Planning board ties on 2555 Thirtieth Street redevelopment; public hearing continued to March 18

The City of Boulder Planning Board held a public hearing and lengthy deliberation on a site and use review application for 2555 Thirtieth Street (cases LUR2020‑00447 and LUR2024‑00065). The applicant proposed demolition of an existing car dealership and construction of a four‑story, mixed‑use building containing 142 dwelling units (studios, one-, two- and three‑bedroom units) totaling about 111,495 square feet. The application requested a height modification to allow up to 55 feet, a 6% parking reduction (145 spaces where staff said 154 would otherwise be required), modifications to setbacks, number of stories and building size in the BMS zoning portion of the site, an administrative amendment to the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) to alter planned connections, and a request for vested rights.

Staff recommended approval, concluding the building design and proposed on‑ and off‑site transportation connections were consistent with TVAP and site review criteria, subject to recommended conditions. The applicant team (Element Properties and Kober Architecture) presented TDM measures, a detailed parking plan, a proposed off‑site multiuse path connection that would cross city property, and design changes made after concept review — including lowering the Thirtieth Street grade at the building face, increasing entry points and concentrating bike parking with e‑bike charging infrastructure.

During the public hearing residents and commenters raised issues including: the adequacy and character of ground‑floor uses (concern that a small commercial/café footprint would not meet TVAP’s “main street” vision), the location and wetlands permitting for the proposed multiuse path across city property, the building’s length, massing and 4‑story height in an area TVAP character descriptions identify as primarily two‑to‑three stories, concerns about public access and views, and requests for stronger EV charging, geothermal or sustainable systems and clearer commitments on commercial affordability. Applicant representatives responded with clarifications on the TDM program, bike parking and proposed EV readiness (prewiring and code‑required charged stalls) and said they would build the off‑site path segment in partnership with the city.

Board deliberations reflected divided perspectives. Supporters of approval pointed to the site’s high walk/bike scores, proximity to transit, on‑site open space, the TDM plan and staff’s finding that the design met the site review criteria. Opponents focused on TVAP consistency (character and height), the perceived length and inward focus of the building (limited active commercial frontage), and whether an elevated courtyard over podium parking met the TVAP/height‑bonus requirement for grade‑level public gathering space.

Planning Board member Kurt moved to approve the site review and use review, adopting the staff memorandum as findings; the motion was seconded. Several board amendments were proposed during debate (examples included requiring tangible commercial square footage along the Thirtieth Street frontage, changing language in the TDM commitments, and requiring clearer architectural emphasis of Thirtieth Street entrances). Two amendments were adopted (one to require clearer identification of entrances along Thirtieth Street to staff’s satisfaction; one to strike “where possible” from certain TDM language so principles are required rather than optional). Several other proposed amendments failed. After the amendments, the main motion to approve was put to a roll‑call vote and resulted in a 3‑3 split. Under Planning Board rules an affirmative vote of four or more members is required to carry an approval; the tie therefore meant the motion did not pass.

Outcome and next steps: Because the motion produced a tie rather than an affirmative approval, the board continued the public hearing. The board scheduled further consideration for March 18, 2025, and staff indicated it will work with the applicant and board to prepare follow‑up materials. Staff also noted that, by rule, the applicant may request a rehearing in writing within seven days.

Ending: The project remains under review; the Planning Board’s March 18 session will revisit the item or address any rehearing request. The record shows public concerns about TVAP consistency, building scale, multiuse path alignment and the strength of commercial and TDM commitments.