Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears 2025 General Plan update; staff asks council to submit questions for March review
Summary
Staff and the general‑plan committee presented a redesigned, statute‑required 2025 General Plan draft and requested council feedback; councilmembers asked for more time and suggested additional meetings before final ballot decisions.
City staff and the 11‑member General Plan Committee presented the draft update to Prescott’s 2025 General Plan at the Feb. 25 meeting and asked councilmembers to submit questions and requested clarifications by email in advance of the March 11 packet.
Community planner Tammy DeWitt summarized the multi‑year process that began in 2022 and produced a redesigned plan organized around five livability goals: resiliency and sustainability; community connected (regional coordination); great places and neighborhoods; economic competitiveness and prosperity; and community quality. The draft reorganizes statutory elements required by Arizona Revised Statutes (land use, circulation, open space, water resources, etc.) and separates elements such as housing and recreation for clarity.
DeWitt emphasized outreach the project team conducted — including department presentations, two open houses, a 60‑day public comment period and an online interactive comment room — and said staff had incorporated public input from those efforts. The draft also includes a future land‑use map and a revised major‑plan‑amendment threshold intended to focus review on proposals with substantial neighborhood impacts.
Councilmembers asked about the land‑use map and implications for annexation and zoning; DeWitt explained the general‑plan land‑use map does not automatically change zoning upon annexation and said state law requires municipalities to apply zoning equivalency on annexation. Councilmembers also asked about neighborhood plan expirations and suggested staff propose a process to inventory and, if appropriate, set review or expiration timelines for older neighborhood or community plans; staff said such a policy could be developed.
Several councilmembers said they would prefer more time to review the document and recommended additional focused meetings to work through detailed questions — particularly on topics such as airport-related text, land‑use maps, and neighborhood plans — before staff brings final ballot language forward. Staff acknowledged ballot-packet timing and said council could opt for the August or November ballot if additional time were required.
DeWitt asked council to email chapter‑specific questions so staff can gather department responses and present them at the March 11 meeting; councilmembers indicated they would send comments and may request additional workshop time.
—
