Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board split on 1855 South Flatiron Court; denial motion falls short of four-vote threshold
Summary
The City of Boulder Planning Board debated a contested site review for a proposed three‑building R&D campus at 1855 South Flatiron Court but a motion to deny the application produced a 3‑3 split and failed to meet the four‑vote threshold required to carry a decision.
The City of Boulder Planning Board debated a contested site review application for redevelopment of a 9.87‑acre parcel at 1855 South Flatiron Court (LUR2024‑00036) — a proposal for three research-and-development buildings totaling roughly 207,011 square feet, a requested height modification (up to 50 feet), a requested parking reduction, and a request for nine‑year vested rights.
The planning board entered deliberations after the public hearing for the item had already been closed. Members weighed competing views about the project’s scale, design, and traffic and parking impacts. Board member Mark (chair) led a motion to approve the application with a set of detailed conditions intended to increase on‑site amenities, strengthen transportation demand management (TDM) measures and allow a larger parking reduction if the applicant revised the site design to enlarge amenity space and pedestrian connections. That approval motion was discussed and failed to receive enough support.
After the approval attempt failed, a motion to deny the application and adopt findings of denial was made and seconded. That motion gathered three affirmative votes and three opposing votes. Under the board’s procedural rules, an affirmative tally of four or more members is required to carry an approval or a denial. Because the denial motion received only three votes in favor, it fell short of the four‑vote threshold; staff informed the board that, under the rules, the applicant may request a rehearing in writing within seven days.
Board members split along policy and design lines during debate. Supporters of denial argued the proposal did not meet site review criteria on building massing, how parking and circulation were arranged, and the project’s relationship to the public realm. Opponents of denial argued the development would replace a large surface parking area with a campus‑like R&D project, would create functional on‑site open space, and that certain subjective criteria in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and site review code had been met or could be addressed through conditions.
The board also considered a separate motion related to a proposed ordinance to grant nine‑year vested property rights for the project; that procedural item was taken up but was tied to the unresolved status of the site review. Following the tie, staff and the board discussed next steps; the board did not adopt denial findings at tonight’s meeting because the denial motion did not meet the required affirmative vote.
The Planning Board’s split leaves the application in a procedural limbo: by rule the applicant may request a rehearing within seven days, or the board can bring the item back for further consideration at a subsequent meeting. Staff will prepare materials reflecting the board’s deliberations and the board may resume consideration or the applicant may pursue a rehearing or other procedural options under the municipal rules.
Ending: The planning board did not reach a final decision on LUR2024‑00036 at the Feb. 18 meeting. The shortfall of affirmative votes on the denial motion means the applicant may request a rehearing in writing within seven days; staff will report next steps and options to the board in follow‑up materials.
