Lacey planning commission reviews 30 rezone requests; staff recommends 14 for 2025 docketing

Lacey — City planning staff on April 9 told the Planning Commission they received 30 unique rezone areas during the 2025 comprehensive‑plan amendment submittal period and have used a scoring rubric to prioritize which requests the city can reasonably review during this update cycle.

Senior planner Sean Shepherd said the submissions were consolidated where multiple filings addressed the same area, leaving 30 unique locations. “We had 30 unique areas identified,” Shepherd told the commission. Staff said they applied a simplified rubric that graded items on consistency with the comprehensive plan, adjacency, infrastructure and other factors; the rubric placed 14 locations in a top band that staff said made them strong candidates for docketing in 2025.

Why it matters: The comprehensive‑plan docket determines which map and zoning changes the city will study and, potentially, recommend to the City Council. Docketing is a capacity issue: staff and commission time is required to analyze environmental impacts, engage neighbors and hold hearings. Shepherd told commissioners the top group were often “cleanup” changes — for example, city‑owned sites whose existing uses do not match their mapped designations — while other items will require deeper review.

Examples and details

- Alder Street rezone request: During the public comment period, David Toyer of Toyer Strategic Advisors and property owner Victor Versys spoke in favor of a rezone request for 1302 Alder Street. Toyer said the site “never should have been zoned open space institutional to begin with” and asked the commission to reconsider the parcel’s scoring so it could move through the comprehensive‑plan update this year. The owner told the commission he had been pursuing a rezone for years and said, “we're very interested in getting it done finally.”

- Pacific Avenue pocket: Staff described a six‑parcel low‑density residential pocket east of Carpenter Road and near Dakota Apartments; an applicant askedStaff to move those parcels to a nearby mixed‑use central business district zone (CBD5) to allow higher density consistent with nearby development. Planning staff recommended treating the tied parcels as a group to avoid creating small islands of inconsistent zoning.

- Historic‑neighborhood and commercial cleanups: Several items that scored highly in staff’s rubric were administrative cleanups and consolidations, such as making mapped designations reflect built conditions along certain corridors and removing redundant zone labels. Shepherd said those “no‑brainers” are easier to advance because they align with existing development and city priorities.

Capacity and next steps

Staff repeatedly emphasized capacity constraints. Shepherd noted that historically the city handles about one to two standalone rezone docket items per year, and the commission and council must have time to review complex proposals. He told commissioners the scoring bands are intended to separate items that could be taken forward quickly from those that will need extended analysis.

Commissioner reactions and process questions

Commissioners and the public sought clarification on timing, notification and impacts for property owners. Shepherd and other staff said they would contact property owners when a site is formally advanced for docketing and that carrying a property on the inventory does not itself change what a landowner may do until a formal rezoning process occurs. Commissioners urged staff to return with a firm prioritized list for the commission’s next meeting and to maintain outreach so applicants know whether their request will be addressed in 2025 or deferred to a later cycle.

Ending

Staff said they will refine the priority list, circulate the updated map and follow up with commissioners and owners; the commission asked staff to return with the refined docket at the next meeting so members can confirm which rezones will be advanced for the 2025 comprehensive‑plan update.