Lacey planning staff propose rubric to winnow 48 rezone requests during comp‑plan update

Staff members briefed the Lacey Planning Commission on March 12 on a new prioritization rubric to evaluate 48 rezone requests submitted as part of the city's comprehensive plan update.

The rubric is intended to create two buckets: locations to carry through the 2025 comprehensive‑plan process and locations to defer to 2026 or later because of staff capacity, complexity or the need for more detailed review. "We actually got 48 different requests," said Staff member (name not specified), summarizing the volume of submissions that exceeded the usual two to three applications per year.

The commission heard that staff created a two‑stage screen. The first stage is a pass/fail set of high‑level tests: the parcel must be inside city limits, not have active code or permit violations, and have a written request from the property owner (not only a third‑party commenter). The second stage applies a scoring rubric across several criteria, including remaining undeveloped land for the existing zone, whether the site is effectively unusable under its current designation, adjacent‑use consistency, presence of critical areas, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and transportation/infrastructure access.

Staff told commissioners the rubric is intentionally high level at this stage because many submissions overlap or cover multiple parcels and because staff must make pragmatic decisions about how many applications to advance this year. "The decisions that we make aren't going to necessarily mean that, yes, this rezone is going to take place or not. It's just whether or not it's going to take place as part of the comprehensive‑plan process," the Staff member said.

Commissioners asked about owner consent, consistency checks and how the rubric will be applied. Staff said applicant contact information is captured in the submission portal and staff will reach out to confirm owner interest before advancing a request. Staff also said they plan to run example properties through the rubric and refine scoring thresholds; there are no fixed percentage cutoffs in the draft and technical analysis by staff will be required for any site carried forward.

Several discussion points commissioners raised could affect scores: whether a parcel's rezoning would reduce overall capacity of a given use across the city; spot‑rezoning concerns (which staff noted are generally not permissible and would score poorly); critical‑area overlays (wetlands, flood zones, steep slopes, wellhead protection) that require more detailed review; and infrastructure constraints where utilities or access would need extension.

Staff told the commission that even if a proposal is not advanced this year, the city can consider land‑use map amendments that would support a future rezoning application. Staff also said applicants not selected for 2025 can reapply through the standard process in later cycles.

Next steps: staff will finalize the rubric, run the 48 submissions through it, contact property owners and return to the Planning Commission in a future meeting to present scored results and a recommended list to include in the 2025 comprehensive‑plan work program.

Ending: Commissioners were clear that the rubric should be defensible and that staff will need to fine‑tune scoring definitions and thresholds after running sample sites, but the commission did not vote on any rezoning merits at the March 12 meeting.