Attachment C - 02.17.26 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes

CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 17, 2026 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and an audio recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark McIntyre, Chair Laura Kaplan, Vice Chair Kurt Nordback Mason Roberts ml Robles (virtual) Claudia Hanson Thiem PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jorge Boone STAFF PRESENT: Alex Pichacz, Senior Planner Deshawna Desouza, Senior Counsel Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations Manager Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager Chandler VanSchaack, Principal Planner Kalani Pahoa, Principal Urban Design Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. McIntyre, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Nobody spoke. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. The February 25, 2025 Draft Planning Board Meeting Minutes are scheduled for approval. L. Kaplan made a motion seconded by C. Hanson Thiem to approve the February 25, 2025 meeting minutes. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no call up items. 4.

5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and consideration of a site review amendment to the Boulder Jewish Commons Lot 2b located at 6018 Oreg Ave. for the development of a new synagogue. Staff Presentation: (00:10:00) Charles Ferro introduced the item and Alex Pichacz presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (00:17:55) Alex Pichacz answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: (00:29:00) Rabbi Mark Soloway and Shannon Jones presented the item to the board. Board Questions: (00:42:30) Shannon Jones and Jeff Gonlevy answered questions from the board. Public Participation: (01:10:00) In Person: 1) Kevin Farrington (pooling time with Eric Schaffron and Cass Gottlieb) 2) Jonathan Lev 3) Mary Kate Rejouis 4) Sam Flaxman 5) Rick Goldstein 6) Dipak Patel 7) Rabbi Fred Greene 8) Nathan Shapiro 9) Joan Nagel 10) Butch Weaver 11) Leslie Kimerling 12) Daniel Aizenman 13) Jeff Gan Levy 14) Stacey Schulte 15) Eric Scott 16) Noah Simcovk 17) Alexandra Ferguson 18) Wayne Seltzer Virtual: 1) Michelle Goldman 2) Liz Hanson 3) Erica Baruch (pooled time with Sheldon Hersch Gottlieb and Michael Ginzberg) 4) Marilyn Pinsker 5) Judith Renfroe 6) Bev Nelson

Board Discussion: (02:25:00) The chair called a break at 8:15 for ten minutes and called the meeting back to order to 8:25 (02:27:42) L. Kaplan reiterated that the Planning Board strives to treat all applicants consistently and fairly per the code and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and that their obligation is to ensure the project meets the code regardless of personal preferences. She stated they are solely there to identify deficiencies in meeting the code and, if found, to deny the project or offer conditions to remedy them; if no deficiencies are found, they cannot modify the project. She agreed with the staff analysis that the project meets the Boulder Revised Code and site review criteria and found no deficiencies. She noted the height is below what is allowed by right, the open space exceeds requirements, and the project includes varied building forms and heights. She appreciated the design, describing it as celebratory but not opulent, and felt the applicant met that goal. She also appreciated the applicant’s efforts to meet with neighbors to the south and to go beyond requirements in responding to concerns, though not required. She stated she had no issues with the setback modifications, second entrance, roundabout, phasing plan, or proposed uses. She acknowledged neighbors’ concerns but noted that zero impact is neither required nor possible. (02:29:30) Ml Robles stated that she believes the application is consistent with the site review criteria. She noted her primary concerns were related to issues raised by neighbors and that staff and the applicant have addressed them more than adequately. She added that it is sobering that members of the community need such safety and security measures in their facilities, and she appreciated the security presentation outlining those needs. She concluded that she was ready to make a motion. (02:30:30) M. Roberts stated that, based on building scale, site design, open space preservation, multimodal access, and compatibility with surrounding uses, the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria. He said the project is generally consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan under policies including context compatibility, neighborhood integration, quality design, and appropriate scale transitions, and that the site layout and functional design meet the site design criteria. He appreciated the site’s compatibility with the surrounding area. He noted the low-profile form consistent with the rural residential character, open space exceeding minimum requirements, outdoor gathering areas, landscape buffers, and tree preservation that contribute to visual compatibility and mitigate impacts to adjacent properties. He stated the project supports safe and convenient non-automobile travel through new pedestrian connections, crosswalk improvements, and bicycle parking. He believes that access and circulation safely accommodate users while minimizing conflicts and preserving landscaping. He noted the TDM is relatively robust and helps reduce vehicle miles traveled. He stated that the project represents a logical continuation of an established presence, meeting the growing needs of their community, and shows attention to site review requirements, making it easy to support. (02:32:03) K. Nordback stated agreed the project meets the site review criteria. He noted his main concern was the design of the roundabout and its consistency with site review criterion 9-2-14(h)(25), regarding

vehicular circulation and efficient use of parking areas. He said the applicant made a convincing case that the roundabout is necessary for security, which outweighs those considerations. He agreed the project meets the criteria and stated he looks forward to voting in favor. (02:32:55) C Hanson Thiem stated the project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and policies, especially those in Chapter 8 related to equity, safety, and community health. She noted the importance of supporting projects that build social infrastructure. She stated that the applicant has done an exemplary job meeting the spirit of the code despite needing accommodation related to access and public interface on a constrained site. She noted some concern about the safety of the pedestrian crossing but was unsure it could be addressed through the criteria. She noted that the site review process can be adversarial, but she was grateful that was not the case here. She thanked them and stated she would fully support the site review amendment and looks forward to seeing the community grow in its new home. (02:35:05) M. McIntyre stated that going last has a benefit, as he agreed with everything his colleagues said. ]He said it is a pleasure to find that the project meets the site review criteria and multiple BVCP policy goals. (02:36:30) MOTION: ml Robles made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to approve Site Review application LUR#2025-00031, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis or review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Planning Board voted 6-0. Motion passed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. East Boulder Subcommunity Plan Form-Based Code Discussion

7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:42 PM. APPROVED BY Mark McIntyre ___________________ Board Chair ________________ DATE