Planning commission reviews draft 2025 general plan; public raises concerns on scope, dark‑sky language and statutory compliance

City planning staff and members of the citizen general-plan committee presented the draft 2025 Prescott general plan (GPA22-001) to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 9, outlining a three-year process of public outreach and recommended changes to the city’s future land-use map.

Tammy DeWitt, community planner, said the update began in 2022 with census analysis and public outreach, included an 11‑member citizen review committee, an extended 60‑day public comment period and two open houses. The draft groups required plan elements into five themes staff described as resiliency and sustainability, community connected, great places and neighborhoods, economic competitiveness and prosperity, and community quality.

DeWitt told the commission the draft was adjusted to comply with state statute (Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-461.06) after staff identified land‑use categories that could conflict with state limits on designating private or state trust land as open space. Staff said the draft removes a “very low density” category in places and reclassifies some areas as low-to-medium density to ensure statutory compliance.

Public commenters and several commissioners raised questions about other plan content, implementation and clarity. Multiple speakers asked for a short, plain‑language summary (a “cliff‑notes” version) that could make the plan easier for council members and voters to understand. DeWitt said staff and consultants plan to produce a condensed summary if and after the council adopts the draft for placement on a ballot.

Several speakers objected to specific policy proposals or to content they said is either legally sensitive or not directly relevant to a land‑use plan. Linda Nichols, a long‑time resident, said parts of the document were out of date and listed examples where statistics and program names appeared stale; she recommended keeping the plan at a higher, less transitory level and maintaining version control.

Anne Breckwold urged caution before enshrining nondiscrimination advocacy language in a municipal planning document, saying it could create the perception that the city is an advocate in ways that raise legal and liability questions. Ralph Hess, a member of the general-plan committee, suggested staff and the city attorney review the statute’s text to confirm whether the map changes staff proposed are necessary or reflect a conservative reading of state law; he also proposed a simple change to preserve a very-low-density category if the statutory interpretation allows it.

Environmental and programmatic items also drew comment. Several speakers asked about the plan’s inclusion of dark‑sky language and a Tree City USA objective. Tammy DeWitt said dark‑sky goals reflect survey results and interest from the community and economic development inquiries; she noted that extending dark‑sky standards to single‑family residential areas would require public education and code amendments. Public Works staff indicated the city already meets some Tree City USA criteria and is pursuing that designation.

Speakers also questioned sections they said rely on older information, particularly for water resources and emergency services. DeWitt acknowledged the plan is a 30,000‑foot view and said detailed, department‑level plans and master plans would address technical updates; she and George Whirling, planning manager, said Community Development will track goals and strategies and coordinate implementation with department heads.

The commission did not take a formal vote on the general plan. Staff asked commissioners to read the draft, submit written questions and send suggested edits before the commission’s Jan. 30 meeting, which will be held at the Prescott Centennial Center as required by state law for a remote-location meeting. Staff said they will collect commissioners’ comments in a spreadsheet and include responses in the next packet so the public can review them.

Speakers urged the commission and staff to update dated data, clarify the nondiscrimination language and ensure statutory compliance for land‑use categories before the document advances to City Council and, if necessary, a public referendum.