[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: Goss/Grove Neighborhood- Proposed Land Use Regulation Changes

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Gray, Crystal

Staff:  Can you please discuss the non-conforming issues that Miles King raises if the property is rezoned Mixed Density.  As I recall from the Whittier mixed density rezoning, the properties in the mixed density zone accommodated a variety of units per lot and the term non-conforming was eliminated even thought you could not build the number of units that could be build under the previous high density zoning.  I know we are just considering a land use map change tonight but the non- conforming mixed density zoning question is one I would like answered.
thanks,
Crystal
________________________________________
From: Miles King [milesking at coloradogroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:22 AM
To: Council
Subject: Goss/Grove Neighborhood- Proposed  Land Use Regulation Changes

Dear Council Members,
 I am writing to request clarification and further consideration on the proposed "Land Use Designation Changes" in the Goss Grove neighborhood.
  As a long time property owner at 1741 Arapahoe Ave (since the 1979), I am very concerned that these changes will have a profound effect; and may cause some significant difficulties for existing and future owners of Goss/Grove multifamily and single family properties.
Although, it is not totally clear to me, it seems that these proposed Land Use Designation Changes effectively  amount to a decrease in the density allowed in the area, and are therefore really a change in the current "Zoning" regulations.  If in fact that is correct, then I believe many of the properties will have "Non Conforming Uses" if the existing density exceeds the new land use regulations. Event hough the City may consider these properties legally non conforming and allow their continued use, this change in status has profound effects for the current  and future owners in the areas of property Insurance,  new Financing, and even salability.  In the policies of mortgage lenders these properties would now have the stigma of being "Non Conforming" properties which may prohibit or make it much more difficult for them to be considered as meeting the lenders' guide lines for new loans. This effects future purchasers and even refinancing for current owners.
Similar problems can also occur with obtaining hazard insurance. Insurers have the option of declaring properties that do not meet the current zoning requirements as undesirable or higher risk properties to insure.
On a final note, isn't it contrary to good land use and "walk-ability" planning concepts to decrease residential density in core down town areas.  It would seem that the opposite path would be more desirable for decreasing the carbon footprints of our citizens.
Thanks for your consideration,
Miles King
2505 Topaz Dr
Boulder, CO  80304
miles.king at comcast.net<mailto:miles.king at comcast.net>