Lacey Planning Commission unanimously recommends 2025 comprehensive plan to council with staff amendments; rezoning, climate language and Hawkesbury uses amongs

The Lacey Planning Commission voted unanimously on Oct. 22, 2025, to recommend the city’s draft 2025 comprehensive plan to the City Council, incorporating staff recommendations that include rezoning the Mullen Road parcel to low‑density residential, restoring explicit language about warehousing/distribution as a conditional accessory use in the Hawkesbury Business District, and retaining generally supportive (rather than fully prescriptive) climate‑policy language while editing some provisions to be more directive.

Ryan (city planning staff) summarized public comments received during the public hearing and in written submissions. A principal topic was the five‑acre Mullen Road parcel the city purchased from Blott and plans to transfer to the Housing Authority of Thurston County. Several neighbors raised concerns about traffic, compatibility with adjacent residences and high groundwater. Staff recommended changing the proposed map designation from moderate‑density residential to low‑density residential to reduce development intensity at the planning‑map level while noting that detailed technical issues (stormwater, utilities, traffic) will be handled at the project and permitting stage.

Ryan told commissioners that under Lacey’s code low‑density residential allows up to six units per acre; given the property’s approximate five‑acre size, that would equate to about 30 conventional single‑family units. Staff told the commission the housing authority is considering cottage‑style development under existing city cottage housing provisions, which could effectively double density under the code and yield as many as about 60 smaller units if developed under that mechanism. The housing authority has scheduled a voluntary neighbor meeting Oct. 30 at Camacho Middle School to share preliminary information, Ryan said.

Commissioner Elliot objected to overly prescriptive climate‑related mandates, arguing that additional mandatory requirements would sharply raise construction costs. City staff said the City Council had previously advised keeping comp‑plan language broadly supportive rather than strictly prescriptive; staff said they had nonetheless adjusted several policies to use firmer verbs where consistent with prior council direction (for example, changing “consider” to “prioritize” in some building‑materials language and “embrace” to “implement” in a transportation safety policy).

A separate set of comments from the Olympia Master Builders and other submitters asked that Lacey adopt more specific delivery tools—fee transparency, expedited review, fee waivers, pre‑approved plans and an affordable‑housing toolkit. Staff responded that many permitting timeframes and public disclosure requirements are now governed by recently adopted state timelines and that some programmatic delivery tools are already in use at the city and could be expanded via implementation work outside the comp‑plan text.

Staff also recommended a minor text change to the Hawkesbury Business District chapter after written comments questioned whether warehousing and distribution activities remained permitted; city staff recommended reinstating explicit language that allows warehousing/distribution as a conditional accessory use tied to primary business functions and subject to conditional‑use approval. Staff said the change clarifies the consolidated chapter but does not alter the existing permit pathway for such uses.

Commissioners moved to recommend the draft plan, including the staff amendments discussed on the record: (1) map change for the Mullen Road parcel to low‑density residential; (2) clarifying language restoring warehousing/distribution as a conditional accessory use in the Hawkesbury Business District; and (3) the adjusted climate policy language as summarized in staff materials. A commissioner moved the recommendation and another seconded; the motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Commissioners then closed the matter.

The planning commission’s recommendation and the full packet (including all written and oral public comments) will be transmitted to the City Council for final action.