Planning Board continues review of 1855 South Flatiron R&D campus after design, parking and bike‑path questions; board asks for refinements

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 project aligns with the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan’s “destination workplace” place type.

The applicant’s development team (Biomed Realty with architect Perkins & Will) framed the campus as a neighborhood‑scaled set of research buildings intended to support life‑science and advanced‑technology tenants. Salil Payapalli of Biomed Realty said the company has secured a nearby quantum‑technology incubator in partnership with CU Boulder, Colorado State University and Elevate Quantum and described the developer’s role as providing long‑term, lab‑capable facilities for research tenants.

Perkins & Will presented site‑design concepts that organize open space into three zones—the Commons, the Glade and the Ramble—surrounded by a one‑way perimeter roadway and with internal pedestrian circulation and landscape treatment designed to buffer adjacent wetland areas. The applicant said the garage plates are located beneath building edges where grade and floodplain constraints allow and that the design was intended to hide parked cars below the main pedestrian edge to promote walkability. The design includes a small ground‑floor lobby café/commercial space near the multiuse path (applicant indicated it may take retail or café form subject to tenanting), between roughly 600 and 900 square feet for café use plus spillover seating shown in the lobby area.

Parking, bikes and TDM

The applicant requested a 23% parking reduction; staff supported the reduction as consistent with both the site‑review code language and the applicant’s TDM plan that includes eco‑pass transit subsidies, car‑share, car‑pooling, and on‑site incentives. The project proposes a robust bike program: staff and applicant materials show 144 bike parking spaces on site with both long‑term (secure) and short‑term bicycle parking, plus an e‑bike or shared‑bike station at the trailhead. Applicant and landscape staff said bike rooms would be adjacent to lobbies and would include charging infrastructure and space for maintenance and horizontal bike storage to accommodate heavier e‑bikes.

Wetlands and floodplain

The site includes a high‑hazard conveyance and mapped flood area and multiple wetland/outside‑drainage buffers on the south and east edges. Staff noted that portions of the access loop and a small number of surface parking spaces encroach into the outer wetland buffer, which would require a conditional wetland permit and mitigation if finalized. Staff also noted height modifications for the two floodplain‑adjacent buildings are allowed under the site‑review standards if the applicant demonstrates that the application meets the additional criteria for building design and public circulation.

Board feedback and reason for continuation

Board members generally praised the site‑level landscape work and the applicant’s effort to provide public connectivity to the multiuse path. Several board members, however, asked for clearer demonstration of roof‑line variation and “perceived” building height at the pedestrian scale: staff asked the applicant to refine roof‑line modulation and facade relief so that the long building faces read as multiple, human‑scaled elements rather than a single, long flat roof. Staff requested additional design study sketches and technical details that will be reviewed at TechDocs.

Board members also asked for clarity on how TDM commitments would be phased with the project. The applicant had proposed a three‑year eco‑pass subsidy period; the board asked whether transit passes and other TDM measures could be required for each phase of building occupancy (applicant and staff agreed to explore phasing language that would require TDM measures per building phase). Board members also asked for additional detail about wetland buffer mitigation and stormwater treatment in the central plaza and requested more precise counts for long‑term bicycle charging stations and the mix of horizontal vs. vertical bike racks in secure rooms.

Public comment

There was limited public testimony. One online speaker urged broad opposition on separate political grounds, but no sustained neighborhood opposition was raised at the hearing; the project team said they have done outreach and expect continued coordination with employers, the city and transit partners.

Action taken

Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item to its Feb. 4 regular meeting to allow the applicant to respond to board and staff feedback and for staff to work with the applicant on precise technical conditions.

Next steps

The applicant requested a nine‑year vested‑rights period for the site‑specific development plan; staff will forward that request to City Council for ordinance action if the project moves forward. The board’s continuation gives the applicant time to respond on roof‑line treatment, phased TDM language, wetland/permitting details and bike‑room design. If the applicant revises the plans and staff’s technical review is favorable, the item will appear again before the Planning Board and may be subject to council call‑up on the vesting ordinance or other aspects.

Speakers (selected): Lisonbee Blaine, Planning Staff (government); Salil Payapalli, Biomed Realty (business); Ryan Broussard, Perkins & Will (architect); Luke Murphy, Perkins & Will (landscape architect); Mark Painter (applicant counsel).