Gunbarrel Community Center Public Hearing  April 2011
BY PATRICIA CULLEN
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Boulder Planning Board convened on March 10 to hear public comment on the concept plan for the Gunbarrel Community Center. The concept plan shows a 250-unit apartment complex with green space, a swimming pool, a parking garage and 19,440 square feet of new retail space. It would be located on a vacant parcel of land at Lookout Road and 6685 Gunpark Drive, just east of King Soopers.
Peter Wolff of Wolff Company, the developer of the property, presented the plan. He said the Wolff Company is a third-generation family-owned company that specializes in building multi-family housing.

The Wolff Company plans to retain BAR architects based in San Francisco for the project. Three types of housing are incorporated into the plan: 160 high-density apartment units, 16 three-story townhomes with yards, and 74 multifamily attached housing units.

The property is 8.7 acres and is zoned Business Regional-2, which requires suburban setbacks and that 40 percent open space be incorporated into the plan.
Portions of Gunbarrel, mostly light industrial and commercial properties, are annexed to the City of Boulder, including all immediately contiguous properties to the site under review for development.

The low-density residential neighborhoods to the east (Gunbarrel Greens) and the apartments to the north are not annexed to the city.
More than 15 residents from Gunbarrel North, Gunbarrel Greens, Gunbarrel Estates, and Stonegate Condominiums, as well as several owners of retail businesses, gave public comment on the presented plan.

Many homeowners would like to see this land developed and are in favor of more retail development in particular. The main concerns voiced by residents were: the height of the proposed parking structure which may block some views, the impact on traffic on Lookout Road, connecting the development to the surrounding community, lack of bike paths in the plan, and the compatibility of high density apartments with a neighborhood that currently is mostly owner-occupied single-family homes.

One 25-year resident said, “Congestion, congestion, congestion; too much in too small an area.”
James Butler, a homeowner in Gunbarrel Estates and a member of his HOA for 20 years, sited traffic and height as the top two concerns.

Another 30-year resident said, “My entire street has 10 houses on it, why add 250 units? That means 500 additional cars on the roads.”
Ivan Boise, a homeowner who serves as the HOA president of Gunbarrel North, said. “It’s disingenuous to call this plan a Main Street concept.”

Paul Klammer of the Gunbarrel Community Association wrote, “The flow of the site plan, within its boundaries, between its retail and residential uses, is not such as to invite the community into it. It segregates the retail and residential uses in a way that may create an antipathy between its residential and public users.”

Michelle Boyd, a Gunbarrel Estates homeowner, voiced concern about road maintenance with the increased traffic the development will bring to the area.
Thomas Harrington, who owns the plaza area and leases it, said, “I would like to see a place for Gunbarrel residents to bike to on weekends.”

In response to the Lookout Road traffic concerns, Heidi Van Wolberg, an engineer for City of Boulder transportation, explained the process necessary to obtain a traffic light on Lookout Road. It involves a traffic study, performed every two years, to measure the need for better traffic control.

Each of the Boulder Planning Board members commented on the plan design. Tim Plass said, “The secondary Main Street concept is watered down in current design.”
Elise Jones said that the plan “does not have a critical amount of retail to create Main Street.”

Mary Young said, “Current design of housing is all about parking,” and cited the segregated residential area with the swimming pool as non-compatible.

Danica Powell said, “Design does not incorporate a gathering space; we are not quite there on that.”

There was agreement that the current plan does not break up the “superblock” or integrate commercial and residential development adequately.

Several board members thought the maximum height of the parking garage should be determined from topographical measurements on the site. There was confusion over whether three or four stories would block views.

The board voiced less concern about the appropriateness of the housing and density, and more about the integration of the apartments with the retail and ensuring that the plan creates a desirable urban center, including pedestrian friendly areas as well as bicycle paths and bicycle parking.

The open space on the current plan is not central to the retail area on the plan, which was also of concern.
Planning board member Bill Holicky said, “It would behoove the applicant to work with staff to create a better site plan and increase chance of approval.”