Planning Commission Comp Plan Comments 10-24-11 Final

8/3/2019 Planning Commission Comp Plan Comments 10-24-11 Final

1/5

October 24, 2011

Planning Commission

City of Black Diamond

24301 Roberts DriveBlack Diamond, W A 98010

Subject: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes CPT-11-02, CPT-11-03

Dear M embers of the Planning Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed changesto the City of Black Diamond

Comprehensive Plan. Both changes noted above (CPT-11-02 and CPT-11-03) addressthe question: what

levels of residential density areappropriate for our communi ty? A review of the history starting atthe

BDUGAA servesasan exce llentstarting point.

The first documentsthat I have been ableto find that outlinespec if ic population/density goals for thecity

arethe Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) prepared in 1999 and the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (F EIS) prepared in the year 2000 related to the proposed Preliminary

Annexation Agreement (PAA) that was required as part of BDUG A A implementation. In the preferred

FEIS alternative,total Black Diamon

included existing households, further infill development/growth within thecity plus full Master Planned

Development build-out. This wasa long term 30 year view of thecity. A tthetime,these projectionsalso

included theannexation of Lake 12. Given thatcurrent planning assumptions no longer include Lake 12,

a downward adjustment of perhaps 200 to 250 households would be required to becomparableto current

planning.

So,to the point made my several peopletestifying beforethe Planning Commission last week

significant developmentand population growth was indeed planned dating back to theearly days.

Fast forward now to the Comprehensive Plan approved by the Black Diamond City Council in June 2009.

This Comprehensive Plan established atotal household targetafter MPD build-out of 6 ,302 units,

consisting of 1,578 existing households plus 4,724 new householdsto be built over 15 years, including

further city infill and full MPD development. In total,this is quiteconsistent wi th the 2000 PA A F EIS

density targets.

Then,approximately two monthsafter approval of the 2009 Comp Plan, Yarrow Bay submitted MPD

proposals for both the Villagesand L awson Hills. These proposalstotaled 6,050 new householdsto be

developed over 15 yearsexcluding any other development wi thin thecity. By i tself ,this issubstantiall y

above growth targets provided for in the freshly adopted Comp Plan. One would havethoughtthat both

those recommending and thoseapproving the 2009 Comp Plan would have understood such a big

variance was imminent, butapparently not.


2/5

In addi tion, Yarrow Bay has identif ied over 400 acres of additional expansion areas,that if developed in

per grossacre, would add over

1,700 more householdsto thecity,stil l excluding any other residential developmentthatcan occur

consistent wi th existing city zoning. Yes,such expansion development would requirea major

amendmentto theexisting MPD approvals. But, our currentcity code would clearly allow such

additional high density developmentand based on recent history, it would haveto beapproved byCouncil .

A summary of all of these numbers follows:

City Residential Densit ies

2000 2009 2009

MPD +

Expansion

PAA FEIS Comp Plan MPD Submittals Total Build-Out

Existing Households 1,578 1,578 1,578

New Households 4,724 6,050 6,050

Total Households at Build-Out 7,105 6,302 7,628 7,628

Adjustments

Exclude Lake 12 -250

MPD Expansion Areas

Villages 384 acres @ 4 DU/gross acre 1,536

Lawson 60.5 acres @ 4 DU/gross acre 242

Other City Growth

Assume 50 acres @ 4 DU/acre 200

City Of Black Diamond Total Households

At Build-Out 6,855 6,302 7,628 9,606

City Population At Build-Out

At 2.68 Residences/Household 18,371 16,889 20,443 25,744

City Population At Build-Out

As Percent Of 2009 Comp Plan 100% 121% 152%

Asshown above, our community is now faced with the potential for residential development densities

(unitcount) over 50% higher than targetsestablished anywhere in our history from the BDUGAA

forward. Why arethese densitiesso much higher than targets previously provided in the 2000 PA A F EIS

and the 2009 Comp Plan? I believethatthe biggestcontributor to this grossexpansion isthecurrentComp Plan and BD MC requirementthat minimum residential densities be .

. s

areas of residential developmentand nottheentireareathat would include wetlands,schools,

commercial/office developmentetc. In addition,the guidelinesestablished in 2007 by CTED ,


3/5

atthetime,explicitly

references 4 astheappropriate urban density standard,though even this level of density

DU per netacre is now widely accepted, particularly outside of the Seatt leand B ellevue urban centers.

these densitiesareto beca lculatedbased on netacres, not gross. Why netacresand not grossacres?

Following isaspread sheetthat illustratesthe dysfunction caused by the use of grossacres.

To simplify theca lculations, I have used 100 acresasthesize of a development.

G ross Versus Net Densit ies

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

Commercial & Office 60 0 25 85Sensitive Areas & Buffers 10 30 40 10

Schools 0 50 25 0

Residential 30 20 10 5

Total MPD Acres 100 100 100 100

Minimum Required DU's

Based on Gross Acres 400 400 400 400

Based on Net Acres 120 80 40 20

Residential Density(DU/Acre)

Based on Gross Acres 13.3 20.0 40.0 80.0

Based on Net Acres 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

residential acre for a proposed office or commercial development wi thin an MPD as illustrated in

Example 4. Thisequatesto a requirement for plac ing 400 homes on just 5 acres. In Example 3,a density

of per acre, or 400 DUs built on just 10 acres, would be required dueto thesizeablesensitive

areasand buffer component in thisexample. In TDR receiving areas, developersare given a very big

incentiveto acquirecheap, but undevelopable wetlands, because it would allow much higher density

wi thin the developableareas. It is worth noting,thataverage residential density with the Villages MPD isnearly asa direct resul t of this gross versus netacre phenomenon.

thatcurrentcode requiresany developmentexceeding 80 acresto be developed as

an MPD, including this residential component. Assuming that Intel or Microsoft or some other very

attractiveemployer wished to develop an officeand research complex w ithin a properly zoned part of the

grossacre.


4/5

rrent Council s,the horse isalready out of the barn

concerning this gross versus net issue. Turning back theclock and making retroactivechanges would

li kely not be legall y sustainable. However, looking ahead, wecan and should makechanges in the Comp

Plan and BD MC that would limit future residential densitiesto moreappropriate levelsand removethe

Mr . Kombol of Palmer Coking Coal,city staff and others raised concern during public hearings beforethe

Commission aboutthe potential adverse impact of thesechanges on the TD R (Transfer D evelopment

Rights) program. To better understand theseconcerns data:

TDR Sending Area property owners:

Per Palmer Coking Coal Records 2,878

Per C ity Records 2,984

purchase by Yarrow Bay to develop

A t 50% 3,025

Clearly,the difference between city recordsand historica l records needsto be reconciled. However, in

sending area property ownersand

are reasonably in

balance . And this is good and appropriate. As noted in thetestimony of Mr. Kombol and others,the

TDR program hasa long history grounded in the respect of long time property owners wi thin the City of

Black Diamond thatthey becompensated for the loss of their development rightseven though these

properties would not be developabletoday given current Sensitive Areas Ordinancesetc. They have paid

property taxes on these lands for all these many yearsand deserveto becompensated for their property.

This is how TD R sending areas were defined. Living to these historica l understandingsand agreementsmust be respected and clearly would notadversely impact T DR sending area property owners. So,

The problem isthata previous City Council dec ided several yearsago to issuethecity 1,000 additional

as if the City owned a TD R printing press. If wecountthe 1,000 additional artificial

ram does becomesignificantly out of balance . Yarrow Bay needs just 3,025 to

implementtheir currently approved 6,05

city records, 3,984. Mr. Kombol, in histestimony,ca llsthisa 30% tax on current TDR sending area

property owners. I ca ll thisa grosscorruption of the TDR program. These 1,000

m, do nothing butserveto penali zecurrentsending area property owners

and totally distortsthe purpose of the TDR program as originall y envisioned. If the City can arbitrarily

It makes no sense.

I beli evethattheanswer is obvious. The T DR program was ini tiall y established for a purpose. That

historica l purpose must be respected and not becorrupted. And clearly,the printing of artif icial TDRs

cannot/should not be used asa basisto push residential densities in our City far in excess of anything

previously envisioned, nor suitable for our communi ty today.


5/5

Therefore, I urgethe Planning Commission to fully respectthis history . Making thechangesto the Comp

Plan as I have recommended (CPT-11-02 and CPT-11-03) will go a long way toward insuring that our

community isableto rein in and maintain at leastsomecontrol over the future growth of our community.

To protect historica l TDR sending area property owners from thecompromised position they now find

themselves in asa result of past Council action, I fully supporteither of thetwo following additionalconditions:

1. As recommended by Mr. Kombol , havethecurrent City Council ,as part of currentchangesto the

Comp Plan and BD MC ,eliminate/vacatethecurrent 1,0

action; or

2. Requirethat 98

their T DR purchase requirements prior 1,000 artif icial TDR by

past Council action.

I thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Craig Goodwin

29044 222nd Pl . SE

Black Diamond, W A 98010

Documents

Planning Commission Comp Plan Comments 10-24-11 Final