Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lacey staff present three future land‑use alternatives, recommend separate future land‑use map to speed rezones
Summary
Planning staff and commissioners presented three draft future land‑use maps — a no‑change alternative, a residential‑prioritized alternative and a commercial‑prioritized alternative — and proposed separating the future land‑use map from the zoning map to streamline rezoning and respond to new state mandates on housing and vehicle‑miles‑traveled.
At a Feb. 11 work session, City of Lacey planning staff and the Planning Commission presented three draft future land‑use alternatives intended to guide the city's 20‑year comprehensive plan update: a current‑conditions (no‑change) map, a residential‑focused alternative and a commercial‑focused alternative.
Autumn Shepherd, senior planner, said the alternatives are intended to prompt public discussion and that a likely outcome will be a blend of elements from all three. Shepherd said the comprehensive plan covers a 20‑year horizon and that the land‑use element must ensure sufficient land is allocated for housing, jobs and public uses within the city and the urban growth area.
Ryan Andrews, Community Planning Manager, summarized public feedback from a city survey and site‑pin heat maps that showed community interest in dense residential and mixed‑use development around Woodland District, South Sound Center and the Cabela's/Kwameouth Village area. He also noted the city's recent Buildable Lands Report, prepared by the Thurston Regional Planning Council, indicates that Lacey has sufficient land capacity under current measurements but that utility availability and environmental constraints affect where growth can occur.
Staff proposed keeping the existing zoning map intact while adding a separate future land‑use map in the 2025 comprehensive plan. Under that approach, zoning changes consistent with the future land‑use map could be processed more flexibly during the year rather than only in the annual legislative amendment cycle. Shepherd said this could shorten review timelines for land‑use consistency changes.
Council members raised several concerns and priorities. Mayor Andy Reiter and others emphasized the need to protect commercial land to support city revenue. Members also flagged Southeastern portions of the urban growth area where environmental constraints (the McAllister geologic/ wetlands complex) make the current UGA designation questionable and suggested the city should be proactive in recommending swaps or boundary changes to Thurston County. Staff noted the county is the entity that modifies urban growth area boundaries and that changes require interjurisdictional coordination.
Staff said a public open house would be held the next evening and that the Planning Commission will hold hearings and refine recommendations; staff expects draft map recommendations to come to the council in April and code or development guideline updates to follow in future work programs.
“We are about two‑thirds of the way done with this process,” Ryan Andrews said, noting the plan will be web‑based and will aim to be more readable and connected across elements. The Planning Commission and council will continue concurrent review so council input is reflected as policies and maps are drafted.
