Prescott council narrows future land-use map; staff to remove West Outer Loop commercial node

Prescott City Council members on June 12 directed staff to revise the draft 2025 General Plan future land-use map, removing a proposed commercial node along West Outer Loop Road while retaining a commercial/employment node near Highway 89 and adjusting several residential-density designations.

Counsel said the changes reflect council discussion from earlier meetings and new on-the-ground observations. Chelsea Walton, the city’s community development director, told the council the map updates incorporate committee, planning commission and public input and that staff will fold approved language into the “pretty” format for a June 24 voting meeting.

The council debated two west-side issues in particular: a commercial node on West Outer Loop Road and six map sections west of the Prescott airport-specific area plan boundary. Walton said staff’s review of adjacent jurisdictions and regional planning documents showed no pending projects or roadway connections that would support a West Outer Loop commercial node. Walton recommended removing that node from the final map.

Several councilmembers pressed different approaches. Councilwoman Freeworth said she visited the western area and described it as “country… gorgeous… undeveloped,” and said she would not support including the area in the city plan now. Councilman Grady and Councilwoman Freeworth both backed stopping the plan boundary at the airport-specific area planning (ASAP) line. Councilman Montoya asked whether removing sections from the plan would prevent so-called “wildcat” subdivisions; Walton and other staff said inclusion in the plan does not itself prevent development in the county. “If it’s annexed, then we have control over what happens there,” Walton said.

Water-supply and aquifer risks figured prominently in the discussion. A city water-staff speaker warned council that development outside city limits could rely on exempt wells and “become really, really abusive water users,” adding that such development could “put in giant football fields of lawns and do a lot of damage to our aquifer.” The speaker noted the Arizona Department of Water Resources controls exempt wells and that the city lacks unilateral control over development beyond its service contracts.

On the east side and airport-area lands, councilmembers and staff agreed to leave areas inside the airport-specific area planning boundary on the map as planning designations rather than as annexation commitments. Walton said those designations give the city “a little bit of a voice” in future planning even if they do not confer annexation authority. Council members clarified repeatedly that a general-plan designation is not the same as annexation; staff reminded the council that annexation requires a separate, owner-initiated statutory process.

Deepwell Ranch parcels on the northwest boundary of the ASAP were also discussed. Walton said the property owner asked to change several sections from very-low density to low-to-medium density. Low-to-medium density was described in staff material as 2–7 dwelling units per acre; state law requires the plan allow at least 1 dwelling unit per acre. Walton reported that staff and legal review had no objection to adding a sentence to the plan text that states the statutory minimum of one dwelling unit per acre will be preserved.

Outcome and next steps: staff recorded council direction to remove the West Outer Loop commercial node, retain the Highway 89 commercial/employment node, classify most ASAP interior areas as low-to-medium density (2–7 du/acre) while reserving airport-approach-adjacent areas for lower density where the airport director requests it, and to incorporate the Deepwell Ranch density request with a statutory-minimum sentence. Council reached these changes by consensus rather than by formal vote; Walton said staff will update the map and the packet for the June 24 voting meeting.

Why this matters: the future land-use map guides long-range planning, water modeling and which areas the city will prioritize for infrastructure, intergovernmental coordination and future annexation negotiations. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized that including land in the general plan gives the city a “voice” but does not by itself prevent county development or effect annexation.

What councilmembers said (selected): “This document reflects the input from members of the general plan committee, members of the public, members of the planning and zoning commission,” Chelsea Walton said in the presentation. A water staff member warned that unchecked county development using exempt wells could “do a lot of damage to our aquifer.” Councilwoman Freeworth said after visiting the western area that she would not support including land west of the airport boundary in the plan now.

Staff and public process: Walton told the council that staff will incorporate council direction into the draft and return a formatted packet for council consideration at the June 24 voting meeting. The mayor noted that an ultimate adoption will later require five votes and that interim decisions can move forward on a four-vote consensus.

For the public: the council said that including land in the future land-use map is intended to provide planning input and does not equal annexation; annexation remains a separate, owner-driven statutory process.

Clarifying details: staff described low-to-medium density as 2–7 dwelling units per acre and noted state statute requires allowing at least 1 dwelling unit per acre. Council received 27 public comment cards for the meeting overall and directed staff to return the revised map in the June 24 packet.

What remains unresolved: precise boundaries for airport-approach low-density areas (the airport director signaled input would be required) and the county’s ongoing zoning work for overlapping areas. Staff said the county is updating zoning and subdivision regulations and the city will coordinate with county stakeholders.

Ending note: Walton said staff will prepare map edits and text changes for the June 24 voting agenda; councilmembers repeatedly stressed the distinction between planning (giving the city a voice) and annexation (a separate legal process).