Broomfield opens process to revoke Town Square site plan

Broomfield Council has begun a process that could revoke the Town Square redevelopment’s site plan, after the city said required building permits were not obtained by the plan’s three-year deadline. The council approved Resolution 2026-133 on Oct. 13, issuing a notice to show cause to the property owners and developer, Broomfield Town Square Alliance.

The notice asks why the Site Development Plan, approved Sept. 12, 2023, should not be revoked. The city says the deadline for required permits was Sept. 12, 2026, and that the permits were not obtained within the three-year period. The notice starts a review; it is not a revocation decision, and the plan remained in effect as of the city’s Oct. 14 update.

The parties also disagreed about what kind of permits would meet the requirement. The city’s position was that permits for primary structures were required. The developer argued that permits for horizontal infrastructure and ancillary buildings, including a boathouse and restroom, counted. That disagreement does not establish that those permits were issued or resolve which interpretation applies.

Hearings and a separate agreement

Broomfield scheduled a Land Use Review Commission hearing for Oct. 26, 2026, to make a recommendation to Council. A Council hearing on possible formal revocation was scheduled for Dec. 8. As of Oct. 15, both hearings were still in the future; whether Council will revoke the plan remained unresolved.

The site-plan process is separate from the 2019 Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement, which the city says remains in effect. A possible revocation of the current plan would not, by itself, end that agreement or settle the parties’ dispute.

The city’s account of a Sept. 22 letter from the developer says the company claimed Broomfield was in default for refusing to extend the deadline. The developer sought an extension through March 12, 2028, and demanded a response within 30 days. The city disputes the default claim, saying it complied with the agreement and that refusing the extension was not a breach.

The city also says the developer proposed $6 million to end the parties’ relationship and rejected the city’s $2 million offer. The developer cited about $5.2 million in project-related costs, according to the city’s summary. That figure is the developer’s claim, not an independently established cost total.