Boulder planning board presses developers on housing proposal for 4880–4898 Pearl Street; staff cites land‑use limits

City of Boulder planning staff told the Planning Board on Oct. 28 that a developer’s plan to replace a self‑storage complex at 4880 and 4898 Pearl Street with five buildings — including 281 apartments and an 85,000‑square‑foot commercial storage building — is unlikely to meet key city plan and policy tests as presented.

Staff presenter Chandler, a City of Boulder planning staff member, said the 7.1‑acre parcel is zoned Industrial General (IG) and designated General Industrial on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land‑use map. Chandler told the board that under Boulder Revised Code Section 9‑6‑3‑A the conditional‑use path for residential in IG requires either that residential be consistent with the adopted subcommunity plan or that at least one‑sixth of the perimeter of the parcel be contiguous with an existing residential use or city‑owned park or open space. Chandler said Goose Creek’s northern channel is not designated as park/open space in the city’s 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and therefore cannot be used to establish contiguity; only Valmont Park qualifies as a city park for that test. "The proposed development would redevelop the existing 7.1 acre site with an arrangement of 5 buildings, containing 281 residential units and an 85,000 square foot commercial storage space," Chandler said in the presentation.

Why it matters: the site sits outside areas the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSP) identified as "areas of change" that the plan marked for mixed‑use industrial transitions. Staff told the board that allowing phased subdivision and site review to create contiguity — for example by recording a phase that touches Valmont Park and then subdividing to create contiguity for subsequent phases — could create a precedent enabling many other IG parcels to seek residential conversion. Chandler said that could put a significant share of the city’s remaining GI land at risk of conversion to residential uses in a relatively short time.

What the applicant proposed: the ownership team (DPC Companies and developer representatives) and Coburn Architecture presented renderings showing four residential buildings grouped around a north‑south "Greenspine" pedestrian corridor linking the site to Goose Creek Greenway and Valmont Park, plus a new L‑shaped, multi‑level self‑storage building facing the western neighbor to buffer active industrial uses. The application shows surface parking, with roughly 326 spaces (a combination of carport, garage and uncovered surface stalls) and notes that bike parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures would be provided, though specific details were not included in the submittal. Applicant representatives said they evaluated industrial, R&D and storage redevelopment options and concluded the local market and site geometry make a large‑scale industrial redevelopment economically infeasible.

Key points raised by staff and board members: - Land‑use designation: staff emphasized that the BVCP "General Industrial" designation and EBSP context do not prioritize residential conversion on this parcel; staff noted that most GI zoning is limited and that only a subset of sites identified in the EBSP were converted to Mixed Use Industrial (MUI) during that plan’s adoption. - Contiguity: staff said the 1/6‑perimeter contiguity test is intended to allow incremental residential infill where it abuts existing occupied residential uses or designated parks; staff concluded the Goose Creek channel is primarily a stormwater/flood conveyance and not a designated park for the contiguity test. - Phasing and precedent: staff warned that phased subdivision to create contiguity could allow additional contiguous lots to become eligible for residential use, changing the character of the larger GI area south of Pearl. - Compatibility and buffering: the applicant proposed to retain and intensify storage uses in the western building to act as a buffer to industrial neighbors and pointed to pedestrian connections to Goose Creek Greenway as major mobility benefits.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns: a neighboring business owner, Heather Mitchell (4870 Pearl Street), told the board that Pearl and 40th Ninth Street experience heavy truck and municipal vehicle traffic, and she said the site’s current industrial uses (fabrication, deliveries, loud operations) are appropriate for the location and would conflict with adjacent residential uses.

Board reaction and next steps: board members praised the project design but repeatedly returned to the policy question: does redevelopment with dense housing align with the BVCP and EBSP in this specific location? Several members said they found staff’s analysis persuasive that the proposal, as presented, faces a high bar for consistency with existing plans and could create a precedent risk. Board members asked staff for a clearer assessment of what counting greenways as park/open space would do to the citywide inventory of industrial land before endorsing any interpretation that would broaden contiguity. Chandler said the applicant may submit a development review application, and that city council could call the item up for a hearing; staff also said a site review application would likely require a planning board decision because of a requested height modification. No formal decision was made at the concept review hearing.

Clarifying details extracted from the record: - Site area: approximately 7.1 acres (staff). - Proposed units: 281 residential units (applicant). - Proposed non‑residential: about 85,000 sq. ft. commercial storage building (applicant). - Parking shown on plans: 326 spaces (50 carport, 63 garage, 213 surface — applicant materials). - BVCP/EBSP references: BVCP policy 5.01 and 2.21 cited by staff in consistency discussion; EBSP identifies areas of change where mixed‑use industrial (MUI) is appropriate, and the subject parcel is outside those mapped areas (staff).

What remains to be resolved: whether Goose Creek Greenway can be treated as city park/open space for contiguity; whether a phased subdivision approach that creates contiguity would be allowable without producing an unintended citywide change in GI land eligibility; and whether the applicant can demonstrate environmental suitability, buffering, and noise mitigation sufficient to meet additional IG‑zone standards for residential uses. The board did not approve or deny the concept and provided feedback to staff and the applicant for next steps.

Ending note: staff recommended that, if a phased approach proceeds, permits for buildings in later phases should be contingent on issuance of a certificate of occupancy for at least one dwelling unit in the prior phase. City council may call up the concept for hearing; otherwise the applicant may pursue a development review or return with a revised concept.