting move, the commission unanimously approved a zoning code amendment modernizing marijuana establishment performance standards to attract dual-licensed medical-and-recreational dispensaries and boost town sales-tax revenue.

The meeting lasted approximately three hours and drew sustained public opposition from residents adjacent to the proposed hotel, with six residents testifying about dangerous intersection geometry, speeding on residential streets, and property-value concerns.

Key Speeches

On the Villas project (density and regional context):

"We are reducing traffic reducing trips by 68 percent so if it stays the way it is and it gets developed that way you the traffic will be much worse if we develop it the way we have proposed." — Mary Grace McNair, counsel for Villas at Prescott Valley

On neighborhood meeting procedure and developer intent:

"I appreciate so much the feedback that I heard for staff that is very helpful for us to know exactly what we should address to make sure that you know we have a project that can come through your committee successfully." — Mary Grace McNair

On water supply (state law exemption for commercial rental use):

"We have been assured by Wham which is the company that supplies water from effluent credits from the town of Paradise Valley that the water that we need in is available in the quantity that we need it." — Mary Grace McNair, Villas applicant response

On the Homewood Suites project (resident-advocate push-back):

"I think you need to work with the neighborhood a lot better than what you that what than what you have I think you need to address their primary concern that yes the fastest way going north is going through neighborhoods and they have a legitimate point there." — Matt Zurcher

Timeline — Villas at Prescott Valley (ZMC 23-001 & PDP 23-001)

Timeline — Homewood Suites Hotel (ZMC 23-002 & PDP 23-002)

Opposition — Homewood Suites Hotel

Number of speakers against: Six residents (David Cardi, Cindy Aubry, Dan Ness, Robert Galleon, Gary Browning, Jerry Falmer) plus two additional concerned attendees.

Main concerns:

  1. Forced through-neighborhood traffic routing: Glassford Hill left-turn restriction onto Frontage Road forces hotel guests seeking downtown/Civic Center access (Finley Toyota Center, Civic Center) to exit via Pleasant View Drive and travel through residential streets; residents report existing illegal cut-throughs and unsafe driving patterns.

  2. Dangerous Frontage Road S-curve geometry: Tight curve between State Route 69 and Glassford Hill has median restrictions, short left-turn stacking lane, blind sightlines at Pleasant View/Horizon intersections, and history of high-speed traffic (50–70 mph reported in 25 mph zone); pedestrians on narrow shoulder at acute risk.

  3. Existing left-turn congestion exacerbation: Left-turn from Glassford onto Frontage Road already backs up 10–15 minutes during peak times; hotel traffic on 365 days/year (vs. seasonal church activity) will compound delays and force more drivers through residential shortcuts.

  4. Pedestrian safety and walkability: Narrow Frontage Road sidewalk in S-curve section; residents walk early morning/evening; high-speed traffic and poor sightlines create jaywalking and vehicle-strike risks; sidewalk along Glassford Hill to IHOP (staff-proposed solution) still crosses dangerous curve.

  5. Property-value and neighborhood-character impact: Four-story building (equal to 90 guest-rooms) towers over two-story single-family homes in Links Lake Estates 2; transient hotel guest churn incompatible with stable residential community; residents report inability to view any window on two sides of home without seeing building; 38-year resident (Dan Ness) and recent buyer (Jerry Falmer, 6 months) both expressed regret about development intrusion.

  6. Speeding and enforcement gaps: Robert Galleon reports chronic speeding on Horizon (described as "racetrack"); stop-sign violations on Pleasant View/Horizon; prior calls to Prescott Valley Police Department show occasional officer presence insufficient to deter violations; hotel would add traffic and injury risk.

  7. Inadequate access design: Three access points (two from Frontage Road, one from Pleasant View) create multiple conflict points; fire-emergency-only gate on Horizon Lane unlikely to deter public use and insufficient to prevent through-neighborhood cut-throughs; applicant offered only signage and left-turn-only restrictions (not enforceable).

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups: None formally named; opposition spontaneous from residents of Pleasant View Drive, Horizon Lane, and Links Lake Estates 2 subdivision directly adjacent to site.

Support — Homewood Suites Hotel

Number of speakers in favor: Zero explicit support speakers; two speakers (Mark Steuben, Gloria Giles) raised separate concerns unrelated to hotel opposition.

Applicant's arguments in lieu of public supporters:

Opposition — Villas at Prescott Valley

Number of speakers against: One resident, Patricia Pretzel (Fairfax Road).

Main concerns:

  1. Water supply and future residential conversion liability: Arizona state law exempts commercial uses (rentals) from assured water-supply certification requirement; residential sales require proof of water rights. Applicant's reliance on Paradise Valley effluent credits is insufficient guarantee for future owner-occupied conversion; if conversion occurs, project will fail water proof requirement.

  2. Density and affordable-housing mismatch: 385 units on 33 acres = 11.7 units per acre; density calculation (61 feet × 61 feet per unit before roads/driveways) suggests insufficient lot sizes for stated unit count. Leases not disclosed; no confirmation units serve city employees, teachers, or families with children.

  3. Inadequate circulation planning: Proposed Jasper Parkway does not address primary traffic demand (Glassford Hill Road, State Route 69 access); Granville community already lacks proper circulation and sidewalk infrastructure. Town failed to plan adequate through-routes; new development adds load to overloaded 69 corridor.

  4. Concern for adjacent mature neighborhood: Proposed development across planned Jasper Parkway from established residential area with families and children; high-density "beehive" of unknown residents conflicts with neighborhood stability.

Most compelling argument:

Organized groups: None.

Support — Villas at Prescott Valley

Number of speakers in favor: Implicit support by Planning Commission member commentary and staff recommendation.

Applicant's arguments:

Commission member endorsement:

Commissioner Griffis stated: "I thought I was deaf or being a smear I want to personally assure you and I'm sure my fellow Commissioners feel the same that what has transpired tonight with a possible continuance does not at all reflect poorly on you and your team that you brought up here this evening we do appreciate it and I'm sure you know that there are many times when conversations take place like this that in the end it brings in a much better project not only for your developer but for the town of Prescott Valley so um that's what I'm looking forward to."

Project Details — Villas at Prescott Valley

Project Details — Homewood Suites Hotel

Vote Breakdown — Villas at Prescott Valley

Vote Breakdown — Homewood Suites Hotel

Vote Breakdown — ZOA 23-002 (Medical Marijuana Dispensary Performance Standards)

Outcome & Next Steps — Villas at Prescott Valley

Tabled to June 12, 2023. Applicant and staff to coordinate on the following stipulations prior to reappearance:

  1. Traffic impact mitigation: Revise Traffic Impact Analysis to provide specific recommendations for regional solutions (e.g., State Route 69 widening, turn-lane additions); clarify developer's proportional-share off-site improvement obligations.
  2. Retaining wall design and drainage: Re-engineer northwest portion of site with significant elevation changes; coordinate with town's existing trail system integration and detention facility.
  3. Trail connectivity to Glassford Hill: Confirm trail access points through property; address northwest corner parcel access if required.
  4. Fire marshal preliminary comments: Disclose and address fire marshal's preliminary conditional approvals prior to final development plan.
  5. Guest parking: Provide specific guest parking count; address off-street parking adequacy given adjacent apartment complexes experiencing on-street parking spillover.
  6. Water supply certification: Provide signed certification of water availability from Paradise Valley effluent-credit supplier; timing aligned with building-permit issuance (not pre-rezoning).
  7. Development agreement: Draft development agreement between applicant and town to lock in off-site improvements, trail connectivity, and certificate-of-occupancy conditions.

Next appearance: June 12, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission. Final approval path: Preliminary Development Plan approval by Commission → Final Development Plan and Zoning Map Change approval by Town Council (with all stipulations addressed).

Outcome & Next Steps — Homewood Suites Hotel

Tabled pending second neighborhood meeting and coordination with staff and traffic engineer. Applicant directed to:

  1. Host second neighborhood meeting with mandatory attendance by town staff and applicant's traffic engineer to address traffic routing, intersection safety, and access design.
  2. Address primary concern: Demonstrate how hotel guests seeking downtown/Civic Center access will not be forced through residential neighborhoods (Pleasant View Drive, Horizon Lane); propose traffic mitigation solutions beyond signage and left-turn-only encouragement.
  3. Frontage Road left-turn queuing: Traffic engineer to review existing left-turn median-cut geometry, short stacking lane, and signal proximity; propose solutions (e.g., lane restriping, signal timing, median reconfiguration) or explain adequacy of current design under increased hotel traffic.
  4. Pedestrian safety analysis: Address blind intersections (Sunset/Pleasant View, Horizon/Pleasant View), S-curve sightlines, speeding on residential streets, and jaywalking risk for hotel guests walking to IHOP/Fry's.
  5. Access point reduction / design: Discuss whether three access points (two Frontage Road, one Pleasant View) can be reduced or consolidated; confirm whether fire-emergency-only gate on Horizon Lane is actual constraint or discretionary design choice; consider implications of currently "gated" emergency access encouraging illegal through-neighborhood routing.
  6. Signage and enforcement: Design and propose signage (no right-turn from Pleasant View, left-turn-only, no cut-through to Frontage Road) with realistic assessment of effectiveness and enforcement.
  7. Community-use facility / meeting room: Follow up on commissioner's suggestion for on-site meeting/conference room with food service to address community's stated need for club luncheon venue.

No date certain set. Staff and applicant to propose continuance date after neighborhood meeting and traffic engineer coordination completed.

Final approval path: Second neighborhood meeting (date TBD) → revised PDP + traffic engineer recommendations → return to Planning Commission → if approved, Final Development Plan and Zoning Map Change to Town Council.

Outcome & Next Steps — ZOA 23-002 (Medical Marijuana Dispensary Performance Standards)

Approved 5–0. Amendment to town code effective upon Council ratification:

Next step: Approval by Town Council (no date stated in transcript).

Controversies & Context

Villas at Prescott Valley:

  1. Water supply and state-law exemption: Public commenter Patricia Pretzel raised concern that Arizona water law exempts commercial (rental) uses from assured water-supply certification, but residential conversion would require proof of water rights. Applicant's reliance on Paradise Valley effluent credits does not guarantee sufficient supply for future owner-occupied units. Applicant asserted availability but deferred specifics, citing town legal review and water-supply agreement. This tension—between marketing flexibility for future residential conversion and legal inability to convert without water proof—was not fully resolved in transcript.

  2. Density and traffic context: Commissioner Evans requested density data comparing Villas (11.7 units/acre, 385 units) to other approved/under-construction projects in Glassford area (Glassford Terraces at Glassford Hill, 290 units; Bungalows; View Apartments). Staff acknowledged Villas rezoning would "reduce the number of dwelling units" versus allowed-by-right development but did not provide comparative density figures. Applicant countered that 68% trip reduction versus allowed-by-right R1MH/C2 zoning justified rezoning. No aggregate area traffic impact analysis across all four projects was presented.

  3. Retaining wall engineering unknown: Significant topographical challenges on western portion of site require large retaining walls (described as potentially 20+ feet high, mirroring existing 20-foot wall across Market Street from Bungalows project). Applicant stated northwest re-engineering would be revised post-commission approval, contingent on staff coordination. Commission expressed frustration that retaining wall design and drainage were unresolved, questioning whether wall requirements would reduce allowable unit count. Design-level uncertainty at zoning/preliminary stage deferred to final development plan.

  4. Trail connectivity deferred: Glassford Hills recreational area and Summit Trail integration was priority for town staff and city manager. Applicant offered trail connectivity through detention pond area or northwest corner parcel, but specific routing and town parcel access remained unresolved.

Homewood Suites Hotel:

  1. Traffic routing and neighborhood bypass: Residents testified that Frontage Road left-turn geometry forces hotel guests to either (a) backtrack on State Route 69, or (b) exit via Pleasant View Drive and travel through residential neighborhoods to reach downtown/Civic Center. Applicant acknowledged but stated this is typical urban traffic pattern, deferring to traffic engineer analysis. Traffic Impact Analysis (352 daily trips, 28 AM peak, 33 PM peak) deemed adequate by staff, but no modeling of guest-routing behavior or trip-distribution through neighborhood streets was presented. Commission accepted that "fastest way" for guests is through neighborhood but tabled project rather than demand redesign, pending neighborhood meeting and traffic engineer input.

  2. Dangerous Frontage Road S-curve: Multiple residents (David Cardi, Cindy Aubry, Dan Ness) described median-restricted left-turn access, blind sightlines, high-speed traffic (50–70 mph), and pedestrian risk on narrow shoulder in S-curve between State Route 69 and Glassford Hill. Staff acknowledged concern but stated TIA did not recommend additional queuing; Commission directed traffic engineer to review adequacy of short stacking lane relative to signal proximity and curve geometry.

  3. Incompatibility with adjacent single-family residential: Links Lake Estates 2 (two-story homes) immediately north across Horizon Lane; four-story hotel creates height and character mismatch. Applicant noted Hampton Inn (same height, four stories) exists across Glassford Hill, but opponents distinguished between arterial-fronting hotel (acceptable) and neighborhood-facing hotel (incompatible). Commission expressed concern about property values and neighborhood stability.

  4. Access design and through-neighborhood routing: Applicant stated three access points (two Frontage Road, one Pleasant View; one fire-only Horizon Lane gate) balanced operational flexibility with neighborhood protection. Residents objected that fire gate would not deter public use and that two access points to parking (Frontage + Pleasant View) were unnecessary. Commission suggested reducing access points and tightening signage but deferred specifics to traffic engineer pending second neighborhood meeting.

  5. Pre-purchase disclosure failure: Jerry Falmer purchased home six months prior, spent $30K landscaping, and claimed realtor did not disclose development application. This raises question of whether pre-application notices (required by code) were adequately publicized to current property owners.

Medical Marijuana Dispensary Performance Standards (ZOA 23-002):

  1. Sales-tax revenue motivation: Commissioner Rutherford asked directly whether amendment was intended to increase sales-tax revenue and make town's facilities competitive with neighbors. Staff acknowledged projections of "significant" sales-tax revenue (current one dispensary in county island; taxes flow to county, not town). Rutherford expressed skepticism, noting social-services costs will "increase exponentially," but deferred to voter approval of Proposition 207 statewide.

  2. State preemption and dual-licensing: Amendment was triggered by applicant interest in dual-licensed (medical + recreational) facility; state law requires towns to allow dual-licensees if they allow medical marijuana; town code was "very tight" relative to Prescott, Cottonwood, Flagstaff, and other neighbors. Amendment reflects minimum compliance posture to remain competitive while maintaining some local restrictions (hours 7 a.m.–10 p.m., still stricter than some neighbors).

  3. Elimination of square-footage caps: Prior code capped facility and storage-area square footage; new code removes caps entirely. Staff noted this aligns with state law and neighboring communities and addressed applicant request.

Duration