"">
Goss-Grove Neighborhood Association
Response to Proposed Zoning Changes in RH-2
Introduction
The Goss-Grove Neighborhood Association (GGNA) represents the neighborhood bounded by Arapahoe, Canyon, 15th Street, and 23rd Street. When we refer to “Goss-Grove” or “our neighborhood,” that is the area we are referring to – the neighborhood adjacent to Goss and Grove streets.
We have followed the RH-2 zoning discussion to the best of our ability, reviewing the documents issued over the past year. We have read the definitions of RH-2 and RMX-1 found in the City Code, considered city planning staff recommendations to Planning Board, and talked about our cumulative decades of living experience in Goss-Grove.
After careful consideration, we support staff recommendations in the 11/19/09 report, “Residential High-2 Zone District Report” (below, simply “the report”). We ask that the City consider changing zoning for our neighborhood to RMX-1, as staff recommended on pages 3 and 49 of the report.
City Code
What does the City Code say about RH-2 and RMX-1? It says the RH-2 zone district is intended to be a high density residential area primarily consisting of a variety of attached units, where complementary nonresidential uses may be permitted (§9-2-2(c)(1)(F), B.R.C. 1981). The RMX-1 zone district, on the other hand is intended to be a less dense area with a variety of single-family, duplexes, and multifamily units (§9-5-2(c)(1)(D), B.R.C. 1981).
The RMX-1 description fits our neighborhood, just as it fits the other historical neighborhoods that surround downtown. Approximately half of the dwelling units here are classified as “detached single-family,” a much higher ratio than any other of the RH-2 districts.
Planning Staff Recommendations
In its analysis of the entire RH-2 zone, the report states that “variations in character of the subareas may suggest solutions that are specifically tailored to particular neighborhoods” (p.1). Recognizing that there is no blanket fit for resolving issues in each of the subareas under consideration, the report further states that in the Goss-Grove subarea “[t]he increase in density would likely continue to alter the single-family residential character found in this neighborhood” (p.3).
Staff specifically recommends in the report that our “South of Canyon” neighborhood be considered for RMX-1 zoning. The report here is worth quoting at length. “The key issues in this neighborhood include the preservation of existing character, a lotting pattern that discourages consolidation for larger developments, the presence of the 100-year floodplain, and the possibility of losing historic resources that add uniqueness to the city. All are counterintuitive to a high density residential district.”
They go on to say, “The BVCP indicates that the MRX land use designation is intended for older downtown neighborhoods that have a variety of housing types and densities. The intent of the RMX-1 zone district is to permit a variety of residential land uses that maintain their existing densities, while still allowing renovation or rehabilitation. Both of these district intents are consistent with the existing development pattern in the South of Canyon Boulevard neighborhood” (p.49).
Planning Board at its 1/21/10 meeting barely discussed planning staff’s proposal to change our neighborhood’s zoning to RMX-1, and seemed to demonstrate scanty knowledge of the area. We feel that more than a cursory look at planning staff’s proposal is called for, and here offer our insights to help promote further consideration.
Living in Goss-Grove
Density
Goss-Grove has been a high-density zone for at least 30 years, beginning even before HDOZ. In those decades there has been substantial development. The neighborhood was eclectic and the land was cheap back then. Developers seized the opportunity to buy up lots, take down old houses and create multi-unit housing, and to infill. One neighbor remembers a 1970s Daily Camera article about density in which a city official described Goss-Grove as a “sacrifice zone.” That’s apparently how we ended up with Section 8 housing at 2003 Grove, with its attendant problems, and the Boulder Community Treatment Center (a halfway house for prison inmates). A rash of development in the 1980s filled in virtually every vacant lot left.
Currently we have a density of 21 dwelling units per acre, according to the report. However, if one considers only multi-family developments, there are almost 30 dwelling units per acre – developments that have “maximized or exceeded their development potential” (p.27). Our neighborhood is full of people, mostly because of extreme development along Canyon and Arapahoe, and we feel that it has done its part in absorbing density for the city.
Location
The center of Boulder (if you type “Boulder” on MapQuest.com) is about 50 feet south of 19th & Grove. We who live down here are well aware of that. On foot it takes 10 minutes to get to McGuckin Hardware or the post office or Whole Foods or the library, 15 minutes to CU or the Pearl Street Mall, 25 minutes to the Boulder Medical Center, and 5 minutes to the Boulder Creek Path or the Farmer’s Market. Walking and biking are clearly the easiest way to get around town from here, giving us one of the main advantages of downtown living. Bus routes regularly travel down Arapahoe and Canyon, and we are 5 minutes walk from the bus station. Pocket parks that divert traffic make for pleasant walking.
Who Lives in Goss-Grove?
At the January 21st Planning Board meeting, Chair Adrian Sopher, referring to the Goss-Grove neighborhood, said something like, “What single-family character? If it’s 80-90 percent non owner-occupied, what are we being asked to protect?”
According to the report, 10 percent of the properties in Goss-Grove are owner-occupied (p.22). But because 50 percent of the dwellings are single-family houses, we have many professionals -- artists, scientists, retired people, architects, professors – as well as service workers, small-business owners, and university staff -- who have chosen to live in the neighborhood. Some have lived here for many years, much as in the case of the RMX-1 zone in Whittier. The presence of a number of adult, long-term renters provides added stability to the neighborhood, dampening crime and other problems here. People commit to settle down here because even if it’s crowded, the single-family character makes it an attractive place to live.
And we have lots of students. In recent years, more Naropa University students have moved in, a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Because they are committed to doing community service, some have joined with the neighborhood association on clean-up projects. The resident manager at the Snow Lion (the dorm at 1900 Goss) has participated in neighborhood meetings, and has been very responsive to any concerns we have voiced about the dorm. Many CU students move to Goss-Grove because it is generally quieter down here, and much less stressful, than living on the Hill. City noise ordinances have contributed greatly to maintaining respect between students and families.
What Is Our Vision for Goss-Grove?
For many years, Goss-Grove neighbors have worked to improve the neighborhood, which has attracted more families and people committed to living here. To that end we have promoted regular neighborhood meetings and cleanups, an annual neighborhood yard sale, and social events. Several years ago we established a community garden in the pocket park at 20th & Grove, with the help of Growing Gardens. Neighbors contributed hundreds of dollars and many hours of sweat equity to build the raised garden plots, plant flowers, and paint the posts along the sidewalk. Those plots are so popular with renters that they are all scooped up by March.
We envision for Goss-Grove a modest and stable downtown neighborhood that attracts responsible students, families, single professionals and workers looking for a low-key and convenient place to live within the core of downtown Boulder. Most recently, we have become a neighborhood that is being discovered for it’s walkable lifestyle by retiring baby-boomers and young single professionals — both of whom immediately remodel and upgrade the homes they buy. For that reason, it holds promise as an area that will be increasingly desirable because of its location and increasingly an asset to the downtown area with its diversity and liveliness.
Why Not Rezone Goss-Grove RMX-1?
The planning staff did an exhaustive review of the RH-2 subareas in the report, and an excellent job of arguing for an RMX-1 zoning designation for Goss-Grove. Why did the Planning Board give short shrift to the staff’s work? We’d like to lay out some of the Planning Board’s objections to rezoning, as we have understood them, and to provide our view of how to address them. Our solution to virtually all of those objections is to redraw the map.
The current “Goss-Grove Subarea” as drawn doesn’t make sense. First, the area north of Canyon has never been called “Goss-Grove,” and that nomenclature is simply confusing. Second, it makes no sense to talk of a single zoning area divided by a major corridor with intense development on both sides of the street. This seems especially so when the platting north of Canyon is completely different from the platting south of Canyon, as a quick look at the map on p. 7 of the report will show. Both of those decisions – the name, and the conflating of two disparate areas – have created unnecessary confusion in trying to understand what kind of zoning should be applied in our neighborhood.
The core of Goss-Grove (the blocks adjacent to Goss and Grove, from 15th to 23rd streets, and the north side of Arapahoe) is categorically different from the intense development along Canyon. Consequently, we would like to suggest granting RMX-1 zoning to at least the core area. This area coincides almost exactly with the Goss-Grove NPP Zone (1/21/10 Planning Board Agenda #5a, p.5).
We want RMX-1 zoning for the following reasons:
1. We continue to want to maintain the character of our neighborhood to the extent possible, and RMX-1 zoning would help us achieve that.
2. The platting of Goss-Grove matches that of other RMX-1 zones.
3. The small lots here do not lend themselves to large developments, for the reasons articulated by planning staff in the report (p.27).
4. We already have a halfway house for criminals and Section 8 housing; the neighborhood can’t handle a day shelter or overnight shelter, and we would like to see them prohibited.
5. Parking is already a strain. More efficiency units would add to that strain, as would the revised RH-2 regulations granting reduced parking requirements for new development.
Objections from Planning Board, with Responses
We have yet to see the minutes of the 1/21/10 Planning Board meeting, and as the discussion of Goss-Grove at that meeting was sketchy, we don’t know exactly why the proposed rezoning of our neighborhood to RMX-1 was dismissed so easily. But from the minutes of the 11/19/09 meeting we can deduce the following Board concerns (5A, p. A4):
Analysis seems slanted toward preservation as opposed to the future. Why not use landmarking instead of rezoning to preserve the neighborhood?
Our goal is indeed preservation – of the vibrancy of our neighborhood, not just the buildings. Neighborhoods become vital when individual homeowners invest in and maintain their properties, and the historic value of this area is one thing that attracts that kind of investment. Our desire for preservation is not about nostalgia or the landmarking of individual houses (which can be a disincentive to a buyer); it’s about sustaining the livability and the attractiveness of the neighborhood.
There would be too many nonconforming uses if RMX-1 is granted.
Redrawing the map along the lines we suggest (and perhaps rezoning the half-block of each side of major corridors to higher densities) would eliminate all of the existing nonconforming uses, except for the Naropa dormitory at 1900 Goss.
What about Naropa?
At its 1/21/10 meeting, the Planning Board voiced strong support for meeting the needs of Naropa. For future development, Naropa wants the ability to build more dormitories, own more administrative space, and create parking for its students. Here are some suggestions for addressing those needs:
1. The Snow Lion dorm was created out of an apartment building formerly called the Chequer Plaza. It would be grandfathered in under a change to RMX-1. What about future dormitories? There are numerous apartment buildings suitable for such a purpose in the neighborhood already, particularly along Canyon Boulevard.
2. More administrative space can similarly be found along Arapahoe, if our proposed map is accepted.
3. Parking is a perennial issue in Goss-Grove, and building parking in the core of the neighborhood is inappropriate under any scenario. As it is, the neighborhood is often completely parked up. Naropa creating parking on its own property south of Arapahoe makes more sense, or doing more to encourage use of the frequent bus service on Arapahoe.
Also, it’s important to remember that Naropa has three separate campuses: the Arapahoe Campus, the Nalanda Campus near 63rd and Arapahoe, and the Paramita Campus at 3280 30th Street. Goss-Grove is supportive of Naropa, but our neighborhood should not be expected to bear the full weight of Naropa’s needs.
Summary
Planning staff did a sensitive and accurate job of describing Goss-Grove, better than we perhaps could have done. In fact, the 11/19/09 report is more responsive to our neighborhood concerns than any document that we can recall having come out of the City over the past 30 years. It has been frustrating to then have the Planning Board cursorily brush past the staff recommendation to rezone our neighborhood to RMX-1.
We believe that rezoning Goss-Grove to RMX-1 is in our interest and in the long-term interest of the City. The future of Boulder depends on a dynamic downtown area. It took over a hundred years to create the Goss-Grove neighborhood, one of the oldest in the city, and historical neighborhoods such as ours once lost are lost forever. The eclectic and colorful mix that is the core of Goss-Grove, with its flowers and pocket parks and community garden, deserves its place in the historic downtown ring. We have unbegrudgingly (for the most part) carried more than our share of density, but we are now asking the City to put on the brakes.
We support planning staff’s thoughtful recommendation that we be considered for RMX-1 zoning.
Goss-Grove Neighborhood Association
Approved March 29, 2010
