Prescott Valley charts zoning code rewrite enabling smaller lots, affordable housing pathways

Prescott Valley Charts Comprehensive Zoning Code Rewrite to Reduce Developer PAD Reliance and Advance Attainable Housing

During a joint study session on September 5, 2024, the Town of Prescott Valley's Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council heard an extensive progress briefing on the multi-year Chapter 13 zoning code rewrite. Land-use attorney Frank Cassidy presented major structural reforms designed to improve code readability, process efficiency, and attainable housing options—while requesting specific feedback on contested items including lot-size standards, garage requirements, ADU provisions, and infill-overlay zoning concepts.

No formal vote was taken; the session functioned as a feedback mechanism. Cassidy committed to incorporating comments and returning with a revised draft in late 2024 or early 2025, paired with Chapter 14 updates on subdivisions and lot splits.

Key Speeches

"Our land use attorney Frank Cassidy is going to cover with you... a few more things, quite a few more things." — Town Manager, introducing the agenda item

"The goals mainly [are] readability, simplifying it, making it so that when you read the code you can find things. We've put instead of having many pages of lists of uses, you'll find those in tables now... we've tried to pursue some attainable housing goals." — Frank Cassidy, Counsel describing code modernization objectives

"I'm not exactly sure if what you're presenting will go into the zoning code." — Vice Mayor Hunt, on home of my own implementation

"I just feel if say for example someone wanted to come in and buy half of KD Circle and decided to put stick built structures on that street that would only benefit the entire unit, and I don't think you would want to hold that against someone because of what their income is. I think it would be beneficial for all the residents." — Council Member Dickinson, objecting to income-level affordability thresholds in the home of my own program

"Yes, you can [place a time restriction on development]. You expressly can do that. Um, I've been at communities that do it routinely." — Frank Cassidy, responding to Commissioner Ranken on development time-limit provisions

"All of the requirements, the building code requirements would apply to the ADU that being said, there are places where people have used shipping containers and have converted them meeting the current building codes." — Frank Cassidy, on ADU construction standards and materials flexibility

Timeline

• Cassidy presentation: ~90 minutes covering goals, key changes, interim discussions, and items previously discussed but now excluded
• Staff recommendation: Town Manager (name not stated) acknowledged Cassidy's work and introduced the item
• Public comment: None recorded; meeting was a closed study session between elected and appointed officials
• Council and Commission discussion: Extensive. Mayor Gumz, Vice Mayor Hunt, Council Members Dickinson, Lea, Schoemer, and Michael Greer each provided detailed feedback. Chair Griffis and Vice Chair Evans raised clarifications. Commissioners Ranken, Witherford, Bordon, Laney, and Herb posed questions. Discussion lasted approximately 2.5 hours.
• Outcome: Study session closed with commitment to revise and return; no vote taken

Opposition & Concerns

No formal "opposition" was expressed, as this was a staff presentation and feedback session rather than a development proposal. However, specific concerns and requests for revision emerged:

1. Infill Incentive Overlay Zone: Staff objected to the floating-zone concept; concerns included lack of affordability tie, infrastructure capacity questions, and compatibility impacts with surrounding uses. Council Members Dickinson and Vice Mayor Hunt indicated conditional interest (with clearer vision statements and optional uptake), but the item was excluded from the August 2 draft pending further definition.

2. Garage and Storage Requirements: Initial hesitation from none; Council Member Hunt and Schoemer supported elimination. Vice Mayor noted renter choice should guide policy, not mandates.

3. ADU Exclusion: Council Members Dickinson and Lea expressed concern that excluding ADUs entirely leaves the town vulnerable to future state mandate and misses market opportunity. Commissioner Herb noted market demand from teachers and others for smaller units. Cassidy recommended continued exclusion pending legislative clarification, but sentiment leaned toward reconsidering ADUs on larger lots (0.5+ acres, 10,000+ sq ft).

4. Factory-Built vs. Manufactured Housing Definition: Vice Chair Evans raised concern that while factory-built homes (state-code compliant) are permitted in residential zones, manufactured homes (HUD-standard) remain restricted to MH zones. Noted that Southwest Homes showroom was just approved but many products may not be placeable on standard Prescott Valley lots. Requested further review of definitions and possible California-style design-restriction model allowing manufactured housing in traditional residential zones.

5. Lot-Size Density Optics: Chair Griffis worried about public perception that reducing minimum lots to 5,000–6,000 sq ft increases density and creates messaging problems. Cassidy clarified minimal existing vacancy below density-10; changes would be prospective through rezoning process and existing legal nonconforming lots already smaller than 10,000 sq ft in older areas.

6. Income-Level Affordability Triggers: Council Member Dickinson objected to inclusion of 30%–120% affordability thresholds in home of my own program. Requested removal; noted county does not impose income tests and noted that stick-built improvements to any lot benefit entire neighborhood regardless of buyer income.

7. Manufactured Housing in Planned Communities: Commissioner Herb sought clarification on whether state ADU law applies within PAD covenants. Cassidy confirmed state law cannot override restrictive covenants; impact would be minimal in master-planned communities.

Support

Council and Commission consensus strongly supported the major pillars of the rewrite:

1. Planned Area Development Flexibility: Mayor Gumz and Vice Mayor Hunt endorsed allowing PAD as primary zoning and lowering the mandatory threshold from 40 acres to optional for 4–5 acres. Vice Mayor Hunt noted developers currently over-rely on PADs for standard-sized homes and welcomed standard rezoning pathway with clear preliminary development plan requirements.

2. Smaller Lot Standards (5,000–8,000 sq ft): Wide endorsement from Mayor, Vice Mayor Hunt, Chair Griffis, and Council Members. Vice Mayor noted existing smaller-lot developments in town (from PADs and non-conforming lots) and saw revision as leveling the field. Cassidy clarified minimal existing impact; primarily prospective through rezoning.

3. Home of My Own Program: Strong support across Council and Commission. Mayor Gumz praised Yavapai County's pre-approved plans and noted logic of allowing them on smaller MH lots and non-conforming parcels. Council Member Dickinson applauded the town for bringing it forward. Unanimous agreement to remove income-level affordability thresholds and allow any stick-built structure without income restrictions.

4. Conditional Use Permit Streamlining: Vice Mayor Hunt welcomed shift from Board of Adjustment to Zoning Administrator with appeal to Council, citing "issues with use permits going to board of adjustments because they're not [an] elected body." Suggested Commission review as alternative; Cassidy indicated openness but recommended keeping Zoning Administrator in draft.

5. Special Use Permit for Telecom, Solar, and Wind Turbines: General acceptance. Vice Mayor Hunt requested addition of mines to the SUP category; Cassidy confirmed addition to feedback list.

6. Elimination of Garage and Storage Requirements: Mayor Gumz noted other Arizona communities do not impose storage requirements, and Prescott Valley climate differs from Phoenix. Vice Mayor Hunt emphasized renter choice over mandates. Council Members Schoemer and Lea agreed. Vice Mayor noted developers still build garages because market demands them; mandatory requirement unneeded.

7. Multifamily Housing in Commercial Zones: Vice Mayor Hunt supported conditional use permit option for attainable housing but requested modification requiring commercial component (retail below, apartments above) to preserve jobs and sales tax revenue. Cassidy offered to consider alternative of requiring SUP instead of CUP.

8. Code Modernization Generally: Council Member Lea praised Cassidy's attention to detail and patience in explaining provisions over multiple sessions. Mayor and Council expressed appreciation for improved readability, table-based use lists, consolidated sections (e.g., marijuana provisions), and efficiency gains.

Project Details

Case Number / Item: Chapter 13 Zoning Code Rewrite — Joint Study Session (September 5, 2024)

Applicant / Developer: Town of Prescott Valley (municipality-initiated rewrite via consultant)

Attorney: Frank Cassidy (land-use counsel); prior updates by John Paladini (most recent update: January 2024, community-residence definition clarification)

Location / Jurisdiction: Town of Prescott Valley, Arizona

Current Status: Comprehensive rewrite in progress. August 2, 2024 draft shared with Council and Commission. Updated major-changes table in development.

Proposed Changes (Major):

• PAD Structure: Convert from mandatory 40-acre threshold overlay to optional primary zoning for projects 4–5 acres and larger. Retain preliminary development plan terminology (not final) for entitlements.

• Residential Lot Sizes: Introduce table allowing 5,000–8,000 sq ft lots (vs. current 10,000 sq ft minimum) for density designations 5–8, with flexible width/length ratios (64% of full size instead of 100×100 requirement).

• Home of My Own Program: New section, "Affordable Redevelopment of Existing Small Residential Lots," permitting stick-built homes using Yavapai County pre-approved plans on any legal or legal nonconforming lot, including MH-zoned lots. No income-level restrictions.

• Conditional Use Permits (CUP): Shift authority from Board of Adjustment to Zoning Administrator (with 300-foot notice); appeal to Council. Intended to expedite minor uses while maintaining public participation and elected oversight.

• Special Use Permits (SUP): Commission recommendation + Council hearing for telecommunications facilities, utility-scale solar, wind turbines, and (per Vice Mayor Hunt's suggestion) mines.

• Garage and Storage Requirements: Proposed elimination of mandatory garage (or 100 sq ft enclosed storage for single-family) and 50 sq ft storage for apartments. Rationale: Prescott Valley climate and prevalence of self-storage facilities reduce necessity.

• Multifamily in Commercial Zones: Conditional use permit option for multifamily housing in commercial zones as attainable housing incentive; current code essentially prohibits residential in commercial/industrial zones.

• Zoning Use Lists: Convert text-based lists to tables for improved readability.

• Particular Uses Section: Consolidate special uses and uses with special rules (e.g., marijuana, telecom) into dedicated article for easier reference.

• Terminology Clarifications: "Preliminary development plan" (zoning entitlements shown to council) vs. "final development plan" (engineering-level document for staff review, no council approval required).

Items Discussed But Excluded from August 2 Draft:

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Excluded pending state legislative clarity. HB 2720 mandates ADUs for municipalities over 75,000 population with specific restrictions on parking, appearance, and short-term rentals. Prescott Valley (~67,000) is not mandated but could allow them. Cassidy recommends exclusion; Council Members Dickinson and Lea expressed interest in revisiting for larger lots (0.5+ acres, 10,000+ sq ft). Commissioner Herb noted market demand. Likely to be revisited.

• Infill Incentive Overlay Zone: Floating zone (form-based) concept borrowed from City of Tucson, allowing high-density mixed use in designated areas. Staff objected due to lack of affordability component, infrastructure concerns, and compatibility impacts. Council Member Dickinson expressed interest with clearer vision statement; Vice Mayor Hunt requested consideration as optional overlay with geographic and time-limit specificity.

• Factory-Built vs. Manufactured Housing: Vice Chair Evans requested further review of definitions and possible adoption of design-restriction model (California model) allowing HUD-standard manufactured housing in residential zones.

• Substantial Change / Design Review: Vice Chair Evans raised concern about significant design changes to approved projects not triggering zoning review if unit count stays within allocation. Cassidy recommended explicit preliminary development plan approval language tying projects to presented plans to prevent major design pivots.

Other Considerations:

• Zoning Entitlement Time Restrictions: Commissioner Ranken asked whether time limits (e.g., 5-year development requirement) can be placed on approved rezoning with automatic revocation if unmet. Cassidy confirmed state law allows time restrictions but requires public process for revocation; some communities use routinely, others decline.

• Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Conservation: Town Manager Davidson raised question about ensuring habitat preservation and connectivity when large tracts are subdivided. Cassidy explained PAD/PUD process allows negotiation of density increases on buildable portions if habitat reserved (e.g., 100 units on 100 acres → 125 units on 50 acres with 50 acres habitat preservation).

• Adaptive Reuse Statute: Council Member Dickinson inquired about state adaptive reuse law allowing conversion of underperforming commercial to residential/mixed-use with 10% affordable housing requirement. Not mandatory for Prescott Valley but available if Council interested; Cassidy offered to draft provision.

• Reasonable Time for Board of Adjustment Appeals: Item 16 on feedback list. Cassidy explained state law mandates "reasonable time" (rather than 30 days) for board appeals to allow downstream neighbors to discover interpretation decisions when construction begins; can extend to years after zoning administrator opinion issued.

Vote Breakdown

No formal vote was taken. This was a study session. Cassidy will incorporate feedback and return with revised draft.

Outcome & Next Steps

Immediate: Cassidy to compile feedback from all Council members, Commission members, and staff. Areas requiring revision include:

1. Clarity of preliminary vs. final development plan language in PAD section
2. Removal of 30%–120% affordability income thresholds from home of my own program
3. Further review of factory-built vs. manufactured housing definitions and possible California-style design-restriction model
4. Consideration of multifamily in commercial zones: CUP vs. SUP; possible requirement for commercial component (retail below, apartments above) to preserve jobs and sales tax
5. CUP authority: confirmation of Zoning Administrator + Council appeal, or alternative routing to Commission
6. ADU reconsideration: timeline, lot-size thresholds, and compatibility with state legislation
7. Infill incentive overlay zone: clearer vision statement, specific geographic targets, time limits, affordability tie (if Council interested)
8. Addition of mines to SUP category
9. Clarification of landscape, open space, and common-area terminology
10. Verification of substantial-design-change standards and preliminary development plan approval language

Timeline: Cassidy indicated revised draft could return "late this year or early next year." Potential for follow-up joint study session within a couple of months, possibly paired with Chapter 14 (subdivisions/lot splits) updates.

Public Process: Revised draft(s) will be shared with Council and Commission for review; adoption process to follow study session feedback loop.

Controversies & Context

State Preemption and ADU Legislation: The exclusion of ADUs from the rewrite reflects tension between municipal autonomy and state mandate. HB 2720, enacted in 2023 or 2024 (exact year not specified in transcript), mandates ADUs for cities over 75,000 population but applies restrictive rules: no additional parking required, no appearance restrictions, no covenant bans on short-term rentals (only owner-occupancy requirement if ADU is rented short-term). Prescott Valley, below the 75,000 threshold, is not mandated but could adopt voluntarily. Cassidy's wait-and-see stance (recommending exclusion pending future legislative tinkering) reflects pragmatism: if state expands the mandate downward, the town avoids early adoption costs; if state defers, the town retains discretion. Council Members Dickinson and Lea's push for ADU reconsideration signals growing political pressure to enable affordable-housing options ahead of mandate.

Developer Reliance on PADs: The rewrite's core motivation is reducing unnecessary developer reliance on Planned Area Development zoning. Cassidy explicitly stated that "developers pretty much all do the pads" in Prescott Valley because standard zoning carries a 10,000 sq ft minimum lot size, but "standard size homes in all the big cities... are certainly on lots no bigger than 7,000 square feet and probably even smaller." This creates an administrative burden: one PAD per project means dozens of project-specific zoning ordinances in the town code, complicating staff administration and potentially creating conflicts or inconsistencies. Allowing standard zoning with 5,000–8,000 sq ft lot options reduces the need for PAD entitlements and streamlines the rezoning process.

Attainable Housing and Market Mismatch: The home of my own program, supported unanimously, represents an attempt to unlock infill potential in older areas—particularly MH-zoned lots and small legal nonconforming parcels. Yavapai County's pre-approved plans are cost-effective and address the "garage-fitting" problem on narrow lots (42 feet wide, typical in older areas). However, Council Member Dickinson's insistence on removing income-level thresholds (30%–120% affordability) reflects a broader philosophical shift: affordability is achieved through design and land efficiency, not income screening. This aligns with market-rate accessory-housing trends (ADUs, guest houses, duplex conversions) and reduces administrative burden.

Process Efficiency vs. Discretionary Review: Cassidy's distinction between ministerial (objective, staff-administered) and discretionary (Commission/Council) review surfaced in discussion of site plan review, substantial design changes, and CUP routing. Vice Chair Evans raised concern that a significantly redesigned apartment complex (classical aesthetic → modern) was approved without zoning review, even though unit count remained under allocation. Cassidy acknowledged this as a gap in traditional Euclidean zoning and recommended explicit preliminary development plan approval language tying future modifications back to the presented plans. This reflects a broader tension: does the town want to lock developers into presented designs (reducing nimbleness, potentially blocking improvements) or retain discretion (opening door to substantially different built products)?

Infill and Form-Based Zoning: The decision to exclude Cassidy's infill incentive overlay reflects wariness of form-based zoning and mixed-use intensification without affordability guarantees or infrastructure pre-planning. Staff concerns (affordability gap, infrastructure limits, compatibility) aligned with fiscal conservatism and existing land-use conflicts. Vice Mayor Hunt and Council Member Dickinson's conditional interest—if paired with clearer vision statements and geographic specificity—suggests the concept is not dead but requires more tailored scope (e.g., downtown areas with existing infrastructure rather than town-wide floating zone).

Manufactured vs. Factory-Built Housing: Vice Chair Evans' push for reconsideration of manufactured-housing restrictions reflects market reality: Southwest Homes showroom (recently approved) sells HUD-standard units that may not meet definition of "factory-built" (state-code compliant). States and communities vary widely: California, for example, allows manufactured housing in residential zones if design restrictions are met (exterior appearance, etc.). Prescott Valley's current code maintains a strict hierarchy (manufactured housing → MH zones only; factory-built → residential zones), creating market friction. Cassidy's willingness to "reconsider" signals openness to aligning zoning definitions with actual product availability and market demand.

Duration

• This item: Approximately 3 hours (study session began at ~6:30 PM per call to order, ended at approximately 9:30 PM based on extended discussion)
• Total meeting: Joint study session; only one item on agenda (Chapter 13 zoning code rewrite update)

---

Other Notable Items

Adaptive Reuse Statute Inquiry: Council Member Dickinson asked whether Prescott Valley should proactively adopt an adaptive-reuse ordinance (allowing conversion of underperforming commercial properties to multifamily housing with 10% affordability mandate). Cassidy confirmed state statute exists (not mandatory for cities under 75,000 population) and offered to draft if Council interested. No formal direction given, but Dickinson indicated curiosity about available underused commercial properties.

Reasonable-Time Appeal Standard for Board of Adjustment: Cassidy explained that Item 16 (replacing 30-day appeal deadline with "reasonable time") addresses state law flexibility; allows downstream neighbors to challenge zoning administrator interpretations discovered months or years later (e.g., at construction phase). Vice Mayor Hunt inquired whether "reasonable time" could be as short as 29 days; Cassidy recommended keeping language flexible per state statute rather than imposing new short deadline.