Hearing examiner hears Monarch Meadows preliminary plat; staff recommends approval with conditions

The City of Lacey hearing examiner heard testimony Jan. 27 on Monarch Meadows, a proposed 33‑lot single‑family Planned Residential Development (PRD) on about 30.46 acres (file 24-0161). City staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, PRD and related class 4 forest practices, subject to conditions and a boundary‑line adjustment to place an on‑site wetland into common open space.

Why it matters: The project would set aside roughly 13.35 acres (about 44 percent) of the site as common open space and commit protections and mitigation for two on‑site wetlands and Oregon white oak habitat. The hearing clarified technical measures for stormwater, traffic, habitat mitigation and maintenance responsibilities that will be conditions of approval if the examiner issues a favorable final decision.

Staff summary and recommendation Reese Fatt, a city staff presenter, reviewed the staff report and the exhibit list and said the application includes the planned residential development and preliminary plat, civil plans, a habitat management plan and critical‑areas reports. "Based on the above analysis, city staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, planned residential development, and class 4 forest practices," Fatt testified. The staff analysis also conditions final approval on a boundary‑line adjustment to include the southern wetland in an open‑space tract and on mitigation and protection measures for oak trees and wetland buffers.

Applicant presentation and design features Applicant counsel Jeff Pantier and the project team described the proposal as a 33‑lot single‑family subdivision with a mix of front‑ and rear‑loaded lots and an overall density of about 4.37 units per acre. Pantier said lots would range from about 2,700 to 5,000 square feet and lot widths would range from roughly 30 to 40 feet (the underlying zone calls for larger minimum widths), which is why the PRD process is being used.

Pantier and team members said all lots would connect to City of Lacey water and sanitary sewer and that sidewalks would be installed on public streets to provide safe walking routes to nearby schools. He described a planned boundary‑line adjustment so the wetland system would be wholly contained in a homeowner association tract and noted the applicant would dedicate 13.35 acres of common open space.

Traffic, stormwater and habitat studies Dan McKinney, managing principal at Transco Group and the project's traffic engineer, testified that the traffic study followed City of Lacey and Thurston County procedures for an eight‑intersection study area. "There was no LOS deficiency in terms of the project meeting all standards," he said, and the project will pay traffic impact fees to the City of Lacey and Thurston County.

Chloe McIntyre, the project's civil engineer, summarized geotechnical and stormwater work and said shallow glacial till makes infiltration infeasible at the site. "Infiltration at this site is infeasible," McIntyre testified, adding the design proposes proprietary treatment devices for pollutant removal and an on‑site detention pond sized to match existing release rates to the off‑site wetland and to meet the Lacey stormwater design manual (minimum requirement 8).

Curtis Wambach, principal and senior biologist for EnviroVector, described the critical‑areas and Oregon white oak habitat work. He said the team mapped and tagged 128 oak trees and delineated two category‑3 wetlands. Wambach summarized the mitigation package: "We are proposing new priority habitat at 44,883 square feet ... the total mitigation is 88,297 square feet for a net increase of habitat of 34,119 square feet," and he said the mitigation would produce a net gain of about 20 oak trees compared with existing conditions. Wambach said mitigation includes invasive‑plant removal, five years of monitoring, translocation of saplings/acorns, and other measures following Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance.

Conditions, clarifications and next steps Staff recommended multiple conditions, including the boundary‑line adjustment to consolidate the wetland in open space, wet‑season and construction controls, and standard protection measures for the oak habitat and buffers under Lacey Municipal Code provisions (staff cited Lacey Municipal Code sections and exhibit tables in the record). The applicant requested clarifications to some conditions: specifically, that common‑area irrigation and landscaping ownership/maintenance be assigned to the homeowners association; minor edits to public‑works conditions about the required sewer main size so the applicant can upsize if needed; and a limited qualification to a seasonal construction prohibition where the city may allow wet‑season construction with an approved temporary erosion and stormwater pollution prevention plan.

The hearing examiner left the record open briefly to allow staff and the applicant to exchange and file agreed revised condition language. Examiner Phil Albrecht stated he would "get 10 business days to issue a final decision" after the record is closed. The applicant agreed to submit proposed revised wording to the city within the short schedule discussed at the hearing.

Public comment and exhibits There were no members of the public who testified at the hearing. The examiner admitted exhibits 1 through 22 into the record, including the staff report, critical‑areas and habitat reports, civil plans, the traffic study, and an email exchange with Public Works clarifying stormwater and seasonal construction items.

What remains unresolved The examiner indicated final approval will depend on the applicant and staff agreeing on revised condition language for a few public‑works and landscaping items and on the boundary‑line adjustment completing before final plat. The record will show any agreed edits that the applicant and staff file; the examiner will issue a written decision within the statutory time the examiner noted.

Ending note The hearing was adjourned after the parties agreed to exchange revised condition language; the examiner confirmed the record will close after the post‑hearing submittal window and then the final decision will be issued in the time the examiner specified.