Boulder planning board continues 1855 South Flatiron Court site review; staff to draft denial findings

The Boulder Planning Board voted unanimously Tuesday to continue its decision on the site review for 1855 South Flatiron Court to Feb. 18 and asked staff to prepare formal denial findings.

The board’s action followed nearly three hours of deliberation over whether the proposed three-building campus, brought by Biomed Realty, meets city site-review criteria — especially provisions in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan that call for street-level activation, consolidation of parking and preservation of public views.

"We can approve the project as is, we can approve with conditions, or we can deny," said Laura Kaplan, interim chair of the Boulder Planning Board, describing the board’s options during deliberation. Planning Director Brad Mueller and the city attorney’s office advised the board about the limits of the comprehensive-plan guidance versus property rights under existing zoning.

Board members repeatedly cited the same concerns: ground-floor parking and a ring of surface pavement that separates buildings from the adjacent multiuse path and public realm; limited publicly accessible ground-floor uses (the applicant said the proposal includes one small café); and potential obstruction of mountain views from the multiuse path.

"This project has turned its back on the public realm," said Kurt Nordback, planning board member, describing the proposal as an ``island’’ with minimal permeability to the path and limited street-level activation. "Parking in the destination workplace type should strive for consolidation, not a ring of parking between the public and the private island of the development," he said, citing the East Boulder plan language presented in staff materials.

Other members raised related code concerns: that ground floors rely heavily on parking garages with low transparency, that building facades longer than code guidance are not sufficiently broken up by distinct forms or heights, and that the project’s transportation demand management (TDM) measures will be undercut by the site design. "There's a whole laundry list of things that come back to the ring of parking, the ground-floor parking garages, the lack of ground-floor transparency and the lack of street-level activation," said Laura Kaplan.

The applicant team, represented at the hearing by Salil Payapoli of Biomed Realty and Mark Painter of Holland & Hart, said the design responds to operational needs for a research campus and that some campus amenities are planned elsewhere in the Flatiron Business Park. Architect Kevin White (Perkins) said the applicant intends to remove the cul-de-sac masonry and some fences and to plant trees to screen the eastern edge; he also provided wall-length dimensions for east-facing angled façades.

"The idea is transparency... we wouldn't have a walled garden," Salil Payapoli said, describing the applicant’s intent to remove fences where possible as phases become occupied.

Board members and staff also debated the legal weight of aspirational plan language. Planning Director Brad Mueller and the city attorney explained that comprehensive and subcommunity plans provide guidance for on-balance consistency findings but do not override property rights established by zoning; still, the board may use subcommunity-plan policies in its site-review determinations.

With the board divided on whether the outstanding concerns could be addressed through conditions, the applicant asked the board not to deny the project outright and proposed a 90-day continuance to attempt redesign. Staff advised that preparing a substantially new design and a new staff report in 90 days would be difficult; the applicant acknowledged that schedule risk and said it would accept a denial if the board preferred that path.

Board member Mark McIntyre moved to continue the item (LUR2024-00036) to Feb. 18 so staff could draft denial findings; Laura Kaplan seconded. The motion passed 6-0.

The board’s continuation means staff will prepare written findings tied to the cited site-review criteria and the subcommunity plan; those findings will be returned to the board at the Feb. 18 continuance for formal adoption or further action. The applicant may request additional continuances from that date if it chooses to pursue redesign rather than a formal denial.

Public comment during the meeting included a three-minute comment from Lynn (last name not specified), who urged more aggressive job-housing balance and criticized recent approvals of height and parking reductions elsewhere in the city; the board noted that the public comment period for the 1855 South Flatiron Court item was closed because this meeting was limited to deliberation.

The board will reconvene consideration of the site review on Feb. 18; staff said a denial vote may be finalized at that time with formal findings if the board proceeds that way.