Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Planning Board continues review of 1855 South Flatiron R&D campus after design, parking and bike‑path questions; board asks for refinements
Summary
At a Jan. 21 hearing staff recommended approval of a three‑building research and development campus at 1855 South Flatiron Court with conditions, but Planning Board continued the item to Feb. 4 after questions about roofline variation, wetland buffer impacts, parking reduction and timing of TDM commitments. The project requests a 23% parking
Planning staff and the applicant presented a proposed three‑building research‑and‑development campus at 1855 South Flatiron Court at a Jan. 21 Planning Board hearing. The proposal would construct three buildings totaling roughly 207,011 square feet of R&D space, request a 23% reduction in required parking (398 spaces proposed where 519 would otherwise be required), and seek height modifications for two buildings up to 50 feet because portions of the campus lie within mapped floodplain areas.
Staff (Lisonbee Blaine) recommended approval with conditions and noted the project would include a new multiuse path connection to the existing South Boulder Creek trail, roughly 30% sitewide usable open space, and 144 bicycle parking spaces. The applicant also asked the city for a nine‑year vesting period for the project’s site‑specific development plan and described a three‑phase buildout that the applicant expects will take up to nine years.
After the presentation and public comment, the Planning Board voted unanimously to continue deliberations to its Feb. 4 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise materials and for staff and the board to consider additional conditions. Planning Board member Mark moved to continue the item; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call (Mason: yes; ML: yes; Kurt: yes; Laura: yes; Mark: yes; Claudia: yes; Chair: yes).
Staff and applicant presentations
City staff summarized the proposal and several technical issues for board feedback, including whether the design meets the city’s site‑review criteria for larger floor‑plate buildings, whether roof‑line variation and human‑scale details adequately break up long building masses, whether the requested parking reduction is justified by TDM measures, and whether the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat

