Planning board approves 66,000‑sq‑ft Gunbarrel Tech Center building; board adds pedestrian and bike conditions

The City of Boulder Planning Board voted unanimously to approve a site‑review amendment (LUR2024‑00006) to develop a vacant 8.7‑acre parcel in the Gunbarrel Tech Center with a new two‑story industrial/office building of about 66,000 square feet and a 40‑foot maximum height. Allison Blaine, senior planner and case manager, presented staff’s analysis and recommended conditions; staff found the proposal met site‑review criteria under the code version in use at submittal and recommended approval with conditions.

What was approved

The board approved the application with several planning‑board amendments. The approved project features: a building with recessed loading and back‑of‑house functions facing the northern industrial neighbors; a main public‑facing entry on the south; parking distributed primarily to the west and adjacent to building facades; and preservation of a scenic easement along the southern boundary that contains the White Rock and Left Hand ditches and the Cottontail recreational trail. Total open space, including the scenic easement, is approximately 63 percent of the parcel.

Board amendments and conditions

During deliberations, the board added several conditions aimed at improving pedestrian, bicycle and multiuse connections and climate‑friendly commuting options: - A condition requiring the applicant to show construction of a 10‑foot‑wide paved multiuse path on the west‑side access easement in portions that are outside the ditch/scenic easement; the final alignment and any necessary design adjustments will be resolved to the satisfaction of staff at technical‑document review. - A condition requiring detached 5‑foot sidewalks on both sides of the private vehicular access drive on the subject property, to be shown and detailed at technical‑document (TechDoc) review; the board said these stubs improve pedestrian access to Winchester Circle and align with long‑term connectivity goals. - A condition requiring the applicant to show long‑term bicycle parking with weather protection and horizontal (floor‑level) ebike charging provisions, to the satisfaction of staff at TechDoc, so the site is better prepared for non‑automobile commuting. - The applicant and staff agreed to adjust the timing of one TDM‑related financial guarantee (eco‑passes) so the guarantee will be delivered before issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than before building permit submittal; staff confirmed that timing change is administratively acceptable.

Why board members added conditions

Board members said the additional requirements are intended to build forward‑looking, incremental connections into the existing transportation master plan and “low‑stress” bike network; members argued that when a parcel redevelops it is an opportunity to add pieces of a future path network rather than leaving gaps indefinitely. Planning staff warned the board that any multiuse path within a ditch or scenic easement might require ditch‑company approvals and potentially additional design work (for grading, drainage and safety); the board’s adopted path condition explicitly limited paved path construction to portions outside the ditch easement and allowed TechDoc‑level adjustments.

Applicant and technical points

Applicant Andrew Freeman and architect Robert Van Pelt described the design as a flexible industrial building (estimated 4 loading docks) with a modest mezzanine for office functions, locker and shower spaces for employees, EV parking, and long‑ and short‑term bicycle parking. The project requests one modest parking reduction from required counts (applicant proposed 59 spaces where code required 65, a 3.6% reduction) and will provide EV stalls.

Staff testimony and legal/technical context

Allison Blaine told the board the proposal meets applicable density, setback and height requirements for the IM zoning and the Gunbarrel Tech Center PUD. She explained staff did not require construction of the ditch crossings (bridges) or the multiuse path across the scenic easement as part of the site review because (1) the path as shown in the transportation plan does not currently tie into a broader paved right‑of‑way at the north side, (2) a bridge crossing requires ditch‑company consent that cannot be guaranteed, and (3) the unpaved trail that currently exists is a crusher‑fine recreational surface that is not maintained year‑round and therefore not a substitute for a paved commuting connection. Planning staff, however, accepted the board’s added condition that a paved portion be constructed where it does not conflict with the ditch/scenic easement, reserving adjustments for TechDoc and ditch‑company coordination.

Vote and formal action

Motion (as recorded): "I move to approve site review amendment application LUR2024‑00006, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum and as amended by Planning Board." The motion passed unanimously.

Implementation and follow‑up

Planning staff will carry the board’s amended conditions into the site‑plan approval paperwork and will review technical civil, landscape and building permit documents to ensure the multiuse‑path stub, sidewalks and bicycle parking details meet city standards. Ditch‑company approvals remain a separate requirement for any crossing of irrigation infrastructure, and the applicant will need to coordinate with ditch owners and with the city’s public‑works and open‑space review staff as the project advances to construction.

Community context and impact

Board and staff members noted the site is surrounded by other established Gunbarrel Tech Center industrial users to the north and by single‑family residential uses to the south; the scenic easement and existing trail structures create an important landscape buffer. Several board members said the adopted path and sidewalk conditions will incrementally strengthen multimodal access to Winchester Circle and nearby trails, while staff reiterated the technical constraints around ditch crossings and site drainage that must be satisfied before any bridge or full paved north‑south path is built.