February 17, 2026 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:04] Hang. Good mor… good evening, all. Welcome to the City… We got an echo. you're banished. Okay. Spanish, yeah. Good evening all. Welcome to the City of Boulder Planning Board meeting for February 17th, 2026. We have, our first, order of business after calling the meeting to order is public participation, and we have Vivian with us here tonight to, walk us through, the way we want to conduct ourselves, during, public participation, both before the, the other agenda items, and for our public hearing items. So, the first, public participation, which we will, begin as soon as Vivian gets done, is for any item

[1:09] That any member of the public wants to discuss. Other than… are, Agenda Item 5A, which is the site review of the Boulder Jewish Commons. So, if you have comments for the Boulder Jewish Commons… Commons. Be sure and, pay attention to Vivian's presentation, but save them for, that agenda item. If you want to speak to any other matter, then now is the time to do it. So, I'm going to turn it over to Vivian, and she will walk us through the public participation guidelines. Great, thank you, Chair. Thank you for the intro. Good evening, everybody who's here tonight, including members of the public. So I will just go through these, rules of public participation. So first, just wanted to share that the City has engaged with community members to co-create this vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for

[2:14] community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And for more information about this vision, you can visit our website. Next slide, please. And I'll just share some examples of specific rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and all of these will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that all participants in person and online introduce themselves when speaking by first and last name.

[3:03] Next slide, please. And for those of you who are joining us online, you can let us know, that you would like to speak, when we open up for comment. By clicking on the raised hand icon at the bottom of your screen in this platform. If you're joining by phone, you can do that by dialing star 9, and you can also get to this hand, by looking for the, re… I think it's the reactions button. Next slide, please. Yeah, so if you push reactions, it will show a menu, and you can hit the raise hand one. So as Chair mentioned, this portion of the meeting is called Open Comment, and it is for matters that are not later on the agenda, and each person will… would have 3 minutes to address the planning board, and I can see that a few people have their hands raised online, but maybe, Amanda, I could just check in with you first to see if anyone in person has signed up for open comment. We could start with in person.

[4:06] Sure, I believe everyone that's here is speaking on our public hearing item. Unless… Someone has another comment. unrelated. Okay, we'll go to virtual online. Okay, great. So again, open comment, not for agenda items that are later in the meeting, and we'll start with Michelle Goldman, followed by Bev Nelson. You'll have 3 minutes. Please go ahead, Michelle. I'm speaking on the agenda item later. Oh, great, okay. We can just lower your hand for now. So if you are speaking on the agenda item later, please go ahead and lower your hand, Bev, I'll just unmute you to see if you'd like to speak to Planning Board.

[5:04] Bev, you can go ahead and address Planning Board if you wish. She might also be wanting to speak later. Let's try one more time. It sounds like she's gonna be speaking later, Vivian. Okay, good to know. Great, looks like we don't have any hands raised, online either then, so I will hand it back to you, Chair. Wish you a good meeting. Great, thank you, Vivian. Before we go on, I have two orders of business that I want to take care of. The first is a… roll call, so if we could just, go through and announce yourself, starting with Kurt. Kurt Nordbeck. Claudia Hansen theme. Laura Kaplan. Mason Roberts? ML Robles. And I'm Mark McIntyre. Our seventh member, George Boone, is not with us tonight.

[6:06] The second order of business that I want to, I'm reluctant to do, but I'm going to do it anyway. We have, over 20, we have about 20 in-person speakers, plus several online, that want to address us during the public hearing. So, it is an option for the chair to reduce the speaking time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes when the number of speakers exceeds 12 or so. That's… I'm always reluctant to do it. But it's always better to do it far in advance so that you can edit your comments and pick out the things that are most salient and that you really want to get across. So, I'm going to go ahead and make that decision now, so that you can all review your comments, and I know you have come with

[7:01] you know, this is a big deal, and I want you to get across your points, and we want to hear you, so, best to do your editing now. Okay, all right, having, concluded those two things. We're going to move on to approval of the minutes. We have the February 25th, 2025 draft planning board meeting minutes. Do we have comments? Or edits that have not already been submitted. Laura? Just a question to Amanda. Can you verify that the edits that were previously submitted that Thomas discussed have been incorporated? Okay. Yes. Yes, thank you. No further comments from me. Okay. You want to make a motion? I move that we approve the February 25th, 2025 draft planning board meeting minutes.

[8:02] Second. Okay, Hearing no other discussion, we're going to do a vote, and Okay, tonight I'm gonna start with Kurt and go this way, and we'll conclude with ML and me. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I'm a yes, so we have a 6-0 approval of those minutes. We don't have any… call-up items tonight, and so we move on to, Agenda Item 5A, which is a public hearing. This is… the agenda title is Public Hearing and Consideration of a Site Review Amendment to the Boulder Jewish Commons Lot 2B, located at 6018 Oreg Avenue for the development of a new synagogue. So, the way this works for those that haven't been here, staff is going to make a presentation, to the board.

[9:09] And, provide us with information. That usually goes about 15 minutes. Then the applicant, will make their presenta… we will ask clarifying questions of staff. After that, the applicant will make their presentation, we'll ask clarifying questions of the applicant, and then we will begin our public hearing, where those of you who have signed up, will speak. After that has concluded, we will then close the public hearing, and the board will deliberate and eventually vote. So, that's how it goes, and now I'm going to turn it over to staff. For our presentation. Alex? Great, thanks so much. Before we get started, I'm pleased to introduce Alex Pachez. He's a senior planner in our office. He's making his debut before the planning board this evening.

[10:03] So, I'm happy to turn it over to him to present, our staff recommendation. So, take it away, Alex. Thanks. Welcome, Alex. Yeah, thank you. Good evening, everybody. As Charles mentioned, I'm Alex Pichaz, Senior City Planner. Alex? You gotta, yeah, lean in and, speak up. Thank you. Okay. I'm a Senior City Planner here, and here to present the site review amendment for 601. mate, or Gavin. new. In this presentation, I'll touch on the site review process, planning context and background, summary of the proposed project, key issues, and a recommended motion. The project is part of the overall JCC site review, which was approved in 2012. There's a site review amendment and subdivision in 2024 to create the current lot configuration. And the applicant filed for this site review amendment in May 2025. The project is subject to the current site review code standards in Section 9214 of the zoning code.

[11:04] Normally, the project would only be subject to Planning Board call-up consideration. However, the applicant requested a public hearing based on feedback from neighbors. And there are a few code modifications requested, primarily to accommodate the landscaping and screening, which I'll touch on later in the presentation. So public notice was mailed out to all neighbors within 600 feet of the subject property, and a sign was posted on the property. Feedback from the neighbors primarily includes concerns about visual screening from adjacent properties, outdoor lighting, internal vehicle circulation, and site drainage. The site is located at the corner of Cherryvale Road and Org Avenue. It's approximately 2.5 acres, relatively flat, and is currently used for outdoor activities and open space, along with the gardens associated with the JCC. The current Bonet Shalom Synagogue is located across the street on Cherryvale Road. The BVCP land use designations are low density and very low density residential, which are characterized by larger lots with single-family homes and more rural characteristics.

[12:12] The zoning designations for the site are RR1 and RE, which are both very low density residential zones. A religious assembly use isn't allowed use by right in each zone. The site is located to the south of Arapo Avenue, on the corner of Cherryvale and Oreck, and it's directly south of the JCC, near the properties with low-density residential and small-scale agricultural uses. The site is at the edge of city limits, with properties to the south located within unincorporated Boulder County. On the north side of Arapahoe Avenue are a variety of commercial and small-scale industrial uses, including Flatirons car dealerships, the Avalon Ballroom, as well as Naropo University. The Weathervane apartment complex is to the west on Arapaho.

[13:01] And to the east are more industrial uses and a small mobile home park on the south side of Arapaho, both within county jurisdiction. Here's another view looking to the west with Flatirons Golf Course, also nearby. Here's a Google Street View of the existing site from the roundabout at Cherryvale and Oreg. Here's another view from the opposite side of Oreg Avenue, looking towards the southwest. Note the existing blue spruce trees and wooden privacy fence along the south side of the property. Those will be preserved to help screen the proposed parking area from adjacent properties. Here's a map of the floodplain area. The site is just outside the South Boulder Creek floodplain. And the site is located in the southeast Boulder subcommunity, which is… does not have any community area plans or design… or design guidelines. Excuse me.

[14:00] The site is served by existing sidewalks and on-street bike lanes on Cherryville Road. There's an existing multi-use path on the north side of Oregon Avenue, and detached sidewalks existing on the south side of Oregon Avenue. There are several separate transportation projects currently underway to improve accessibility along Arapahoe Avenue. None of those projects are part of this site review, and there's no off-site transportation improvements that were required by this project. The proposed building will be located on the west side of the property, and aligned towards Oregon Avenue, with a fenced outdoor area behind it to the west. It will be constructed in five phases to include additional classrooms and office spaces in future phases. The classrooms will be used for religious studies, which are considered an accessory use. A 7-foot-tall wooden privacy fence will be constructed along the entire south property line and used for screening. There's a ditch easement along the south side of the property, and the fence will be on the property line to the south of the easement.

[15:03] Bike and pedestrian access to the site is taken from Oreg Avenue. Two access points to the parking lot are proposed for security purposes. There's a circular drive aisle for temporary drop-off and pickup, as well as to provide closer access to the building for emergency vehicles. A new crosswalk will be installed on Oreg Avenue to connect the site to the JCC across the street. Key transportation elements of the project include bike and scooter parking, eco passes provided to staff. Users will be encouraged to carpool and rideshare. And a variety of compact and standard spaces with EV chargers, EV-ready, and EV-capable spaces are proposed. The code modifications requested in this project apply to the parking area and include a reduced front yard landscape setback for the parking lot to be moved slightly closer to the street, which allows for the preservation of existing blue spruce trees to the south side of the property.

[16:01] A side yard setback reduction to the east will allow for one additional parking space. And a reduction to the landscape screening requirements for parking lots at the property edge along the east side of the site was requested to allow for visual transparency to the adjacent property to the east, which is owned by the JCC. The site will be heavily landscaped and provide private outdoor areas, including a kid's play area, lawn, gardens, and patio areas. The site design provides 55% open space, as shown on the open space diagram here. And the building's designed to be a low-profile, single-story building with a height of approximately 26 feet. The maximum building height in the zone is 35 feet. A variety of high-quality building materials are proposed, including brick, stone, metal, and wood. The building and site are designed specifically with security in mind through consultation with security professionals.

[17:06] Here's some additional renderings showing various views of the building. And the only key issue for discussion tonight is whether the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria. Staff finds the proposed project to meet the site review criteria and recommends approval of the application. And here's a suggested motion of approval. And open it for any questions. Okay, thank you, Alex. Before we go any further, or even begin the clarifying questions, I had forgotten To do one other piece of business, and that is to ask the board members if anyone has a conflict of interest, a perceived conflict of interest, or any ex parte communications regarding this application that we need to discuss.

[18:15] Looking left, looking right, I see none. Okay. ML, did you… oh, you got your hand up, sorry, okay, ML? I do. I just wanted to say that I am familiar with activities at the JCC. I've attended a number of events there. I know many people in that community. And I don't feel that my engagement with that community will in any way impact my ability to provide, fair judgment on the project tonight. Great, thank you, ML. Mason? A similar disclosure, my family's a part of this community, spent a lot of time on the property, but I. I don't believe that'll impact my judgment. Okay? I too have attended numerous events, have grandchildren that have attended, JCC summer camp that

[19:07] goes on to this, current space. And again, I, too, don't think that it will affect my ability to be a fair and impartial judge of the, of the applicant and whether or not they meet the code. So, any other discussion? Okay, now we're opening it up to, questions, clarifying questions for staff. Do we have any? Laura. Alex, thank you for a great presentation. Nice job. I was curious about the request for a parking reduction. We don't see those too much lately since we no longer have parking requirements, but why does this project still subject to that? Sure, so when they applied, it was before the new parking regulations were implemented. So, they did request a parking reduction, however, the new regulations state that, any previous approvals are

[20:09] basically no longer valid, so as soon as we approve a parking reduction through this, it would no longer apply, and so that's why I didn't really focus on it in the analysis and presentation. Okay, so kind of a little bureaucratic detail there that we need to go through, but it won't actually matter to the project since we no longer have parking requirements. Okay, thank you. I had one other question. In some of the comment letters that we received, there was a concern about irrigation impacts on neighboring wells. Can you comment on the city's judgment regarding the sufficiency of the irrigation plans for this project? I mean, I guess from a… irrigation and, like, ditch standpoint. There isn't really zoning criteria that gets to… well water and that aspect of it. I mean, irrigation's part of the landscape plan, so site irrigation was reviewed through that, but as far as the ditch easements go, I think the applicant might be able to speak a little bit more to that process and the involvement that they've had with the ditch company.

[21:19] Thank you so much. Claudia. Thanks for the presentation, Alex. I have a couple of questions about, sidewalks and pedestrian connections. And the first is, I just want to make sure that it's in the technical. In the illustrations in our packet, there's a raised crosswalk to the existing JCC parking lot. Is that also… is that treatment reflected also in the technical documents? Yeah, that next phase of the project is to apply for TechDocs, and… But we're talking about a raised crosswalk, not just, like, striped-in signs. Okay, is there any additional signage and or lighting that's present in the plans, or that will be required?

[22:04] At that crosswalk, yep. Not that I'm aware of, I don't think so. I think it's, oregon Avenue is a pretty low-traveled street, and it's kind of nearly a dead end. There's a, I guess, an exit out to Arapaho, but, Yeah, I think we'll look at those design details at the Tech Talk. Okay, does the DCS require anything special for crosswalks mid-block like that? I would want to check with our engineering staff, I don't have the DCS. Okay. At the tip of my face. And then, similar question about the two curb cuts, vehicle entries into the parking lot from Oreg. Are there any pedestrian safety treatments at either or both of those curb cuts? I think they're just standard crosswalks. Again, I think the DCS does apply, so if the DCS does require those, they would be constructed as part of the next phase review through tech docs and building permits. Okay.

[23:03] And then one last question about this, This line of trees on the south side of the parking lot, that have come up in the request for exemptions, modifications. Were those trees part of the original site, site review approval in 2012? I'm just wondering, like, what is the status of those? Are they required to be maintained in the absence of doing a site review amendment? No, they're not required. but, I think in conversations with the neighbors, they were requested to be maintained, and so the applicant did what they could to keep… Yeah, absolutely understand that. I'm just curious if they are part of an approved, like, landscaping plan. Okay. No. Thank you. Hey. ML. Okay, thank you, everyone, for letting me know. ML's up there. You know, you're…

[24:00] Here I am. Thank you, Alex, for this, nice and concise presentation, I appreciate that. So I have just a little clarification. Did I understand That the… Ditch easement is north of the… of the proposed fence. Yes, the fence is on the south side of the ditch easement. Okay. So the ditch and its easement and all those trees are contained in… You know, inside the fenced-off area. Correct. And just to clarify a little bit about what Claudia was asking, there was reference to the trees remaining being a condition. Of a prior approval. No. As opposed to being part of a landscape plan that they were conditioned. Is that true?

[25:00] No, the trees were not part of a previous condition of approval. Okay. Let me… briefly, look, so there were a lot of questions about… The… I guess the drainage and the lateral, and I am guessing that There has been a rigorous engineer being reviewed. Of maintaining the capacity of that ditch In future flood incidents? Yeah, our engineering staff looked at the design, and there's also a condition of approval in the recommended conditions that requires approval by the ditch company to be Granted, and so the applicant's working on obtaining that. That the ditch company will maintain

[26:04] Their ditch for, flood incidents. Is that what we're talking about? The ditch company is responsible for maintenance of the ditch. What's being proposed are a couple fences that are crossing it, and those require approval from the ditch company. Oh. Okay, so nothing to do with the functionality of the ditch. No. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Mason. In a similar line, if I'm understanding correctly. And I've had to read a couple times. So I'm hoping you can… expand on the placement of the fence. Understand, because the ditch, you know, if you were to bring it inside, that would considerably create quite a large space, but right now, as I see it in the drawings, it's right on the sidewalk, is that correct? On the east and north?

[27:00] Or, west and north side. So the ditch runs along the south side of the property, and the fence is along the property line. I think… Yes. Yeah. Does that work? Utility easement, I'm sorry. Yeah, the utility easement. Yeah, so that's a kind of a separate, easement area, and the fence along that is going to be on the north side of that utility easement. Right, so it's right up against the sidewalk, correct? It'll be… Approximately 18 inches away. 18 inches away. Can you… speak… I'm not… I don't think I've seen other proposals before us that have a fence so close to the sidewalk. Can you speak a little bit to how that's preferable over other options? Yeah, so the code requires an 18-inch separation from the sidewalk, and I think if the applicant chose to put the fence in that location. Because if they were on the inside of that utility easement, it would limit their programming space on the inside.

[28:03] So just long and short, it's meeting the 18-inch requirement. Correct. Okay, cool. That's all. Okay, other questions for staff? All right, seeing none, we're going to move on to the applicant presentation. Welcome. Unless otherwise requested, we typically allow a maximum of 15 minutes, so I'm gonna… set my timer, and please give me one minute? Sure. Okay. Let me share my screen. Yep. And, I've taken to, advising applicants, That, as you may have heard, questions that you want to answer, that's great, but we will also have questions for you after your presentation, so Work your best to get through your presentation, and then, anticipate Questions after that, or… We'll have plenty of questions for you. You got it. Okay, thank you.

[29:01] Well, thank you all. Good evening. I'm Rabbi Mark Soloway. I've been the rabbi of Congregation Borneyshawn. for 21 years, and I'm also a resident of Cherryvale Road. Thank you, Alex, for that wonderful presentation. Just a little bit of history, and I'm going to pass on to Shannon here. Our congregation was established 44 years ago, and we've called 1527 Cherryvale Road our home since 1981. And we're not just an institution, we're a long-standing fixture of this neighborhood, and we've been here longer than many of our neighbors. And our members are… I would say deeply integrated into the social and civic fabric of Boulder as compassionate and engaged citizens. When we first opened our doors on Cherryvale, we were a small I was not there. We were a small lay-led community running services out of a house, but as Boulder has grown, so have we. And in the last decade alone, our membership has grown by over 50%, from 189 households to 300 households today.

[30:02] And while we cherish our current location for its intimacy and creekside setting, the reality is that we have completely outgrown it. We simply would not be moving if it weren't absolutely necessary. space, first of all, we have a social hall that comfortably only sits 70 people. Education, we have an 85-plus religious school, 85-plus students in a religious school, that are currently split between 3 different locations, including the basement of my house, I might add. and accessibility. Our current building fails to… Properly serve congruants with mobility challenges or disabilities, and it's inadequate for the increasingly diverse needs of our community. In our weekly cycle of Torah reading, this week's portion from the book of Exodus introduces the concept of a whole community coming together and participating in the building of a Mishkan, a sanctuary or a holy space.

[31:00] And our vision is rooted in our values. Our need and our vision for a new building is rooted in our core values of sustainability, spirituality, safety, and inclusion. sustainability, we need a facility that aligns with our Tikuno Lam, our Repairing the World ethos, one that is energy efficient and supported by our very active green team that we have. Resilience. We must be secure from the constant risk of flooding, a reality we faced very painfully after the 213 flood. and security. In an era where Jewish institutions face increasing threats, we require modern security infrastructure to protect our community. Shared vision of the future. This move has been part of a larger shared vision for well over a decade, and since the site plan for the Boulder Jewish Commons was approved in 2013-2014, the goal has been for Bonai Shalom to co-locate with other Jewish institutions, like the JCC.

[32:00] Five years, our volunteers Many of whom are here, and our design team at Stantec, led by Shannon Jones, who is right here, have worked tirelessly toward this moment. And the process has been a little longer and a little more costly than I anticipated, but we are finally ready to break ground, and we ask for your support tonight in approving our site plan amendment so that we can take this vital next step for our community. Thank you so much for your time, and I'm going to now pass over to Shannon Jones from Stantec to discuss the technical design details, which I know you're all very keen to hear. Thank you so much, Rabbi Mark, I really appreciate it. As Mark mentioned, my name is Shannon Jones, and I work for Stantec. Our office. is located right up here, on Boulder Canyon. In the very beginning steps of our design, we were very focused on site review criteria, and so some of the key highlights for us that really aligned well with Bonet Shalom's, overall values were inclusion, stewardship, resilience, engagement.

[33:02] innovation, and collaboration. Really being a central hub for the Jewish community. But one of the most important targets was sustainability. So we really wanted to emphasize the fact that Bonet has a sustainability committee that we've been working with hand-in-hand throughout this process. And at the end of the day, we're going to be able to exceed Boulder Energy Code, and be able to target, at least, the LEED Gold equivalency. So we're very excited about the sustainability on the project. Just as a reminder, this is a site review amendment to the original site review that was approved in 2014. The existing Bonat Shalom is just west of Cherryvale, so we're already across the street, and a part of this neighborhood, and a part of this community as it exists today. The Boulder JCC is a taller building that affronts Arapahoe Road, much taller, but it uses a lot of materials that we also incorporate into our design, related to brick, stone, metal accents, and wood, as Alex had mentioned.

[34:05] The existing milk and honey farm is to the south, and the Lot 2B was always intended to have a Jewish institution as a part of it. This entire area, this really just helps to fill in one of the empty holes that's currently as part of this site review. In terms of site design and context, first I want to kind of set some of the constraints that we were up against while we were designing the layout for the entire site. So, to the south, we have the drainage and irrigation easement, which really limits our plantable area. We also have our building setback, and so that limits exactly where we're allowed to put the building. And we do have those two curb cuts that Alex mentioned earlier. The second one to the east is really important for security. So I want to highlight that because it's an aspect that was recommended to us by our security consultant. The utility easements, as mentioned, are over here on the Cherryville side.

[35:00] And then we have our landscape buffer to the north of the parking lot that Alex mentioned as well. So we're designing a very unique design with special criteria for a conservative synagogue. One of those things being that we wanted to have an east-facing synagogue. As well as the secure perimeter. So this white dashed line that you see around the site is where that 7-foot-tall security fence, as well as the building envelope, helps to create that entire secure perimeter, is one of our main aspects of the design. Then we have the narrow part of the site over here, which is where we've located the parking spaces. The parking spaces, drive aisles, everything laid out according to code. Knowing that we had to do a slight parking reduction. Other slight constraints that we were up against are… how do we get a fire truck into the site and access the building successfully in a way that will be effective in case of a fire? And so that's really what these dashed lines are that you see along OREG, through the roundabout, and then through the parking lot as you… as that fire truck would be able to exit.

[36:06] This roundabout, as it's designed according to these dashed lines and dark lines, is already designed to the point of, kind of, maximum area, so we weren't able to make it any smaller, unfortunately. We would have loved to. Less pavement, the better. So, other things that are mentioned here, we already talked about the bike racks and the scooter parking, so those are just other site constraints that we knew we had to make sure we hit. And really, at the end of the day, the most logical layout for the site was having the building on the west, the parking spaces on the east, and the roundabout to connect everything. The roundabout also provides a convenient drop-off for both school kids and anyone that's elderly, or mobility impaired. So that convenience really helps to be able to drop you right off at the front gate. So throughout the design process, the neighbors really helped to influence the design, and so some of the things that we incorporated after meeting with the neighbors was that we wanted to include some landscape buffer from the most active parts of the site within the sanctuary.

[37:14] We also included a landscape buffer to the south of the roundabout, again, to help block those lights and the noise that could potentially be coming from that roundabout. The blue dashed line that you see here is a new solid 7-foot-tall wood fence, once again, creating an obstruction. The white dashed line is an existing fence that will remain And then we have the trash enclosure, which also helps to create one more barrier between the neighbor and our roundabout. We're preserving these existing trees down here to the south. Those are those yellow highlighted elements there, and that is what caused us to have to do the parking, landscape setback reduction. So as we worked through the design.

[38:02] Back in 2021, the original design, Bonet went ahead and met with the neighbors back then. So what you see on this diagram here, in the red outline is actually the proposed design from 2021, which was two stories, and now we're only doing one story. The blue building here is what we are actually doing, so that's the proposed design. So, where our sanctuary was previously 84 feet from the fence, now we're 100 feet. Where we were previously 26 feet, we're now 34 feet, so we really tried to push The building is far… as we could within those site constraints in this game of Tetris that we were playing between all of the different programmatic components. Within the site, we are allowed to have an FAR of 27,000, but we're only doing 12,000. We're allowed to do 3 stores, but we're only doing 1. We could go all the way up to 35 feet, and we're 23 feet, but 26 when measured in Boulder standards. And we're in allowed use by right with the religious assembly. While we're only required to provide 10-20% of usable open space.

[39:08] that's one of the most important things to this congregation. So we went all the way up to 56%, because that backyard space is going to be really important for the way that they… for the way that they use the building, use the space. This diagram here is showing the design from 2021 in the black and white drawing up here on the top. So this was the original concept that was 34 feet… 34 feet high, and 2 stories. And so the building that we're designing today is in this blue outline and also pictured here on the bottom, which is our proposed design of 23 feet. So much lower overall. And the bringing down that story really helps, I think, to connect it to the neighborhood context and transition between the taller JCC to our neighbors to the south and those single-family residences, which are actually quite close in height to our proposed building.

[40:00] Alright, and now I'm going to talk a little bit about our design of the building itself. So this is a rendering of the Oreg entry. So, yes, our main entry is going to be on the east, but we wanted to make sure that we were addressing the public realm and holding that urban edge. So, we got as close as we could to Oreg, but then wanted to dress this up. So we've got a really charming arbor over the entry gate. And it's a residential scale. We were very much inspired by residential architecture as we were designing this building. The primary entry This is our secure fence, but we wanted it to feel, again, like a neighborhood, like a residence. And so we used this Jerusalem stone, which is very much of the aesthetic, with the wood fence and a really lovely crafted metal work gate that helps to give a sense of charm to this front entry. The residential scale and the varied building forms and materials that you see here were also really important to us while we were reviewing and trying to meet that site review criteria.

[41:00] And we have a very visible entry canopy that's also visible from Oreg, so you get a feel for the entry, where it is, and that you can feel welcomed in before you walk up to the building. In terms of materials, we're using high-quality materials throughout. We've… we've elected to use some natural local stone, that also reflects that Jerusalem stone. We're using metal window accents, so this helps to tie back to the JCC and some of the metal that they have on their building. And we're using a variation of brick colors, we've got a dark and a light. That kind of gives a variation, again, to really help to accentuate the different forms within the building. It's a very sheltered outdoor arrival moment for you, so you really feel like you've been welcomed into the site. And once again, using a lot of those residential style and details. And on that, we are very excited to… get your feedback and comments and questions on this, so welcome to our new home. Just to reiterate a couple of things, we've really worked hard to meet those site review criteria. We've…

[42:05] incorporated neighbor comments throughout as best as we could, and we're asking for your approval on our site review amendment. We appreciate your time. Okay, thank you very much. I was just about to give you your two-minute warning, and you're… you're done early, so… You're welcome. Thank you much. Okay, we now go to clarifying questions from the board for the applicant. Who's ready? Okay, Kurt? Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to ask a question, first of all, about the roundabout, which we're looking at here. I assume that you, considered other options to. give the access, besides the roundabout. I could imagine having a pull-off on Oreg with a loading zone there, or something that is not a full circle, but just a little

[43:05] a little space as you come in. Can you talk about how you ended up… with this, because it's costing you a lot of space, and a lot of pavement, and so on. Yeah. From what I understand, we are not allowed to have car traffic queuing in the public right-of-way. So we're not allowed to have the, a pull-off on Oreg to begin with, so that's, that's one response to that. And in terms of within the site, we also studied a hammerhead condition, but it really doesn't work when you start to look at all of our landscape setbacks and buffers and everything else that we would have to incorporate. And a hammerhead could be a safety concern, because now, instead of a truck with potentially bad visibility behind them having to back up at our main entry, where people of limited mobility are coming in and out of the building. You know, now you run the risk of those cars or trucks hitting someone in there. And you get the additional backup noise of those trucks as well.

[44:04] Did you look at, if we could go… maybe go back to the site plan, did you look at the possibility of Putting the west entrance further west. sort of at the edge of the parking lot, and then having a little pull-off there, so you can either come in and go directly to parking, or pull into a little sort of north-south oriented parking or waiting area there. It wouldn't give you as much space. I'm just trying to… think through… Yeah. what… what brought you to this? Yeah, I… Let me make sure I understand your question. Are you suggesting that, why didn't we have the pull-off come further in, so that you come in and you hit the roundabout right away? Yeah, and… Okay. Or… and possibly not even the roundabout then, just having a pull-off just on the west edge of the parking space, the parking area, where you could have a loading zone, and then people could continue either back out or into the…

[45:06] A parking space. We wouldn't be allowed to do that from a fire truck access perspective, I believe. But what I will say is that we wanted to place the ADA parking spots, which I don't have highlighted here, but the ones that I'm hovering over here, are accessible stalls. So we did not want someone, from an accessibility standpoint, to have to cross a drive aisle and potentially cause, conflicts there. If I'm understanding your question correctly. So it's really about that pedestrian safety for those folks. Okay, understood. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. One other question about the phasing. So, most of the building will be built in Phase 1, and then you have four very small additional phases. Can you talk… Through what's going on with it. Sure, yeah, and if you don't mind, I'm gonna grab an exhibit that has the full phasing plan with it, so that we can give that whole overview to you. So give me one second here.

[46:09] Apparently I have too many things open. I apologize. Originally, we had submitted the entire, Phasing as a 2A, 1A, 3B, because we weren't sure exactly how that would occur over time. Would you like to speak to the timing, Jeff? Thank you, Daniel. Yeah, I know who's finding it still. Well, maybe while Shannon's finding the exhibit, I'll just introduce myself. My name is Jeff Gonlevy. I've lived. down the street from where this project will be since 2015. My wife and I moved to Boulder in 2014, and have been members of the congregation since, although I must say that my wife grew up

[47:07] off of Cherryvale, when her family moved here when she was, 8 or 9, I always get the exact facts. Slightly confused, I think, as you can all probably appreciate, construction these days is extremely costly. And so, in thinking about how we could design and build this building. So that our relatively small community of now 300 member households, it was quite a bit less 5 years ago when we really started in earnest on this project, could afford it. afford to build this project, we really thought of it, you know, what was kind of the minimum that we could live with, you know, on day one, that would kind of meet all the needs, of our existing community? And then. You know, once we were in the building, as, you know, we started to feel like we were already growing out of the building, what could we do in relatively small chunks where we could go back to the media and say, look.

[48:09] you know, we could really use more money so we could add another couple classrooms, or look, to serve… to really serve our community and its needs, we need, you know, 3 more staff people. Let's… let's go back and work together to raise money to expand the admin wing. So, what you see in Phase 1 is really, I mean, we've already scaled back, you know, our ambitions several times over the last few years, and so this is what we settled on. You know, as it is, it's costing us you know, as of now, estimated $15.98 million. It's a lot… lot of money for a relatively small community, and so, you know, each… so… so that's… that Phase 1 represents kind of the minimum that we feel like we can live with, that kind of meets, you know, all of our existing needs. Somewhat adequately, but, the additional phases would represent, you know, kind of expanding the education and program wing, adding some more classrooms if our religious school continues to grow, and potentially, let's see, phase five would be adding on to our admin wing, which is kind of that north

[49:14] east portion. So, if we find that we need additional staff, and they're not… we're having a hard time squeezing them into the current admin area, that's what Phase 5 represents. You know, at this point, obviously, we would love your, your approval of our site plan amendment tonight, and if so, we… Would proceed at pace through the remaining, you know, phases of the city approval process, hopefully break ground. on this project by the end of the year. And… You know, the remaining phases, you know, I think what it… we requested 3 years, I believe, to kind of build out the additional, but at this point, you know, it's really gonna be, a matter of move-in.

[50:01] Live in the new building, and if we feel like we need more space and we can muster the will to go back and raise additional money, then we would build out the additional phases. Does that hopefully answer your question? If not, I'm happy to try again. No, that was great. Thank you, appreciate it. Can I segue on that? Oh, good, perfect. Yeah, you're next, so you can colloquy on that right now. Perfect. Regards to the phasing, so I understand, the Phase 1 piece, what about the rest of the site? So the building… I understand the building components, but what about the site components, regards to your phasing? Is the entire parking area and all of the landscaping and fencing and all, will that be done Phase 1 as well? Yes, so all of that will be done in Phase 1 ML. As a result of the parking calculations, which are based on our assembly spaces, our sanctuary and our social hall, the parking requirements wouldn't change at all. Therefore, bike parking, long-term bike parking, etc. would remain the same requirements as we have them today.

[51:07] And you would build, that privacy fence on the south end with Phase 1, and any landscaping, all that landscaping that I see everywhere, is that considered part Phase 1 as well? Correct, yep, everything that you see site-wise is included for day one. Okay, perfect. I have another question in regards to some of the public input, and that has to do with The parking lot and the lighting. So, is this lighting at the parking lot? Intended to be… Well, do you have a picture of the fixtures for that? Parking? Are they big overhead ones, or are they… Little short. They are the same spec to match the JCC parking lot, and all of the lighting has been designed with zero-foot candles along the perimeter at our property line.

[52:08] So, the question is, because, right, I'm seeing these houses and their relationship to them. I don't think I'd want to park in my backyard, but, Are those parking lights? Off when there's nobody using the building? Or is this… it's dark and the lights are on? All night, until the next day. Hold on, we'll have Jeff answer that one for you. Yeah, so that question actually came up in meeting with the neighbors, and it wasn't something we had necessarily, like, proactively considered, but once the question was raised, we went back and talked about it, and operationally. We agreed that, you know, in the evenings, if we don't have any programs, that I believe, like, after 9pm, if there's nothing going on in the building, we can reduce the, the power or the foot candles or whatever in those lights by 50%.

[53:03] But in talking more with our, Secure Communities Network, our security consultant who will be speaking during the public comment period, it was felt that it was important to leave some light on, throughout the evening as a security deterrent. But again, as Shannon mentioned, there'll be no foot candles beyond, the boundary of our property, and we did agree, that it was a benefit to us as well, you know, to reduce the intensity of the lighting in the evening to save some money. But if we could also, you know, benefit the neighbors by reducing the lighting if we don't have programming You know, on the property, that it would… we're happy to, you know, help the neighbors in that way as well. And is that in a, will that be documented, that agreement be documented in a, an agreement Through this process, or how is that going to be guaranteed?

[54:07] We… we're certainly open to documenting, our consideration of that. Well… They'd be documenting a requirement to reduce it when there's nobody using the building. I don't exactly know the correct mechanism for that. We're happy to talk, sit down with our neighbors, and… Do it, private party to private party. I… Right. That… that… That might be the best. But you don't see a hardship with doing that, and having that be a requirement. I think as long as we had the ability and the flexibility that if for some reason the security, considerations changed, and it felt important to keep a brighter, a brighter light on that is still, code compliant, I mean, that's… we're currently meeting code. What is being asked of us is to, consider the… consider the neighbors and…

[55:04] Right. Further reduce lighting that is already not supposed to be penetrating past our property line. Right. I also know… I also know that, Stantec's lighting engineer really thought very carefully about the placement of those lights, and tried to, especially placement of the lights along the south. Boundary, south area of our parking lot, placing them in a way such that the light… the pole was kind of facing towards the neighbor, so that the light was coming down and away from the neighboring property. Do you have a drawing that shows I saw some of the lighting. fixtures on the plan, but I'm not familiar with what the JCC currently has to, just off the top of my head, know what you're talking about. Is there a spec sheet that you can pull up? Regards to the location of… the southernmost parking area lights.

[56:06] Now, if I could call you for just a second while maybe they look through the spec sheets. I have a question for staff on the lighting, and that is, so the applicant has submitted a lighting plan. That meets or exceeds. all the requirements of the site review, is that correct? Correct. Including zero-foot candles at the property edge. And, per the conditions of approval, a final lighting plan is required through the TechDoc process. Right. I just want to… Clarify that the applicant's offer. of mitigation. doesn't actually fit within The site review criteria, or our decision-making criteria. So… Yeah, I'm just speaking to some of the concerns that were raised by. the neighbors? And, I guess, usability of the…

[57:02] Does the site really… does the light really bleed off the site or not? So, that's a… That's a… yeah. only that… We can only condition… just a reminder to us all that we can only condition a project in order to bring it into compliance with the site review criteria. We cannot… Make additional, conditions upon the project. Right? I understand that. It just seems like it's a big concern, and I just want to… Make sure that This is well understood by not just myself, but the public, that, you know, this is meeting, what the city requires, and that the applicant has, in fact. gone above and beyond to try to address that. So, I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Okay, thank you, ML.

[58:00] Oh, okay, anyone else with clarifying questions for the applicant? Mason? Oh, okay. Wait, Claudia. Okay, oh, I didn't… I… okay, all right, you go. I think just one question for all of you, and that is, how much sharing of parking spaces and how much pedestrian traffic do you expect between the JCC and this new building? As a part of our site review, we were required to look at our site as an individual site. So, in the kind of technical response would be, not at all. We're accommodating all of it on our site. But Jeff can speak more to some of those overflows, if and when that's even an issue. Sure, and we have… the JCC Executive Director is here tonight and intends to make some comments during the public comment period, so he could speak more to this as well. I'm only a casual observer, full disclosure, my wife

[59:04] is the Farm and Sustainability Director at Milk and Honey Farm at the JCC. My kids attended the Early Childhood Center. So, the amount of pedestrian traffic currently between our planned site, for the Bone Halam New Building and the JCC is relatively minimal. The current site is used 5 days a week by the Forest School, and so you will often see around 9 o'clock, and maybe again around 11.30 or so, you know, troops of little, pre-kindergarteners, moving back and forth from the site. But, you know, we certainly… part of co-locating with the JCC is because we certainly hope and anticipate that people will you know, be at the JCC, pick up their kids from the Early Childhood Center, and instead of, you know, getting in their car and moving very far, just walk across, you know, the parking lot across Oregon Avenue to come attend an event at Bonet Shalom.

[60:03] Or vice versa. But this whole area is a little bit more of a car-centric area. There's certainly We have a number of congregants who really enjoy, you know, biking, and so there will be pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and we are accommodating that, but yes, we think most pedestrian traffic will be from our site to the JCC and back and forth, but it's still relatively minimal. This is not an urban setting. Okay, yeah, just to clarify why I'm asking about this is… I understand that you're absolutely dealing with, with transportation mobility access demands on your site, but you have included in this proposal a new crosswalk, connecting directly to the JCC parking lot, and so I'm wondering, what the rationale for that is, and again, what usage you expect. In the short and longer term. Yeah. Yeah, good answer. And I mean, at the end of the day, this is a site review amendment to the entire area, so we're really trying to be good neighbors to our neighbor to the south, because we know people will be sharing that kind of use between one side and the other, just naturally, by the nature of it being a Jewish commons.

[61:12] Can I have a quick follow-up on parking? Sure. So, are you building the amount of parking that you want to build, or are you building more because of the old requirements that aren't really requirements anymore? I'll call it, we fit just right. Laura? Thank you. So I wanted to follow up on the question I posed to staff earlier that I… was perhaps ineloquently… inelegantly worded. In the public comments, there were some, questions around clay plugs in utility lines, and I think I called it irrigation or something, but that was… That was something that, was of concern to some folks. And I'm assuming that falls under the same kind of logic that we just talked about with regard to the lighting, that you are meeting all of the code requirements? Is that… is that correct?

[62:04] Or is there anything there that staff would consider to be needing to be buffed up to meet code requirements? No, our engineering staff reviewed the proposal and doesn't have any concerns with what's going on. I think it's just a matter of getting approval from the ditch company to do what's proposed. That's why there's that condition of approval. Okay, thank you so much. I have a quick question, and that is, you, you talk about your security fence. does… well, what I see there visually looks like a 7-foot-tall residential fence. Is, in fact, its construction any different, or specs or standards than A residential privacy fence. Not really. It's going to be a solid 7-foot-tall, solid wood-planked fence,

[63:03] through TechDocs, we'll determine exactly what those details look like, so it may go to a vertical, but the transparency is really what's important from security on day one, but we do have our security consultant here to speak to additional security requirements during the public hearing portion, so… a transparency is important. Lack of the fence. Right. Lack of transparency. Lack of transparency. Sorry, okay. Okay, okay. Laura? So just as a point of order, we have discussed that any member of the consultant team needs to be part of the consultant presentation, not presenting during public comment. So I guess my question is, do any of the board members have a question for the security consultant as part of the consultant team? Given that they would not typically be testifying during public comment, since they're on the applicant team. Although, Mark, I'll defer to you as chair. Oh, well, I… think that anyone can comment during public comment, but if they are… well, no, we've… we…

[64:08] Yeah, I'm still thinking out loud here, so… Your point is that the applicant's time has been used, and that they are… that the security consultant is part of the applicant team. We have… Required people who have… A business or financial interest to disclose that as they speak. But do you remember it being A prohibition on speaking during public comment. I don't recall that there's a rule against it, although Deshauna might know differently, but I think that we generally felt that the applicant should not be extending their time by having their members testifying during public comment. But I don't know that we came to a hard and fast conclusion about it, so I'll defer to you as chair, but I just also wanted to invite fellow board members, if we have questions for the security consultant, to go ahead and raise them now.

[65:01] Yeah. Any questions for the security consultant? I will also note that the applicant finished early. Thanks, Mark. Excellent point by the chair. So, okay, in this case, I think a brief comment from the security consultant during the 2-minute limit We'll… will be allowed tonight, and that's what we'll do tonight, given… all the circumstances around this tonight. Thank you so much. Okay, any other clarifying questions for the applicant? Kurt? I actually have a follow-up for staff, if I can. Sure. In response to my question about the roundabout and the design of the drop-off area. The applicant said that staff, and staff agreed, that queuing in the street would… causing queuing in the street would not be allowed. However…

[66:01] Would it not be allowed to reconfigure the street profile to provide a drop-off area there? I would say that was not proposed by the applicant, and when it comes to adding additional curb cuts, that creates conflict points for pedestrians and safety, so from this perspective, having The two-site access points and the separate drop-off. Space is safer as reviewed from what the applicant proposed. Okay, yeah, and I wasn't talking about a separate curb cut, I was talking about just basically a pull-out on Oreg. That could be a drop-off area, you know, the way you would have for a hotel, for example. Yeah, that… still… I think it… it wasn't something that was proposed, so it wasn't necessarily considered by staff. Okay. Thank you.

[67:03] Okay, I'm looking for any raised hands or inquisitive eyes, okay. We will, close the, question period for the applicant. Thank you very much for your presentation, and we will now open the public hearing, and again, so we're gonna have, 2 minutes, for each speaker, and we will do the… Chair? Yes. Apologies. Given that the board. digress briefly into the security team. Would the board like to give the remaining 2 minutes of applicant time for the security folks to speak before moving on to public hearing statements? Well, sure, that would be fine. I was going to let them speak during the public hearing time for 2 minutes, but… but… Sure, it's a… it's a good time now. If the, if the security folks are ready, you've got 2 minutes, and that will, that will start… we'll start with you.

[68:04] And, and Amanda, you're going to, be manning the timer. Thank you. Yeah, Daniel. Security Consulting was gonna get full-time, he's got a longer presentation, so it's possible we could do that. Okay, so you're… we have people pooling time, so how many people do you have? I had two mothers, so… Total of 6 minutes. But I can do it in 5. Okay. Maybe 4.30. Okay. I'll give up my time out. Let's… we're gonna procedurally do… so we have a procedure for pooling time. Okay? And you, you have two, and then it's not just another speaker gives you their two. It is, and deshaun, I don't know if you… I can pull up my…

[69:03] copy of the rules, but we operate on the same rules as council, I believe, which is… 2… 3 other speakers equal 2 minutes additional, so a total of 4? Yeah, so I'm referencing Planning Board Rules of Procedure, looking at section 6.4, and it says 3 or more people can pull their time so one speaker can speak for 5 minutes, if all of the people pooling time have signed up to speak when the spokesperson is called to speak and are present, either in person or virtually. Okay, so. That's 3, 4, 5… 3 people. Get your pooling time total yours. to others, okay? Yes, sir. And we'll note those, and so, we'll pull their cards. So, who are the other two people that you are pooling time with? Eric Schaffron, who I believe is online, and ma'am.

[70:00] Cass Gottlie. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I'm… I'm sorry for the discombobulated organization here, but we don't, we don't have, this happen that often. So, you're ready to go? Yes, sir. You've got 5 minutes, and we're anxious to hear your discussion. And sorry to add to the discombobulation, our timer's. not, I have a 3-minute and a 2 minute, so I'm gonna start… Okay. I'm sorry. Amanda? I'm gonna start the 3, and then I'll just start the 2. Actually, I'll just set… I'll set mine for… Just so he can see it. I'll just do 5. Okay, yeah, so he can see it, that's fine. So just so you know, it's gonna show 3, but then I'm gonna start the 2 minutes, so you'll have, like, a 2-minute warning, basically. Okay. Okay. Sorry. For techno… this is not our friend tonight, the timer up here. Okay. Okay. And where will. Is that gonna run off of that? You're gonna see it on the screen.

[71:01] Oh, on the screen, great, thank you. It'll be as soon. A few screens in the room, you'll see it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Alright. Alright. And… go. Alright, my name's Kevin Farrington with Secure Community Network. I'm a Regional Security Advisor for. SCN. As a point of clarity, we are a security consultant, but we're a security consultant for the entire Jewish community. We are the official safety and security organization for the Jewish community in North America. My territory is Colorado, and I service 130 facilities throughout Colorado on various security, matters. We also work with the interfaith community as well, so I'm familiar with the threats that face, religious organizations beyond the Jewish community. As far as the threat in the Jewish community, it's obviously exploded over the last several years. It's an 893% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States over the past 4 years.

[72:03] To put that in perspective, we had 2,700 incidents in 2021, so that's pre-October 7th attack, and in 2025, we had over 9,300 anti-Semitic incidents. 851 of those are what we consider threat to lives. So, direct threat to an individual or a facility with threat to harm. Looking at some of our national… significant national incidents and international incidents, you kind of see the wide range of threats that we face. It's not just an active shooter threat. Our adversaries will try to get at us however they can. If they can't get firearms, they'll use vehicles. If they can't get that, they'll get creative, they'll use fire bombs, knives, whatever they can. Looking at some significant incidents, you have the murder of two Israeli workers in BC by firearm. An arson in Mississippi, which was conducted at night due to, poor lighting at the facility, to break into the facility and lighting on fire. An active shooter in Australia.

[73:07] Which killed 15 and wounded 40. A vehicle attack just several weeks ago on our Jewish Chabad outreach headquarters in New York did significant damage to that facility, and obviously the firebombing here in Boulder that everyone's familiar with. Incidents specific to Colorado, just last year, we had 142 threat incidents, so that's threat incidents where, it's either vandalism or, threats to harm individuals, graffiti, bomb threats, email threats, phone threats. 10 of those were direct threat to life incidents here in Colorado. So when we look at a facility, like we're looking at tonight, we try to look at the security considerations in what we call a concept of defense in depth. We don't want one technique that's going to provide protection. We're looking at various things that'll provide layers of protection. To various threats, while still maintaining

[74:02] a warm and welcoming and aesthetic value. When you look at the main entrance. We advise to place the main entrance on the east side of the building, rather than facing the oil rig. And the reason for that is to limit direct surveillance of the comings and goings of folks as best we can, and also to limit direct access to the main entrance. If you look at the vehicle attack protections that we put on the facility, we recommended the roundabout. That's not only, To allow for the fire trucks to get in there, but that's also because of, we wanna… essentially provide a speed bump for any vehicle attack. You can't gain a lot of speed and hit the front of the entrance there. We've also got security bollards that surround the main entrance as well. If you look at the parking lot, the two curb cuts, we recommended that. ensure that we can empty the parking lot in a crisis, so we've had an emergency, we have somebody harming individuals at one end, folks at the other end of the parking lot can exit, they're not bottled up in there and forced to exit their vehicle and have to deal with that on foot.

[75:06] It also provides us, another access point, potentially, in a crisis for law enforcement or fire responders or whatever first responder elements come into the building, into the parking lot. Some of the other security measures, talk about, the boulders, the trees, and the walls are all there to basically limit vehicle access. You look at the fencing, we're trying to limit visibility in there. So, limit visibility, not just see what's going on, but also to establish patterns on a daily basis of when people are moving around in the facility to potentially, attack plan. There's ballistic protection in the facility, there's cameras, there's alarms, and obviously there's the lighting piece that we talked about in the parking lot. In general, that's our… that's my summary. I think I made it in under 5 minutes there, but Are there any? Questions on the security plan, or some of the logic behind it?

[76:06] Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Okay, now we're going back to our standard public hearing. people have 2 minutes. And so, Amanda, if you could… That's… I had a little different timer than Amanda did, so… okay, And if you could, Name the next speaker, and then the speaker following, and if you're the… if you're the speaker coming up, go ahead and make your way up, and stand near the, the podium there while the current speaker speaks, and we can have a quick transition that way. Sure, so first up, we'll have Jonathan Lev, followed by Mary Kate Rejoice. Hopefully I said that right.

[77:05] Alright. Ready Hello, my name is Jonathan Lev. I've lived in the City of Boulder for. 19 years. since 2010, I have the privilege of serving as the Executive Director of the Boulder Jewel. Community Center, many of you know as the JCC or the J. The first time I spoke in these chambers was when the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval for the site plan for the Boulder Jewish Commons. Months later, the Boulder City Council agreed with that recommendation and approved the site plan. And in May 2016, the Boulder JCC opened its doors as the first institution on the Boulder Jewish Commons, with the dream of additional organizations joining in the future. The Boulder Jewish Commons has been a perfect home for the Boulder JCC over the last almost 10 years. It has been incredible to witness the way it has helped build and connect the Jewish community and the broader Boulder community. Including Rotary Club, the Boulder Fire Department, many nonprofits, and important life events. Last year, we hosted 440 events that were not our own, while hosting thousands of programs and events as well.

[78:09] Yet, while we've experienced such amazing community and connection for the last 9-plus years, the dream of creating the campus that expanded beyond the JCC has remained in something that we felt was missing. Since 2016, the land upon which Bonet Shalom is intending to build their new synagogue has been a tremendous home for our forest school and day camp programs, where we've enjoyed watching and hearing our kids, including my own, enthusiastically play every weekday for hours. Well, the building of Bonet Shalom Synagogue would be on this cherished land. We're beyond thrilled to see that Bonet Shalom is at the threshold of getting this plan approved. We look forward to celebrating their groundbreaking, hopefully by the end of this year. Thank you for your consideration, and your support of this project to help build out the vision of Boulder Jewish Commons. Thank you.

[79:03] Great, thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. So, we've got Mary Kate, and I apologize. Your last name, Rajou? Rajoy? Rajouille. Rajouy. Followed by Sam Flaxman. Thank you. Esteemed members of the Planning Board, I am Mother Mary Kate Rajouille, and I. I serve as the rector of St. Aiden's Episcopal Church on. 425 Colorado Avenue in Boulder. I have known… I have no… I'm getting extra time. I've known Rabbi Mark, for 21 years that we have both served this community. I've been witness to the warmth and support of his community. I'd go deeper than that. More than that, congregation of Bone Shalom is reasonable people of a reasonable and holy faith with a deep commitment to the common good, love of neighbor in its very best expression.

[80:00] I support Congregation B'nai Shalom's efforts to build a home. That provides safety, that provides room for joy for a growing congregation, and that provides sanctuary. Of course, I don't want to see anyone impacted negatively in the process of Congregation B'nai Shalom building a new building, but I don't think that's the case here. Living in community requires a common good, some give, and some take. We have seen that Bonet Shalom has responded and modified their plans over several years in conversation with their neighbors, and they have met the site review criteria. The land is located within the Boulder Jewish Commons site plan. It was approved by the city in 2014, and religious institutions are by-right uses in the Boulder… on the Boulder Jewish Commons. Communities of faith play a vital role in our community. They call us to a moral north, a common good of care for all people.

[81:08] We need to preserve communities of faith in our community. Capital projects are challenging, especially for small congregations, like Congregation B'nai Shalom. I wouldn't want to see a precedent established… Sorry, Mary. That's… that's your time. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please approve. Next up is Sam Flaxman, followed by Michael Ginsburg. No, Michael, you're not going to? Okay. Okay, then Rick Goldstein. Oops, sorry, I'll start your time again. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sam Flaxman. I live in the Park East neighborhood here in Boulder. I've been a member of Congregation Bonet Shalom for over a decade. I currently serve on the Board of Trustees, and I also. I also serve as the chair of our security committee.

[82:00] We have weekly religious services each Saturday morning, and on most of those Saturday mornings, you can find me at the main entrance, serving in a volunteer capacity as a greeter. But nearly all of our congregants and guests recognize that I'm not just a friendly face, I'm a part of the layers of security that, you know, Kevin has helped us develop. I'm eyes and ears. And we have spent significant financial resources on hired security and upgrades to our building, but vulnerabilities remain, and I and my fellow congregants can feel it. The threats that we face for… just for being Jewish, they're right there in our consciousness. They weigh on our hearts. And I believe That when anyone comes to a house of worship for Sabbath services, they should be able to focus on community and spirituality, and have at least a little brief respite. from worries about basic safety, and that's why… one reason why I'm eager for our community to move forward with our new building, which will incorporate the security recommendations that we've received.

[83:05] And I know that many of my fellow congregants will be better able to relax. To focus on spirituality and to connect more deeply with each other when they know and they feel that modern security features are simply built in. Because when you feel that, the preoccupations and distractions that come from constantly worrying about your own safety… Can fade away for just a little bit. So, thank you for your support tonight of our site plan amendment. Thank you. Great, we've got next Rick Goldstein. Followed by, Deepak Patel. You'll have to give me an audible in the timer, because I can't see it. Sure. Yeah, go ahead.

[84:00] My name is Rick Goldstein, I live in, I live near. Eisenhower Elementary School. I've been in Boulder for 33 years, and a member of Bonet for 30. past member of the board and a current member of the Inclusion Committee. I don't have mobility problems, but as much as I love the old building, it's not good for people with mobility problems. And I'm looking forward to the new building, and… while I don't have mobility problems, I have navigation problems, and getting around the old building is tough. The parking lot blocks the path to the entrance, it's… it's often crowded. And… I'm looking forward to the… this new roundabout for drop-offs, because it'll give people like me an easy, navigable path straight to the entrance. Very short one, too. I think now… It's at least 90 feet from the… from the parking lot to…

[85:01] the main entrance of the existing synagogue, and this new one will be, I think, less than half that. So I'm basically here as a member of the public and a member of the Jewish community to Ask for your approval on this, site review amendment. Thanks. Great, thank you. Thank you, Rick. Next up is Deepak Patel. Followed by Rabbi Fred Green. Good evening. My name is Deepak Patel. I'm an attorney with the 92-year-old firm of Fairfield. Dylan Woods in Denver. We represent the congregation of B'nai Shalom. I'm not testifying, I'm here rather to summarize my legal conclusions regarding the inapplicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. or relevant BRC sections. To religious organizations.

[86:02] And to speak generally to the congregation's commitment to the Good Neighbor Principle. Hence its observation of accessibility standards to its developments, despite there being no legal compulsion to do so. Speaking first to the federal requirement under the ADA, Religious entities are exempt from the requirements of Title III of the ADA. And the scope of that exemption covers all of the activities of a religious entity, whether religious or secular. Support for that can be found in the Appendix 4 Guidance and Technical Assistance Manuals, 2005 Westlaw. 4899269. Under state law, Colorado Revice… Keep… keep going. I'm not sure what that is. Okay, day. Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-600 defines the place of public accommodation, and it clearly states it does not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

[87:12] Under BRC Section 12-1-4, there is a citation to the the same section under state law that I just cited, Part 6 of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Whereby a public accommodation, is a place of business engaged in any sales to the general public in it. therefore excludes, religious organizations. Thank you. Thank you. Great, next up is, Rabbi Fred Green, followed by Nathan Shapiro. Hello there, my name is Rabbi Fred Green. I've been the rabbi Congregation Har Hashem, located at 39th. 50 Baseline Road here in Boulder since 2015. Our synagogue serves the Jewish community in Boulder County and beyond.

[88:02] with 500 households, strengthening Jewish criminal life and interfaith engagement since 1965. I'm proud to stand here today in support of my friend and colleague, Rabbi Mark Soloway, and the members of his congregation, Bone Shalom. This congregation plays an important role in Boulder's diverse Jewish ecosystem. Bone Shalom has served this community for decades, offering a distinct spiritual home for families who seek their particular approach to Jewish practice and community. The need for this project is real and urgent. Their current facility no longer meets the basic requirements of their growing congregation. Having adequate space isn't a luxury. It's essential for holding services, celebrating life cycle events, educating children and adults, and gathering as a community. While one congregation… when one congregation lacks proper facilities, it weakens the entire Jewish community's ability to serve Boulder County residents.

[89:05] This project represents more than construction. It's about ensuring that Jewish households in Boulder continue to have access to meaningful religious community for generations to come. It's about children having a place to learn their heritage, families having a space to mark life's most important moments. And individuals finding spiritual connection. And sadly, we need to do so with particular concern for our security. I see firsthand how our connectedness and congregations are. We share members, we collaborate on programs, we support each other's missions, and Bone Shalom's success strengthens all of us. So, I urge you to approve this project. Boulder has always valued religious diversity and community in our institutions. This is an opportunity to reaffirm that.

[90:00] Great, thank you. Right, next up is, Nathan Shapiro, followed by Joan Nigel. Good evening, I'm Nate Shapiro, the proud Executive Director of Bonet Shalom. To understand our need. You have to understand our Saturday mornings. We are a community of 300 households, which is 881 people. Yet our sanctuary caps at 150 seats, and this includes setting up 20 folding chairs on the deck outside of the sanctuary, leaving those attendees out in the elements and vulnerable. This isn't just a numbers problem, it's a communal one. We see families leave immediately after services because our social hall is so cramped. that a community lunch, the heart of our week, feels overwhelming rather than welcoming. We are literally squeezing the connection out of our congregation. Logistically, we are operating in survival mode. Our religious school is currently fragmented across three separate spaces, creating massive administrative hurdles and, more importantly, a disjointed experience for our youth.

[91:10] Furthermore, we are managing two existential threats. Safety. Our current footprint has inherent security vulnerabilities that are difficult to mitigate in an aging structure. Hallways constrict efficient movement for lockdown or emergency egress situations, the parking lot is chaotic during high usage times, etc. We also face an environmental risk. We face the constant reality of flooding, a risk that threatens our sacred Torah scrolls, our records, and our peace of mind every time it rains. We aren't just asking for a bigger building, we are asking for a secure, consolidated, and dry one. Our proposal replaces these vulnerabilities with a facility built for the future. We are seeking a space that is inclusive, fully ADA accessible, ensuring no member is barred by a staircase.

[92:02] Sustainable, designed to Boulder's highest green standards because our theology demands we protect the earth, and cohesive, bringing our school, our sanctuary, and our social hall under one roof. As Executive Director, my goal is to move Bonet Shalom from making it work to truly thriving. Thank you, Nathan. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is… oh, Joan, followed by Lindsey and Butch Weaver. My name's Joan Nagel, and I've been, I've lived in Boulder for over 50 years and have belonged to Bonet Shalom for over 40 years. I'm going to tell you about how we're involved in the. broader community. With regard to food insecurity, we, serve breakfast once a month at the… at All Roads, formerly the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless. We, have two food drives a year, one for Boulder County AIDS Project and one for Community Food Share. We participate in the Interfaith Boulder County Crop Hunger Walk. We have a gun violence prevention working group, and we have had a table for many years at the Boulder County Fair, and we pass out free gun locks and material about safe storage and mental health resources. We have co-

[93:20] We sponsored a modus theater production. We help an Afghani refugee family. In the mid-2000s, we helped resettle Sudanese refugee women, and we are still involved in their lives. We belong to the Religious Affairs Committee of the NAACP in Boulder County before that chapter recently dissolved. We, helped organize partnership with community food… with, community-supported agriculture, so we participate with Red Wagon, organic farms. As part of a CSA. We have sponsored programs related to dialogue and peace initiatives, and for many years, we have… we have adopted a stretch of South Boulder Road, and we participate in the road cleanups.

[94:11] Thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you. So next up is Lindsay, or Butch Weaver, followed by Leslie Kimmerling. Hello, my name is Butch Weaver. I moved it to the. Cherryville neighborhood of Boulder. 32 years ago. I've been a member of Congregation Bonne Shalom for those 32 years, and I've been working towards the realization. of the Boulder Jewish Commons for 25 years. I'm a board member of the Boulder JCC, and also the East Boulder Irrigating Ditch Company. I'm also president of the ORAG Foundation. In 2000, the Weaver Family Foundation purchased the land at Cherryvale and Arapaho to create the Boulder Jewish Commons. Aurig Foundation donated the land on the commons to the Boulder GCC, and it opened there in 2016.

[95:06] In 2024, Aurig Foundation donated the land on the commons to Bonet Shalom, where it plans to build the new synagogue. In 2000, we submitted a concept plan and request for annexation and initial zoning. For a religious campus, including elder housing, several synagogues, and a community recreation center. Our case manager in 2000 was Brent Bean. On October 23rd, 2000, he issued the concept review comments and included the following statement. Locate the most active uses on the site at the intersection of Cherryvale and Arapahoe to reduce impacts on the residential neighborhoods and serve as a focal point for the development for the development. Place the synagogues along the southern property line to serve as a buffer for the most active uses. At the time of the Boulder Jewish Commons plan approval, the Boulder Jewish Community Center was the only use ready to build.

[96:07] The property along the southern property line received initial zoning of RR1, where religious simply is approved. All those on the design team have put in significant time, thought, and money to design a site, and a building that does everything it can to fit in with the neighborhood and minimize impacts on abutting neighbors. Please support Bonet Shalom's request for a site plan approval. Great, thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up is Leslie, Kimmerling, followed by Sheldon Hirsch Gottlieb, who will be pooling time. Good evening. My name is Leslie Kimmerling, and I'm a long-time resident of Boulder and a 15-year member of Boney Shalom. For the last 2 years, I have served as. co-chair of Bonet's new building capital campaign.

[97:00] And, as head of the capital campaign team, we've been tasked with raising the $15.98 million required for this project. Raising this level of funding is considered a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our community. As others have mentioned already, we are a growing community serving multiple generations, and I will add that over 25% of our members have been with Bone A for over 25 years, including all the new folks. Our congregation has demonstrated remarkable commitment and generosity. Through leadership gifts, family pledges, foundations, and broad community participation, we have built unstoppable momentum towards this transformational project with over 260 donor families to date. As part of our build, our full solar installation on the roof has been fully funded by a combination of member support and matching grants. This installation is estimated to cover between 75 and 90% of our energy needs. The broad level of support is a testament to the community recognition of the necessity for and support of a new communal home.

[98:06] Receiving your support tonight for our site plan amendment is an important milestone along our journey, and will give our community the confidence it needs to move forward to complete our capital campaign. We hope we can proceed without delay through the city approval process and break ground, as we mentioned, by the end of this year. Our community is beyond excited to move forward with this new build, and we thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you. Sheldon Hirsch-Gottlieb is pooling time with Erica Baruch, and Michael Ginsberg. Oh, okay. And… and who… and who's speaking? Sheldon? Oh, oh, Erica is. Oh, okay. Well, well, let's… well… When we get to the online, thank you, noted, and yes. We'll do all the online after everyone's concluded here in person. Okay, thank you.

[99:05] Thank you. And apologies, Daniel Eisenman. I didn't give you a warning, if you're ready. Followed by Cass… Oh, Cass was also the one that… okay, sorry, not that one. So we'll go with Daniel first, and then Jeff, Gan Levy. Thank you, esteemed members of the Planning Board and staff. Thanks for your review. I think this has been an extraordinary. process of collaboration with the city. We all know that. site review process is a strenuous one and an expensive one, and meeting the site review criteria is no small task, which I believe the staff has said we have achieved, and on the basis of that, we would like for our project to be approved, With, with, everything that we're bringing in. So, a little bit of history, you know, this project starts many, many years ago. These needs are not new for our community. And, you know, the story that our community members just mentioned, and how to… the amount of energy and the volunteer hours.

[100:03] And the money it takes to do a facility like this is no small task, and we take that pretty serious, as well as taking pretty serious to being good neighbors, even from the beginning of the design of this property. We set ourselves to design a house. We didn't design an institution, an institutional building. or a large building that was not going to belong to the neighborhood. We tried to design something that transitioned beautifully to the neighborhood, with the right scale, with the right landscaping, and the right considerations for our neighbors, which are noise and light and other things that matter to them. Through the process. We met with them countless times. We, modified the building, several times to acknowledge their concerns. Some of the concerns, were met in most capacity. Most recently, there's a few others, including this roundabout, which is, you heard from our security consultant, such a critical piece. for security, especially, as a car has no… not the opportunity to drive straight and into the facility, actually has to navigate a series of obstacles in order to get there. So that roundabout plays a security role, as well as

[101:13] protecting the arrival experience for elderly people. We have an aging community, like everywhere in Boulder, and we have kids, and we want to make sure that they are dropped off in a safe and secure space, so that roundabout plays a critical role. We don't want to put our people on the streets. So, on the basis of that, please approve this site plan. Great, Daniel. I'll stay up there for just one second. Could you, clarify for us your role with the applicant-applicant team, etc? I'm a member of the community. I am, just like all of us here, we're just members of the community, and we all volunteer hours on the project. Great. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Great, next up is Jeff Ganlevy, and followed by Stacy Schult.

[102:01] Hi, members of the planning board and staff. I introduced myself earlier, I'm Jeff Gonlevy, I live off Cherryville Road. And I'm a member of Bone A Shalom. I also am the chair of our Volunteer New Building Committee, and participate in our Architecture and Design Committee. Over the last 5 years. Since the beginning of our effort to design a new home for the congregation, we set out… set an intention to do whatever we could within reason, to be good neighbors and to take neighbor concerns into consideration. We first met with the neighbors in April 2022 to show them our concept plans. From that point until now, through 4 in-person meetings and at least 13 email and text exchanges, we have tried to live up to the idea of being good neighbors, to keep the neighbors informed and to listen and attempt to address their concerns as our design evolved. We spent considerable extra time and money It took to address their concerns where we could. Reducing the height and scale of the building, moving the building further to the north, away from the property line, requesting a variance to the landscape setback to preserve existing trees.

[103:04] Ensuring a 7-foot-tall vertical slap fence screen along the entire boundary line between our property and the neighbors. And most recently, to recognize and shift the location of our bicycle parking to accommodate a landscape evergreen hedge south of the roundabout. In our last meeting with the neighbors on December 1st, we explained the rationale behind the layout and organization of our site and the necessity of the roundabout feature. Described how perhaps the roundabout wouldn't have the negative impacts they were anticipating, that the roundabout was significantly far away from the property for sound to be an issue, and that distance, the 7-foot fence, and the landscape evergreen hedge we had planned south of the roundabout would effectively block any car lights. In the end, despite our efforts, our neighbors continue to perceive that they would be negatively impacted. We respect their rights to due process, and this planning board hearing. We think we've done everything we could within reason to hear their concerns and to mitigate our potential impacts. We hope that you agree, and approve our site plan amendment tonight, and allow us to proceed forward with the remaining steps in the city approval process. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you.

[104:11] Next up is Stacy Schult, followed by Eric Scott. Good evening, Planning Board, members of the Bonet community. who are my neighbors and my other neighbors, in the Cherryvale area. My name is Stacy Schulte. My husband, Eric Scott, and I live at 1444 Wonderview Court, so we're… there's one lot between us and the southern border of this project. We appreciate the work that the City staff, and the applicant have done to minimize the intensity of the project. And while we don't object to… to the building of the synagogue. We're here to respectfully request that, several remaining items be included in a clear, enforceable conditions of. approval. The first one has to do with the lighting, that we're requesting firmer assurance that the final lighting plan will receive zero-foot candles at all of the adjacent, property lines. The current design relies on fixtures similar to, or the same as the current light poles at JCC.

[105:15] I do not believe that those fixtures will, achieve zero-foot candles. Different fixtures, shielding, and or mounting heights should be required. Secondly, the preservation and augmentation of the tree buffer. We… believe that the existing buffer should be, existing blue spruce buffer should be strengthened with additional, evergreen plantings. Lastly, and most importantly. there are two separate water issues that I want to make sure are clear to the board. One is around the ditch and the flooding issue, which I'm not going to address here. The second one has to do with the groundwater. Past construction activity in this area, including with the building of JCC,

[106:01] the included dewatering and trench work that resulted in measurable groundwater declines affecting nearby shallow wells, including wells like ours, which is only 32 feet deep. I don't believe that the engineer's report addressed the groundwater impact, so JCC wants to make sure they're not inundated with water. We want to make sure we still have water. Thanks, Stacy. Thank you. Next up is Eric Scott, followed by Noah… Sorry. Sincov? Okay. Good evening, my name is Eric Scott. My wife and I chose the neighborhood of Cherry. for its character, its community character, just like Chautauqua is known for its bungalows and its. open space at the foothills of the Flatirons. Our Mapleton Hill is known for its tree-lined streets and its Victorian-era homes. Cherryvale is known for its quiet, country, pastoral feel. Cherryville has a various allotment of farm animals just west of JCC. We've got sheep, we've got… JCC itself has goats and chickens.

[107:06] These are just a few things that makes Cherryvale Cherryvale. All one has to do is drive down Cherryvale to get a feel for what that community is to Boulder. The one thing Cherryville doesn't have, streetlights. The one thing that adversely affects farm animals and wildlife is Allon, and that is artificial light at night. Animals have a circadian rhythm. That affects their navigation, their essential survival behaviors are adversely affected. the Sombrero March, which is directly over the fence of the JC property to the south. will be adversely affected by Allen artificial lights at night. That have been proposed for this project. As my wife just spoke, the current height of those streetlights, I don't know, 40, 40, 50 feet, and you can see the point source from our property of those lights today.

[108:00] Sombrero Marsh is a resting migratory for birds of prey, migratory fowl, coyotes, fox, bobcat, all of which I've seen, my wife and I have seen from our backyard. It's one of the only two plies in the Boulder area that date back 30,000 years. That is a very old neighbor. From the Fergusons, the Renfros, which are a southern lot line with JCC, the point source of the lights is clearly visible. If they use the existing Lights that they plan to use. My wife and I, we request that the committee and or the representatives just show… That's your time. Thank you. Great, thank you. …consider, motion detectors on the light or light sensors. Votelic, sensors on the lights. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is, Noah Sienkov? Er… I'm so sorry. Noah Simcov, that's right. Okay. Followed by Alexandra Ferguson.

[109:00] Hi, my name is Noah Simcoff. I'd like to teach you all a Yiddish word. They all know it. It's FLUP. It's verb, and it's what. I do every Sunday when I drop my kids off at Sunday school, inevitably, I find myself schlepping my baby in a stroller, and a diaper bag, and stuffed animals, and jackets, and whatever else is required of me. And inevitably, what happens, one of my kids, I won't name names, but Rabbi Mark could probably guess, will take off and run across the parking lot. And it is terrifying, as a parent to see something like that happen. So, one of the many aspects of the new building that I'm really excited about is, and we've talked a lot about it today, is the roundabout, where, I can drop off both of my kids at Sunday school, a very convenient and safe mere 14 feet.

[110:05] from, the drop-off area, or alternatively, you know, my… I can drop off my wife and the whole mishpochah while I go park the car. It will just make me sleep better at night. One less thing to worry about. So, thank you for your consideration. Thank you. I think that I covered everyone in person. Oh, I'm sorry, Alexandra. I'm sorry. I just said your name. Alexandra Ferguson. Hi. So my husband and I and my family live right next door. We are the ones that are most concerned about. The roundabout and the lights. I have 25, chickens, and we could have up to 5 sheep on our little homestead, on our acre and a third of property. And we bought that about 10 years ago, and were excited when we bought it to know that the synagogue would be moving across the street to next to us, because we would then have a little more of a buffer with Arapahoe, and, you know, it was a home and a house there before.

[111:09] We have been, talking with, with the planners and Jeff and everybody. We are very concerned about the… the initial plans didn't have a parking lot that had a roundabout. So I… I feel like it could be done, and that's not how it was from… with the previous architects. We have asked the same questions that you have asked, why can't you have a hotel scenario where Oreg, which is a street that has room for parking as well as traffic, has a drop-off area where then people can park. I am an advocate for people with disabilities, mainly children with disabilities, so independence is a big part of, advocating for people with disabilities, so they Parking… the parking spots that are for the disabled are pretty far away, because now they have to go

[112:07] a long distance, if they're not going to be dropped off by somebody, then they would have to actually have a hard time getting to the entrance independently, whereas if there wasn't a roundabout and you had parking spots that were right up close to the entrance. that actually would be, more, in compliance. There would be no obstacles with the ADA. And, you know, the street, the lights of the parking lot, what we just had asked for is a… continue that double tree line buffer, so that those trees can grow tall, and, you know, hide that light, those lights, from our property. Great, thank you. Thank you. As I mentioned, I believe that covers everyone in person. Okay. Last call for any other in-person speakers. Oh. Yeah. If, if… Queen Seltzer. Okay.

[113:05] Thank you. Hi, my name's Wayne Seltzer. I've been a member of Congregation Boneshalom since 1983. And I'm here to speak about the sustainability features and benefits of our new building. I'm a member of our congregation's green team slash sustainability committee, and environmental conscience has been an essential part of Bonachelum since the beginnings. In fact, with the support of Rabbi Mark and the board over years, our green team has worked hard to make Bonet's operations sustainable. In fact, in 2015, we helped the congregation become a zero-waste facility. Rabbi Mark was honored as a climate faith leader, champion of change at a White House ceremony, very proud of that. Our new building, as you've heard, will very significantly exceed the City of Boulder's energy code's requirements by installing the maximum solar ray we can fit on the roof. Our green team's very happy about that.

[114:00] We'll be generating 93.5 kilowatt hours of solar, and offset 75 to 90% of our building's energy usage, supporting an efficient heat pump, cooling and heating system. We've already received a grant from a Jewish nonprofit to help offset the cost of installing the solar array, and we'll be seeking a federal direct pay rebate as well. The delays in the site plan, unfortunately, have made the path to getting the federal tax rebate funds more challenging, but we believe we have a path to get it done. Our new building will not only be a comfortable, sustainable place, but will serve as a teachable example of how a low-carbon footprint facility, will serve our congregation, our neighbors, and the greater Boulder community. So I'm looking forward to your approval of this plan amendment. Thank you. Great, thank you. Okay, now we've moved to online.

[115:04] Okay, if you're joining us online, now is your opportunity to raise your virtual hand, so we'll start with, Michelle Goldman. Followed by Liz Hansen. Michelle, you should… oh, go ahead. Dear Planning Board and fellow community members, my name is Michelle Goldman. I felt fortunate… Michelle, can you… we're gonna start your time again, just really, get close to your microphone, phone, whatever, and… Okay, can you hear me better now? Yep. Okay. Dear Planning Board and fellow community members, my name is Michelle Goleman. I felt fortunate to have been born and grown up in the Colorado Jewish community. I didn't know the suffering that my parents endured first as Holocaust survivors, then as refugees, nor did I experience the segregation that they did as they were starting our family in the 50s. I also didn't have to worry about my safety at school, as our youth today experience.

[116:09] Unfortunately, that feeling of safety and security was shattered for me when I and 27 others were firebombed right here in the middle of the Pearl Street Mall on June 1st, an outright act of anti-Semitism. A few years ago, I was board president of Bonet Shalom. When we started implementing the higher security standards. Some of the steps we took included hardening our building with bulletproof doors and windows and hiring paid security. This was just a patchwork of things that were recommended by our security experts after auditing the building. Since June 1st, I can't help but think and worry that our current facility is just not up to the task of keeping our community safe. I see all the vulnerabilities of our current synagogue being situated in beautiful Boulder, Colorado. We appreciate the climate, the weather, and people want to have open sliding doors during services or lunch outside. There's virtually nothing protecting people between these joyful celebrations.

[117:13] As you know, the new safety features in the design of this new facility take into account not only the building as a structure, but access to the grounds around it. This will enable our congregation to continue to enjoy what we find precious and thrive. I urge you to approve the plan and amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Michelle. Next up, we have Liz Hansen, followed by Erica, Baruch, or Baruch, who is pooling time. Liz, I think you should be able to unmute. Okay. Good evening, Planning Board members. My name is Liz Hansen, a long-time Boulderite. I'm a member of the congregation and serve on Bonet's new building committee. I've attended Bonet since 1985. I've also been a city planner since that year.

[118:14] As described by Shannon, the application fully complies with the site review criteria. The project complies with the BVCP policies, as outlined in the packet. Compliance with the site review criteria includes, for access, transportation, and mobility, the site design provides safe and effective connections for vehicles and pedestrians, including a new crosswalk at the JCC. A TDM plan supports alternative modes of travel. For building siting design and materials, the one-story building has varied forms and heights and transitions appropriately to surrounding properties, and uses materials consistent with nearby structures.

[119:00] Windows provide visual interest, balancing transparency and security. High quality and durable materials are used. For open space and landscaping, outdoor spaces are designed to be accessible with both shaded, active, and passive areas for gathering. A diverse mix of native and adaptive plants and high-quality hardscape materials are used for year-round visual interest, sustainability, and water conservation. I hope the planning board members find our application to meet the applicable criteria. and approves this site review amendment for this much-needed building. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Liz. Next up is Erica Baruch, and . Are we able to pool time? So, we need, is Erica requesting 5 minutes? She should have 2 additional Folks. Okay. Yes.

[120:07] Alright? Okay. So, and Erica, I apologize, the timer's gonna say 3 minutes, and then I'll run the 2-minute timer. It's fine, I actually don't think I'll go beyond 3 minutes. But thank you all. My name is Erica Baruch, and as mentioned, I'm pulling time with Sheldon Gottlieb and Michael Ginsberg and speaking on behalf of our smaller group. I serve as the Jewish Disabilities Advocates Advisor for Jewish Family Service of Colorado, and in my role, I work with 15 organizations across Boulder and Denver to further access, inclusion, and belonging in Jewish life for individuals with a wide range of disabilities and their families and caregivers. I live in Boulder, and although I'm not a member of Congregation Bone Shalom. I've been working with our Inclusion Committee since 2019. In 2022, Bonet Shalom became one of JFS Jewish Disabilities Advocates' six leadership partners, engaging in comprehensive organizational disability inclusion work, including efforts focused on raising awareness and understanding

[121:15] Modifying programs, policies, and practices, and improving access and accommodations. Not surprisingly, therefore, when Congregation Bonet Shalom began planning for a new building, they directly involved the Inclusion Committee from the start, and over the last two years, the Inclusion Committee has worked closely with the Architecture and Design Committee to ensure that the new building meets the congregation's accessibility and inclusivity goals. The Architecture and Design Committee has been thoughtful about accessibility from the beginning. has regularly presented to the Inclusion Committee and willingly incorporated their feedback at various steps in the design process. A process that is sure to continue, even with seemingly smaller decisions about interior design, furniture selection, etc.

[122:11] At a relatively recent committee meeting, we discussed several aspects of the plans for the new building, including the roundabout for drop-off and pickup. The Inclusion Committee felt this was an important design feature to help provide a safe and accessible means for members and guests to be able to enter the building. As opposed to parking further away, the roundabout allows multiple vehicles to drop off or pick up simultaneously, and allows greeters to assist individuals from the centralized drop-off point. The bench that will be placed in the waiting area outside the entry gate will also allow those who are dropped off to comfortably wait for a companion who may be parking a car. The Inclusion Committee believed this would be the best situation for members with mobility and other disabilities, including those who are low vision or blind, and any caregivers. Not only does the roundabout provide access, but with its drop-off feature, it allows for less walking in a welcoming way to greet those who may need extra support.

[123:18] I remain impressed with Congregation Bonai Shalom's dedication to disability inclusion and their thoughtful and concerted attempts to make their new building and campus as accessible as possible. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Erica. Let's see… I've got a few more online, Next up is Marilyn Pinsker, followed by Diana Blau. Marilyn, you should be able to unmute. Hi, my name is Marilyn Pinsker. My husband and I have lived in Boulder. We're approaching 50 years. And we are founding members of Congregation Bonei Shalom.

[124:02] I was going to talk a lot about the features of the roundabout, details, but I think I will pass on that, because so many people have talked about it. What I'd like to focus on more is the fact that I am a member, I serve on our inclusion committee. And we have been involved with the design of the new building to ensure that it meets the congregation's accessibility and inclusivity goals. It's important to us That our new building provides safe and easy access for all of our members and guests, and the curbless roundabout is a con… critical component. of this design. On a personal note, as you can guess, my husband and I are amongst the older members at Bonet. And we appreciate the fact that the new building entrance will include a curbless drop-off and a pickup area that will accommodate our physical needs as we age, and allow us to continue to be active participants

[125:14] In our beloved community. I hope that you will support our site plan amendments so that we can proceed into the next step in the city approval process for our new synagogue building. Thank you so much. Thank you, Marilyn. Next up is Diana Blau, followed by Judith Renfro. We can't be done with that. Diana, you should be able to unmute. Diana? I see that you're unmuted.

[126:04] Okay, We'll give her a… Yeah, we'll give you a minute, Diana, and we'll move on to Judith Renfro and come back to you. Oops. Judith? Yes, I'm on the phone, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Judith. We'll go ahead and start a 2-minute timer for you. Okay, good, good, thank you. Judith Renfro, we're the adjacent neighbor south of the parking lot. I've addressed various concerns an email, and I will not read the whole thing. But this is certainly not about… our concerns are not about whether Bonet are good people and do good things, or whether they need this structure. I was surprised to hear

[127:00] staff say that the blue spruce were not a required part of the JCC plan. They were an essential part of the landscape plan, as far as the neighbors knew, and we expected them to be required. This is… it's great that they… that Bonet has agreed to keep them there, but we would like to see some assurance that they will remain there, and that any gaps in them will be filled in. There were about 10 out of the 60 that died during that first year, and in spite of requests, they have not been filled in. Regarding the parking lot lights is kind of another big issue. I can see what the lights in the JCC parking lot do to the surrounding area, and I see the point source of those lights, even from inside my house. And now these are going to be the same lights? quite a bit closer. I… I really hope you will ensure that this is reviewed so that those lights do… are not visible.

[128:12] I don't know how my two minutes always goes so fast, but I will just leave it there and not repeat what my neighbors have said. I adopt what their comments are. Thank you. Thank you, Judith. We'll give Diana a… Thank you. gum? Diana, you should be able to… Unmute. Okay, sorry, I, Diana is… Let's see, it's… Okay, we'll try, Bev Nelson. And that's all the hands that we have raised online, so we'll go with Bev Nelson.

[129:03] My name is Bev Nelson. I live 3 doors down from the current Bonet location. I've lived there for 43 years. On Cherryvale Road, that makes me a relative newcomer. I am supporting the project with, you know, a lot of the good input that my other neighbors have made, because the synagogue has been a good neighbor, not just in getting things done, but by actively being involved. We all live on South Boulder Creek. During the floods in 2013, the water came up to our back door. When the waters receded, there was a massive log pile Down by the synagogue. We knew that when the spring runoff came, that our yards would flood again. We went down and talked to them. And they arranged to take care of it, but when I went down to watch, they not only had heavy equipment there, but there was probably about 40 or 50 people on-site helping out. It looked kind of like a beehive.

[130:10] And I think they have the culture of being hands-on. And those are simply the kind of people I want to be neighbors. I think they will take the comments that have been made and try to mitigate any of the things they can, but I… they've been good neighbors, and I welcome them to stay. Great, thanks, Bev. Our last one was Diana, so… I, I… Well, what… we can do one last call to Diana, and then give it a couple seconds, and then move on. I see in the Q&A that Diana says, it appears my microphone won't work. I apologize. I will yield my time to Shannon Jones. Thank you for your time. Is there a Shannon Jones? Hello, that's me. Oh, okay. Oh, the applicant. Hey. Okay.

[131:03] Oh, man? So… Sure. Okay. I just wanted to provide a couple of clarifications from when we spoke earlier, especially about the lighting and the groundwater. Okay, are you… speaking now for Diana, or are you addressing you actually have, as applicant, you have a couple minutes to respond to public comment. So, are we combining those two? I'll wait till then. Okay, that's great. Okay. All right. Do you have any comments to make for Diana Blau, whose microphone… okay. Thank you. Great. Then, stay up there. So you have a couple minutes, to respond, to comment, any… anything you might have heard that you want to, clarify, or… speak to. Great. Thank you so much for the opportunity, I appreciate it. A couple of the clarifications I'd like to make. Earlier, when I was speaking about the lighting, the light poles that we're proposing are meant to match the finish of the JCC, so that they become a part of the neighborhood aesthetic and color and type.

[132:10] However, they are 19 feet tall versus the ones at the JCC are closer to 20 to 25 feet, so we are shorter than that. And our light fixtures will have a house shield, which will direct light away from the neighbors to the south, but toward the parking lot. So those are two clarifications I wanted to provide on the lighting. Additionally, I wanted to… provide, clarification about the groundwater. So, our groundwater, as it's designed, will not modif… or our… our site and drainage, as designed, will not modify the groundwater. Our foundations are only 3 feet deep, so we're able to get a pretty shallow foundation overall, but the groundwater exists at 5.5 to 8 feet deep. So, just wanted to… provide that. Were there any other clarifications from my ownership team?

[133:00] Okay, fabulous. Thank you, I appreciate the time to clarify a couple things. Okay, great, thank you very much. Okay, that, concludes our public hearing. So the public hearing is now officially closed. And before the board goes to deliberate, I'm going to call a recess for 10 minutes, give us a chance to get up for a second. And I want to clarify, for those that want to stay. that, Well, first of all, I want to appreciate all the public testimony, all the people that came, all the people that spoke online, and make sure that everyone knows that, you are heard, and we welcome your public comment. And I applaud both the public comment here, the email train that went back and forth. This is very civil discourse, and we need civil discourse. So, thanks to everyone in that regard. I also just, as, as the audience members, both online and here in the building, the planning board

[134:12] is about the application of the code, and our judgment of whether or not the applicant fulfills the requirements of the code. We can't… we don't have the power to change the code. So, anyway, just as we deliberate, just keep that in mind, that, We are deliberating as to whether or not the application, fulfills the City of Boulder's code. So, okay, with that, I'm gonna call a recess until… 825. Oh, God.

[135:18] Thank you.

[145:15] Alright, I'm gonna give everyone a… 20-second warning to… Finish your conversation, and we're going to call the meeting Back to order. Okay, we are now in, A period where, the board deliberates a couple key issues. We have some… We'll hear some board commentary, and then we'll… make a motion, motions, etc, hold some votes. And so, Alex, if you could put up the,

[146:00] Key questions for us. Here's my proposal for What we'll do, A, just an initial round of… Board comment? And then we'll move to… The main motion… If anyone has any… Conditions, those will be made as an amendment. to the main motion, and we would debate those after they had been made. So, anyway, that's… that's my proposal for how to proceed, and, when we get the, Questions up here before us. Bear with me, please. So, I'll read it first, and then hit share. It's, is the proposed project consistent with the site review criteria in Section 9 to 14H? BRC 1981. That's the only question before us, thank you. That's the only issue. Okay, and when you can get that up. Okay.

[147:04] Does anyone have… Comments before we, move on to… Motion making. There we go. Laura? In the name of efficiency, Laura, I'm gonna call on you first. This is the downside of always coming prepared. The teacher knows who to call on. Okay, so, with regard to the Bonet Shalom application, I just want to reiterate what has been said here before, that Planning Board strives to treat all applicants consistently and fairly per the code. and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, that is our one obligation, is to make sure that the project meets the code, regardless of who is involved. or what our personal planning and design preferences might be. We are solely here to look for any deficiencies in meeting the code, and then if we find them, to either deny the project or, preferably, offer conditions that would remedy those deficiencies.

[148:07] And on the flip side of that, we are completely unable to change or modify the project if we find no deficiencies in meeting the code. So, I agree with the staff analysis that this project meets the Boulder Revised Code and the site review criteria. I find no deficiencies. The height is below what's allowed by right, which is extremely rare in development in boulders these days. The open space is above and beyond what is required. It has varied building forms and heights. I appreciated the design, and I noted in the applicant's statement that it is celebratory, but not opulent. I think you hit your goal there. And I appreciate the work that was done to meet with the neighbors to the south, and to go above and beyond what you are required to do to respond to their concerns, as we all should do as good neighbors in Boulder when we can, but we are not required to do that. I have no issues with the modifications to the setbacks, the second entrance, the roundabout, no issues with the phasing plan or the proposed uses.

[149:03] And, I, you know, I think we all understand the concerns of the neighbors, but, zero impact is not a standard that is either required or possible. And so, I just hope that B'nai Shalom and the neighbors can continue to have productive communication and a good relationship based on goodwill and all of our shared Boulder values. Thank you. Great, thank you, Laura. Actually, ML was… okay. ML, I'm gonna call on you next. Thank you. So, in regards to this… Key issue? Yes, I do believe that the application is consistent with the site review criteria. My primary concerns were regards to the issues the adjacent neighbors brought up, and I believe that staff and the applicant have addressed them more than adequately. I'd also like to say that it's incredibly sobering to see that members of our community need to have these measures of safety and security in their facilities. So, I appreciate that you had your, security person give us,

[150:10] A few minutes of presentation as to what you're needing to do to accommodate the very, difficult concerns that you have around safety. So, when we're ready, I would like to make a motion. Great, ML, thank you, and we'll go to Mason. Yeah, so, at the risk of being repetitive, I believe that based on the building scale, site design, open space preservation, multimodal access, and compatibility with surrounding uses, I find that the proposed project is consistent with the site review criteria. I believe that the project is generally consistent with the BBCP under a number of policies, context compatibility, neighborhood integration, quality design, appropriate scale transitions, etc. And the site layout and functional design meets the site design criteria.

[151:02] I appreciate the site's compatibility with the surrounding area. The project maintains a low-profile form consistent with the surrounding rural residential character. It significantly exceeds the minimum open space required, and the outdoor gathering areas, landscape buffers, and tree preservation contribute to visual compatibility and mitigate impacts to adjacent properties. This project supports safe and convenient non-automobile travel through New pedestrian connections, crosswalk improvements, and bicycle parking. Access and circulation are designed to safely accommodate users while minimizing conflicts and preserving site landscaping, and the TDM is relatively robust, helping reduce vehicle miles traveled. This represents a logical continuation of an established presence in the area, meeting the growing needs of their community. And it's clear they paid a lot of attention to the site review requirements, which makes this easy to support. Great, thank you, Mason.

[152:00] Kurt, you ready? Thank you, yeah, I won't repeat, everything that my colleagues have said, but I agree that this meets the site review criteria. As perhaps indicated by some of my questions. My main concern was about the design of the roundabout, and its consistency with site review criterion 9214H25. Which talks about the design of vehicular circulation. And, efficient, use of parking areas. But, the… I think that the applicant made a convincing case that this is necessary for security. And so that certainly trumps the considerations regarding vehicular circulation and efficient use of parking. So, I agree that this meets the site review criteria, and I look forward to voting in favor. Thank you, Kurt. Claudia? I'm up. So I think this project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and policies.

[153:02] Especially in those in Chapter 8, related to equity, safety, and community health. We don't get to reference Chapter 8 of the BVCP very often in our reviews, and I think it's important that we support projects like this that are actively building our social infrastructure here in Boulder when we're able to. In terms of site and building design, as you probably know, our criteria contains some very specific things, but also some flexibility for project-specific context. And I think the applicant here has done an exemplary job of meeting the spirit of our code, in spite of their documented and very understandable need for some accommodations related to access and interface with the public realm. And also on a very physically constrained site. I had some concerns about the safety of the pedestrian crossing on Oreg. I'm not sure that we can address those through our criteria. I moreover trust that the communities stewarding this larger site will show care for the people who gather there.

[154:06] And design that crossing very carefully. And just a note, in closing, I want to say that our site review process here, and the code that it's built on. are often very adversarial when we apply them, and sometimes we need that to get high-quality development in this community. I'm really grateful that we do not need that tonight. And while we are only allowed to consider our very specific site review criteria during this approval, I want to make sure that you know that you're organizing and testimony leading up to and here tonight. And your work in the Boulder community matter greatly to our larger shared project of living together in place. I want to thank you for being here in chambers, and thank you for being here In Boulder as a community. I will be fully supporting the site review amendment, and I look forward to seeing your community grow in its new home.

[155:03] Thank you, Claudia. getting to go last sometimes has a benefit, and tonight is one of those things, because I get to say, yeah, everything they said. And, you know, I'll just simply say that there have… we've had a… number of applications and issues come before this board that we have, Debated, and sometimes we have split votes, and it's not hard feelings, but… They're… they're an intense, thing, and… This is one of the few applications that I feel just kind of joy about. And the last one, I really felt that way was a daycare center that had gone out of business, and someone was taking it over, and they had to go through a use review. So it's… it's the kind of, Project that comes before us that It's a pleasure to find that, specifically, it meets the site review criteria and multiple, BBCP policy goals. So, anyway, I'm anticipating we'll have a positive outcome, and I want to allow, ML, you voiced that you were…

[156:18] ready to make a motion, and Alex, if you have a motion language you can put up there? Thank you. Unless you… oh, there it is, okay. Great. I move to approve site review application LUR2025-00031, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Second. Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Ml, do you want to…

[157:00] Speak additionally to your motion? You know, I'll just highlight what you said at the end there, Mark. We don't very often get a project that is lower than it can be, that is smaller than it can be, and that offers the maximum amount of open space. that, they can. So, it is a pleasure to, To put this motion forward. Great, thank you, Kurt. You're okay. Anyone else want to speak to the motion? Any proposed conditions? Okay. Then, we will, go to a vote, and, ML, I'm gonna start with you. Yes. Okay, Kirk? Yes. Yes. Laura. Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Congratulations to the applicant, and thank you very much.

[158:10] Okay, we've… That's fine. Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. Alright. Our next agenda item… is, matters from the Planning Board Director and City Attorney. the, first item under 6A, Thank you, Alex. Congratulations on your first, for… Successful. Yeah. Okay, and I'm going to… yeah. I'm glad you all are celebrating. I'm gonna encourage you to go ahead and take it downstairs, yeah. Thank you.

[159:05] Okay, matters from the Planning Board and, Director and attorney, and the first one is East Boulder Sub-Community Plan Form-Based Code, discussion. And Charles, you and I talked a little bit today. You sent out a nice note. encouraging people. So, was your thought we were just gonna open it up for. Yeah, I think we didn't… staff didn't have an agenda or any presentations, but based on the conversation that we had last month as part of the 5501 Arapaho form-based code, it seemed like maybe there was some additional conversation that you guys wanted to add. we're all ears tonight. We do have a number of staff who are kind of subject matter experts on the East Boulder, sub-community plan, form-based code, and the Station Area Master Plan, so we have Christopher Johnson on the line. We have Kalani Pahoa, who's our urban designer on the line. We also have Carl Geiler, and our, most recent and only user so far of that form-based code, Chandler Vanskak, is also on the line as well. So we're… we're all ears, and we're happy to,

[160:08] Answer questions tonight. Does anyone… is anyone, champing at the bit to… make their comments. Are we still formulating things? I'm happy to go if, yeah, sure, Laura. So thank you, Charles, for, having so many of the team members here. Is there an outcome that will come out of this? What happens with the input that we give tonight? the feedback, and again, respect the richness of the conversation that you guys were having as part of the application. It just seemed like there was more there, so… We'll synthesize what it is we hear tonight. I think there… there may be a couple things that staff has identified. Tweaks that would make the code a bit more, easier to administer and use. I don't know that we've come to consensus on whether or not we're going to push forward a set of amendments yet, but that's part of the exercise tonight, is to hear what you guys…

[161:09] Identify as issues, and then go back and do some synthesizing of what it is that we heard. Okay, and if I, if I may ask one more question, Would you be able to share tonight some of the things that you have identified that you're already thinking about that may save us a little bit of time going around the axle on things if you already know about them? Yeah, I think we can. And I think the… and somebody online might have to correct me on what we actually call this, but it was the front yard setback issue that we identified. The Streetscape Plazas? That's it. So I know that that's one that… We could probably tune up a little bit. And is that… so, may I just ask about that, just to clarify? In the… the project that was the first out of the gate applying this, the issue there was that,

[162:00] it seemed like there was a different interpretation of the code. The way that I read it was that the streetscape plazas need to be, I think it was 20 feet back. from the… right-of-way, whatever that right-of-way is, whether it's the street or a multi-use path. Is that how staff is interpreting it now? Yes, that's. how we're interpreting it now. Okay. Thank you. Then I won't bring that one up. And I think. Wasn't it not specifically stated as 20 feet, but to the… to the… Maximum. Step back. setback. You are right, which might vary depending upon various things, but in that case, it was 20 feet, but it's the coat… you're right, Kurt. Thank you for that, correction. So it's to the maximum setback from the… Right-of-way. Thank you. Okay. Were there others that staff had identified that you feel should be clarified? I think that's just the one that comes to my mind.

[163:04] Okay. Can I… Yeah. So there was also discussion, which I think is a separate issue, of the 9… 9-14-30, the question about the articulation. Okay. I see Christopher has his hand up, and I don't want to go on. If we… Christopher, if you were addressing an issue that we were… Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thanks, Mark. Thanks, Mark. Good to see everybody. Good to see Planning Board this evening. Looks like you had a good, robust conversation around the previous item. Christopher Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager. The one other thing, Charles, that I remembered that we had discussed is just updating some of the language and the definitions around permeability and And semi-pervious surfaces and things like that to make sure that everybody has a clear understanding of what those terms mean and how we administer and measure those going forward.

[164:03] Okay, Kirk, now on to your… You were asking about articulation. Well, that was certainly an issue that came up, and there was… was the subject of quite a bit of conversation at the 5501 Arapaho discussion. And so I just was wondering if that was something that staff had been considering talking about, or if it was something that others on the planning board wanted to bring up. To me, it's not a particular issue that I feel needs to be brought forward, but I just wanted to hear from others. Well, I will certainly have comments about that, but it sounds like that's not one that's currently on staff's radar as a must-fix. But thank you for acknowledging that, Kurt. Okay, I'm gonna ask a couple questions, and, you know, I've struggled at times with these headers that say the intent of certain sections of the site review criteria, or the code in general, that… where the intent is,

[165:10] aspirational and is helpful, and yet it's not a criterion, and we can't really use it or apply it. And so, I'm gonna step up in this form-based code. Was the intent of implementing form-based code. The way I understand it from talking to developers and from talking to planning staff is the intent Was to foster certainty, in that… I can… design a building, that… Fulfills the requirements on an objective basis, and, I don't have to go through an expensive, site review process, and it also… the hope and the intent would be for greater creativity and less reliance on, well, you know.

[166:13] the shop across town, they had their building approved that looked kind of like this. It had these features, and so I'm going to go to site review with my building, which I'm going to incorporate similar features and, hope for the best. So, I'm asking anyone on staff, Charles, Carl? Sure. What… talk to me about the intent, and then… and whether or not you think this first example, and again, I know we're not going to relitigate this thing, but, I just… but… Was that the outcome that you were expecting? Well, I guess I would say that I agree with the characterization of the construct of the form-based code, in that it's supposed to be more predictable, and it's supposed to be a bit of a quicker process that, frankly, is less discretionary, just based on the prescriptive standards.

[167:09] So I think, again, the construct of form-based code, I think that's spot on. I think I'd probably have to defer to KJ, just about what was originally envisioned for this corner, I think through the station area master plan and, you know, what the expectations were on the documents, and I think the outcome we got. I'm happy to weigh in on that, too, but just from your perspective, KJ, in taking the form-based code, you know, through that planning process, what your thoughts were there. Yeah, thanks for that. And, you know, Carl also will be able to chime in, I guess, a little bit more on the early days of form-based code in Boulder, and sort of the, you know, the purpose behind it, and really the intent of why we were using it, or why we have proposed to use it in certain areas. I would agree with Charles that I think the overall intention

[168:05] for form-based code in East Boulder, and in particular around the station area master plan, was to provide a more predictable, process for, to encourage redevelopment, to allow that to move forward, perhaps in a more effective and rapid way. You know, thinking about the… individual site that was reviewed, several weeks ago. You know, I think it's difficult for us to imagine. I don't think any of us knew this would be the first one out of the gate, you know, which was, you know, the primary corner at 55th and Arapahoe, right next to what ultimately is going to be a bus rapid transit station. I do think that overall, the project delivers on a lot of the goals of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Station Area Master Plan in terms of

[169:00] Focusing activity and housing and energy at that corner. Again, that being really the primary driver of the station area, and ultimately that transit facility that is there. you know, reasonable people can disagree on architecture all day long, I think, but as far as the use characteristics, the overall sort of presence on the street and presence on the corner, I think we got a lot of good out of the project. You know, I also would just mention, too, that through the sub-community plan, and then also through the development of the form-based code, a lot of the comments we received, and this was really in reaction to the form-based code for Boulder Junction, was that community members and others, when they envision a urban, walkable, you know, transit-oriented location. They really were interested in having those public spaces at the street level, and were maybe less concerned about

[170:01] upper-story decks and balconies and things like that. They want those spaces along the street level and as part of the pedestrian experience. So that was… that was kind of a trade-off that we made in East Boulder that's different than Boulder Junction, where Boulder Junction focused more on some of that upper-story massing changes. And in East Boulder, we focused more on that ground-level experience, so creating those streetside plazas, some of the courtyard spaces, that you saw that were along the 55th Street facade. Of the project, and so again, I think it delivered in a lot of ways. You know, every project is not gonna tick the box on every single thing. I think you all know that, just as well as anybody, but… from our perspective, we think it was, actually a pretty good project as far as delivering on many of the things, desired for the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. And KG, it's consistent with the plan in that I think the plan envisioned a large building with a lot of mass really holding down that corner, kind of frankly, being loaded up from a density perspective.

[171:06] Yes, yes, I would agree with that. Carl, do you want to weigh in on this? Good evening, board members. I'm Carl Geiler, Planning and Development Services. I can provide some context on the background of form-based code, like the history. I had worked on form-based code 10 years ago. So if you have questions about that, I'm certainly here to help out, but the way you, represented form-based code as being more predictable, a little more black and white, a little bit more dialed in on the details, so there's more certainty, is certainly the path we were on when we were creating the form-based code, 10 years ago. There was a little bit of frustration. With site review, at that time, with some of the buildings that were happening, the design quality, how they were being built and executed, and the…

[172:04] You know, they're just concerns about how the buildings were designed into their context, so it was… form-based code was a way of trying an alternative. We basically piloted it, you know, in the Boulder Junction area. Obviously, it's expanded to, you know, Alpine Balsam and East Boulder, but again, happy to answer any questions you have about the history of it. Okay. ML, I want to get to you, and I just have… while I've got the floor, I'm just going to ask two questions that are important to me. I was… I was surprised. that… A building with that massing with two, kind of, deep interior courtyards as the primary open space. met the code, and I… I, I, I, I was just… you know, I have become accustomed

[173:01] to a particular style of U-shaped building with, you know, second-level courtyard amenity space, and views to the south, or wherever it might be, and then to see that… that lack of building erosion, and those two, kind of. You know, New York City, Manhattan, deep. wells, and that… those are primary open spaces. I was surprised that that met the code. Do you… do either one of you want to address the quantity or type of open space that is required by the form-based code. And is it not any really different than the site review criteria, or is it different than the site review criteria? You go, Carl. Go ahead, Carl. Yeah. When we, worked on the form-based code 10 years ago,

[174:03] when we were looking at Boulder Junction, there was a shift in thinking when we were working with a consultant that perhaps we shouldn't Move forward with our traditional open space requirements that we require on individual sites, and look at it more holistically. So, planning it out more like a neighborhood rather than looking at a particular site. So, when we looked at Boulder Junction. there was, as part of the process, designated where there might be public open spaces, like a plaza, or, you know, a little… a playground, or something like that, an area around, like, an eventual transit stop. Those would be identified and would have to be built by those properties that are Around those designated open spaces, rather than your typical, you know, say, 20% open space that you have in a site review project. So there was a change in the thinking and the implementation of open space through form-based code. It doesn't mean that buildings cover all of the

[175:04] the ground plane, you know, there's obviously the pervious surface requirements, and, you know, there inherently are areas that become, you know, like courtyards or paseos, things like that. But the thinking did shift with the form-based code. So, isn't that… substantially contrary to… A tenet of site review, and that is we can't require nor rely on off-site, amenities off-site. we can't make them extend a bike path onto someone else's site, and they can't rely on a neighboring site or a site across the street to provide park or open space or amenities. So, I'm struck that, that as part of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, not that it's necessarily wrong, but that

[176:03] If this building is relying on those, on those other things. how are we assured, then, that we have this planned out in a way that those plazas and courtyards and amenities will be across the street? religious colloquy that I don't… having been part of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, I don't recall that we did that, as was done in Boulder Junction, of laying out, this is going to be a plaza, this is going to be a playground, this is going to be a park. I don't recall any of that in the East Boulder Sub Community Plan. I myself can't speak to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, because I wasn't as involved in that process as I was 10 years ago, but, like, basically the regulating plans that are shown for the different areas, including Alpine Balsam, do have those, like, O's in the green that show where open space is designated. I'd have to look at, you know, East Boulder. Maybe KJ is a little bit more of an expert on that part.

[177:02] Yeah, I would… I would have to go back and look at the actual regulating plans in the code, that would, you know, identify some of those areas. If… if you, and again, not to kind of get in the weeds of the code itself, but, there is a requirement for projects and projects above a certain size to provide one of these public open spaces, and sometimes two, as a matter of fact. The choices, then, within those public open spaces, they, And I won't be able to rattle these all off the top of my head, but, you know, they can be a… They can be a park, or a courtyard, or a plaza. They could be… we actually introduced the option for playgrounds within East Boulder, which is not something that was allowed. in, in Boulder Junction. So again, a project of a certain scale has to meet a standard of providing two… up to two of those items, and those have to actually be public, so they have to be at the… at the street level. The, you know, the individual project, again, on the corner of 55th and Arapaho.

[178:11] You know, they ended up ultimately, I think, choosing the courtyard spaces, and those were the two spaces that were provided along 55th. The interior courtyards, you know, for the… for the residents of that project or of that building. that is less regulated by the form-based code itself. Really, the form-based code is focused on those publicly accessible spaces. You know, the interior amenities for those projects are going to be more based on what the market is willing to deliver, and what, you know, the balance of the developer, what they're willing to provide. In exchange to get those, you know, to get those units leased and, you know, provide those spaces for their… for their tenants, ultimately.

[179:01] I'm gonna let ML… is that okay? Okay, thank you. Ml? I kind of took my hand down. I'm… Okay. My concerns were of a broad nature. I think the biggest thing that I felt was, hard to, require was the, The nature of the ground floor. And how that experience, the pedestrian experience, was, Was supported. You know, there was this whole business about, yes, we have a height change of 6 inches at the parapet, and we have, you know, the material changes, but it's up at the second floor, so you've got this, you know, forever-long material plane on the ground floor, but something shifts at a floor above.

[180:07] it, it seems… That we lost the capacity to, inform The experience for the public. at the ground level. That, to me, was the biggest… unfortunate outcome was that there was… there didn't seem to be… Anything substantive enough To point to, okay, the human scale, and how that unfolds at the ground level. And I'm looking through the code to see, you know, where the specifics You know, the facade, the frontage setback, etc, etc. happens, but I think… if… if you were going to look at something, I think that is a category that

[181:01] We have some, criteria in the site review that talks about, human scale at the ground floor, the experience, and that seems to have kind of eroded. Cool. Okay, thank you, ML. Laura. So, I have a lot of thoughts, so please, please bear with me. And Mark, if you need me to move on. As always, happy to move on and can come back. So I just want to say, in general, I really appreciate staff's efforts to make a good form-based code for East Boulder, to learn the lessons from other form-based codes, and it is quite clear to me in reading the form-based code what the intentions are. And so my comments are just directed at a few places where I feel like the implementation falls short of the desired outcomes, or at least as I understood them. Especially from the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, because

[182:02] In the site review, there is a criterion that says that the project has to, be consistent with the sub-community plan. There is no such criterion in the form-based code. The form-based code is supposed to already have incorporated the important elements of the sub-community plan. And so, for that sub-community plan to be honored and to be carried forward for every project that goes through form-based code, I feel like we need to make sure that the form-based code is doing the work that the sub-community plan was designed to do. Otherwise, why did we write the sub-community plan and let Let projects opt into form-based code, right? So… so I feel like there really needs to be that coherence between the sub-community plan and the form-based code. So, and I've sent… I've sent some of these things to, staff previously, but I just want to highlight In terms of building architecture, you know, KJ, I agree with you that East Boulder, absolutely, we wanted a higher level of density, especially around these transit corridors and mobility hubs, especially on that corner of 55th and Arapahoe. And I do think the project was very successful in that southwest corner and on the western facade.

[183:10] But other elements of the building, I felt, were very much, especially along Arapaho and along 56th Street, did not honor, the vision in the East Boulderside Community Plan, which talks about varied… I'm quoting directly from the East Boulder Sub Community Plan here. Varied rooflines and architectural detail are an important design consideration to align with community vision for the area. There's a policy in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Structures in East Boulder should offer varied rooflines. Building roofs inform the image of the city from afar and shape the experience from the street. As ML was talking about. Roof forms should be integral to the building's overall composition. In the stamp, which is where this building is located, it says, introduce building forms that set back, step back, and include unique roof design elements. It talks about, avoiding the canyon effect, where large monolithic buildings with little to no roof articulation.

[184:06] Constructed on both sides of the street edge would diminish the experience due to a feeling of being closed in. One primary tool in addressing these concerns are step backs, where after a certain height or floor, the upper floor is step back from the primary facade. talks about creating a cascading volume that steps down to the street, and that this step back should occur after the second or third floor. So I don't think it's accurate to say that the Stamp Plan and the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan anticipated large, monolithic-height buildings. I think they very much Did not, and that that was an essential piece of the community feedback. You know, the stamp even says one of their guiding principles is to stay true to community input. And so I think that was… that was pretty clear in those plans, at least from my perspective. And I hope you all know that I'm an advocate of density. I want the city to be more dense. My concern is that when we build these blocky buildings, they…

[185:02] They create pushback against density, and they help build political momentum against people who approve density. I think we need to be really conscious about pairing Density with design quality, so that not only are we getting more units, but we are getting places that people cannot easily complain about and say, this is terrible architecture, right? We need to have density paired with design quality, so we're building places that people love. So that's my, that's my soapbox, that's why I'm talking about this. So things that I think. I would love for staff to take a look at in the form-based code. there is that section on building articulation that Kurt mentioned as being something that came up previously, even though Kurt is not particularly concerned about it personally. This is where I think The only, Mechanism that we have currently in the form-based code for creating those stepbacks and those cascading volumes exists. And so, you know, it's that pick list that we talk about. You have to have two of the four criteria that are in section…

[186:06] 9, 14, 30… B, building facade variety. And it gives you, kind of, 4 different choices. And one of those choices is a change in building height. And the applicant in our previous project argued that a parapet, which I didn't know what a parapet was when I first got on planning board, but if I understand it correctly. A parapet is, like, extending a wall higher than the roof along the edge, but it's not actually a change in the roofline, and it's not actually, like, a change in the building height. The measurement of building height, if it's 55 feet across, and you add a 65… a 6-inch parapet. the height of the building is not now 55 feet and 6 inches. The height of the building is still 55 feet straight across, which is what we saw along Arapaho, and for most of the way along 56th Street.

[187:00] So, I do think that we need to define building height, that a parapet does not constitute a change in building height, and it also doesn't constitute a change in roof type, plane, or material. A parapet is a decoration, basically. Not a change in roof type planar material, or a building height. I do think that this applicant really pushed the limit on the other one in here about the proportion of recesses and projections within the frontage setback. 2 feet doesn't really move the needle on reading that wall as changing the recession and projection, right? 6 feet arguably does. Like, I've been looking around town to see Where… how deep of a recession actually registers as, when you look at it from reasonable angles, you think that that building is broken up? And I… I… I think we do need to have some minimums there, otherwise we're gonna get a 6-inch recession or something, and people saying that that's sufficient.

[188:00] And currently, there's no… no minimum. So that's the section on building articulation. The building massing section. it does say that a minimum of 30% of these large buildings over 40 feet in height has to be at least one story lower, which is great. I'm super glad to see that in there. But I think this applicant showed how you can kind of exploit that, because there's no minimum length on these building walls. And so what we basically got looked like a very large, monolithic, 5-story tall block. Next to a monolithic 4-story tall block in the back. Right? That's kind of the design that we saw. Whereas it looks like the intent of this is varied building heights that would break it up in the way that was described in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Stamp Plan. When you have no minimum for the building wall length, you know, you could have a 250-foot-long block that's just monolithic, right?

[189:00] Even though it is part of an even larger building. So I do think that we need to have some additional thought given to a maximum building length at an unbroken 5-foot story height. Different point. I'm not sure… I spent some time looking at this, but I might not have understood it exactly. I'm not sure what the maximum building length without any brick in the wall that is, like, an access for pedestrians on the ground floor. I'm not sure that there is a maximum building length in some of these scenarios where you have to be able to walk through the building. And I know that was a concern on one of the projects we even saw through site review. That may be something the city wants to think about, because these really long buildings, just really decrease the permeability of the urban fabric. Which is one of our, one of our values that we've been trying to implement. Okay, I'm gonna move on to the courtyards that Mark mentioned.

[190:01] You know… I am 100% behind form-based code should be a faster and more predictable, pathway for development. I think that's great, but I don't think the intent was to build worse buildings through form-based code, and for developers to be able to get through a building that would never make it through site review. And I think the courtyards are one of the things that right… that Mark rightly flagged. When we talked about that 55th and Arapahoe building, I think it was explained at the time that the size of the courtyard was regulated by just the building code, not by site review. And… if I'm not mistaken, those courtyard standards for a minimum size were designed for shorter buildings, for buy-right buildings. Well, now we've got buildings up to 55 feet tall that are using these very minimal standards for interior courtyards. And… and I do get… I mean, Christopher, you make a good point that there are other open spaces that are required on the property. But I don't know that it benefits us to have these really kind of oppressive courtyards that don't really meet the needs of the building inhabitants. I'm not sure that we're…

[191:08] doing the right thing by letting the market decide about these really deep wells, like Mark was describing. So I would take another look at that, of… you know. Were these courtyard standards that were designed for shorter, by-right buildings, are these appropriate for the very tall buildings that we're seeing in form-based code? Real quickly, the calculations of semi-pervious and impervious, I appreciate that you folks are gonna clarify that. I… I do think… You know, the current code talks about maximum impervious coverage being the percentage of a lot that is covered by structured… structures, pavements, and other impervious surfaces. And it doesn't make sense to me to subtract semi-pervious coverage from the amount of the lot that is allowed to be covered by things that are basically impervious, that don't allow connection to the ground. I mean, I get that some water is absorbed by a green roof cover.

[192:08] But it doesn't serve the purpose of any kind of infiltration, or recharge, or environmental purpose. So I would probably take… I appreciate the clarification, but I'd also take a look at What kind of maximum building coverage are we getting by allowing the semi-pervious green roof to be subtracted from the impervious? coverage. I do have one question, but I'm gonna save that. I wanna… I'm talking too much, so I'll stop there. Okay, well that was all… Good. Good thoughts. Okay, who's, who has their… Other questions or comments? Mason, we're gonna go Mason and then Kurt. Or I literally said everything I wanted to, so I'm not gonna… no need to repeat. Okay. My main concern, just to reiterate, is…

[193:03] The fact that it doesn't appear that form-based code is matching up with the neighborhood plan. Which Laura went into. Great, thanks. Thank you, Mason. Kirk? Then we'll go to you, Claudia. Sure, thanks, this is a great discussion, and thanks to staff for your input. I… first of all, I really appreciated what Carl and KJ were talking about with regards to the open space. I, for a long time, have advocated for more public shared open space, and not so much reliance on private separated open space that doesn't build the kind of connection that people have been saying that they wanted to build, particularly in the context of the Valley Comp Plan. And so I really appreciate that we're moving in that direction. I think maybe the first step was, you know, not requiring so much on-site. The next step that we maybe haven't followed… completely followed through on is how do we then get that shared open space? Personally, I've always thought it would be great to have some sort of an

[194:15] an open space… cash-in-lieu fund, basically, where, if… when you build a building, you pay some money, and that goes into the parks department, and they buy some land, and they put a small park where it's appropriate, you know, based on their judgment about the needs for parks and so on. Or some mechanism like that. Or, you know, have people provide a truly public space on their own property. I think that that's great, too, but in such a way that it really is a public space, a 100% public space. So I'm glad we're moving in that direction and thinking more about it. In terms of some of these massing issues,

[195:01] I would, in my ideal world, I'm sure this is not going to happen, but I would like to replace some of these, like, maximum length requirements and so on with just a maximum lot size, because I feel like we really get much more interesting and resilient design when we have smaller buildings on smaller lots. And, you know. they don't have to be tiny, obviously. This is an industrial area, and and there are some very large buildings there historically, and they're going to continue to be some large buildings, but I think that we could address some of this by imposing a maximum lot size. In terms of the specific things that we were talking about, so there was the… The plazas, what are they called? Something plazas. Streetscape Plazas, yes.

[196:01] And my main concern with regards to our discussion on December, whatever that was. My main concern was not about the streetscape plazas in general, it was about the streetscape plazas along Arapaho. Where you've got, I don't know, you know, 30,000 vehicles per day or something, I don't know what the traffic counts are, and buses, and big trucks, and so on. And if you've got a plaza there, are people really gonna use it? Are people really gonna sit out there and have coffee? I don't think so. So, I think that there needs to be, as we're considering how to deal with that, I think there needs to be some consideration of also the street type, and what it's facing, and how we… how the street plazas react to the actual street. And yeah, the last one is about the building articulation. We had lots of talk about that.

[197:03] On my way down, I was thinking more about this, and on my way down here, I came down 13th Street from North Boulder, and I was looking at some of the larger buildings, including some of the churches, the Christian Science Church, the… whatever building is on… whatever church is on the north. West corner of 13th and… Spruce? No, Pine. Is that the Congregational Church? Anyhow, the church is there, and then also the very… really wanted to look at the… the Boulderado, because, you know, I've seen the Boulderado 6 million times, but I was like. how deep is that articulation? And so I went by, and I was paying specific attention to these, and… All of those have articulation elements that I would guess are no more than 4 feet. The… the Christian Science Church is… has its beautiful, elegant design, and it has, you know, some… some significant articulation, but each

[198:06] step is maybe a couple of feet. Similar with the… whatever the church is to the south of it, it's in a big L shape, but other… along the… the walls, there's very minor articulation. And then, the Boulderado. The Boulderado on the east side has kind of a… I don't know what you call it, but it's got the columns and stuff like that, and that sticks out maybe 4 feet? And then on the south side, there's a similar kind of element, but it doesn't even stick out as much. So… and those are all what I would consider gorgeous, you know, elegant, classic buildings, and they really don't have that much articulation, so I feel that we don't need the… You know, the large amounts of articulation that we've kind of been talking about there. So that is my input on that.

[199:02] That's all my comments for now. Great, thanks, Kurt. Claudia? My ideas here aren't very organized. I just want to recognize I've also been thinking about similar things that have already been raised here, about maximum building length. Maximum impervious surface, and how much… building coverage we're getting on lots. I think all I want to do at this point is just flag one thing I've been struggling with in thinking about all of this, how we might improve the form-based code, is that form-based code, as I understand it. One of the key tenets of it is that it is trying to look at buildings as buildings and not as specific uses, right? So, we have building types that we're encouraging, different kinds of bases, etc. That are really agnostic about the uses going on inside. But one of the things that I really struggled with in this first project that we saw is that we were looking at a residential building, and this idea that maybe the requirements of good residential design

[200:08] Are not necessarily the same requirements as design for other types of buildings. And we saw that in terms of open spaces for resident use, etc, that I think maybe would not have stood out as much had we been reviewing an office building, for whatever case. So that… I just want to put a pin in that, I think? as we talk about how to make some improvements here, is to recognize that some of these design standards might work better, for different uses. I think residential creates a specific problem, and I don't know how to resolve that within the spirit of a form-based code, but just to put that out there. Okay, any other input from the board? Okay, yup. Laura?

[201:00] If there's nobody else with thoughts they want to share at this point. Just a couple of responses to things that Kurt said. You know, I absolutely agree with you about, consolidating public open spaces, and I did like that in the TVAP2 plan. The TVAP2 plan, when we saw the, Performing Arts Center project, just a couple… was that last week, two weeks ago? you know, that was designated on the TVAP2 plan, here's a space that needs to be a public open space, and they did that along the southern border of the property. I do not… and there is a map in… I couldn't find it, I couldn't pull it up, but there is a map in the TVAP2… update to the TVAP plan that shows where those public open spaces should be, and it sounds like, from what Carl said, you have that for Alpine Balsam, too. I don't think you have that in East Boulder, so if that is one of the reasons why the open space in East Boulder doesn't seem to be working, maybe that is something that needs to be addressed in that plan. But I agree with Kurt that we should have a mechanism for individual properties to contribute to public open space. And I would go further than that and say, when we looked at Flatirons Business Park.

[202:12] We have this tension. with a property owner that wants to do one particular use. They don't want to do residential, and they don't want to have commercial kind of amenities on each individual property. But they proposed consolidating some of those uses in one of those properties as, like, a public amenity space that would have a lot of that in one centralized location. I think that can make a lot of sense, and I think I would love for staff to consider that for a future update, ordinance, maybe it's not the form-based code, maybe it's something else, but that seems to me like an idea that should have legs, because I agree that it doesn't always have to be scattershot amongst every single property that you have the open space and the amenities, right? We should be able to have some mechanisms where, just like we do for affordable housing, it's not built on site, but the city gets the resources to be able to purchase properties or do other things to make that happen somewhere.

[203:09] Excuse me, work with partners to make that happen somewhere else in the city. Totally agree with you on that. But if we are going to do the form-based code the way it is now, I do think that the courtyard thing is inadequate. And then I also wanted to say, Kurt, I also agree with you about facade recessions, interestingly enough, that not every building needs them, and many buildings can be quite successful without them. I'm just saying, if that is what the… developer is going to use to meet that pick 2 out of 4, that it needs to be significant and impactful recession, and not just de minimis kind of facade recession. Which I think… I think 2 feet is too small to be impactful. Maybe we can argue about that, but I do think there needs to be a minimum standard so that somebody else doesn't push it even further. Maybe it's 4 feet, maybe it's 6 feet, but I think we should have a chance to look at some examples And think about what that standard should be, rather than just sort of leaving it up to developers who understandably have some self-interest to propose it, and then we have to push back.

[204:09] In a way that… that feels very difficult to do right now. Those were my last two comments. I did have a question about where something landed. Can I ask that question? Okay, so when we left, when we left the East Boulder Sub-Community Plan, you know, chapters ago, for res… for, buildings over a certain size of certain types, and I think it was, like. the general building, and… maybe not the workshop building, but maybe another type. I'm sorry, I'm not remembering the exact details, but it was, if you built a certain type of building over a certain size, there was a residential requirement. KJ and Carl, do you remember what I'm talking about? In the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? I, I vaguely remember that, yes. And, and if, my recollection is that

[205:06] standard does not apply any longer. I'm pretty sure that we remove that. I would have to dig back into the code. Somebody told me they thought it had been removed, and I did not remember Planning Board or Council taking any action to remove it, so if that has been removed, I would like to know how and when that happened, and I would like to understand that. We can look into it. Okay, thank you, KJ. And maybe I'm just not remembering, but I don't remember when or how that happened. Yeah, that was a… it was a long process, and if you remember, we went through some… some… We've been through so much together. Yes, we have been, and it was surprising to me when I went back and did just kind of my year in review of 2025 that we finished this East Boulder form-based code,

[206:00] just about a year ago, it was actually March of last year, so this is really fresh and, you know, has, again, has only been used once. For some reason, I was remembering that we had finished this all the way back in 2024, but it was really just last year when, all of this was… was adopted. If you don't mind, I would love to provide just maybe one or two, reflections on some of the comments made. I'll start with maybe the identification of the outdoor spaces and the regulating plan. So, it's true in Boulder Junction and in Alpine Balsam, we were more intentional in terms of actually delineating where those locations would be, and even providing some descriptions around What, what uses they should be, or what a character of those areas. Part of that was in response that the city actually controlled a lot of the outcomes in Boulder Junction and in Alpine Balsam, either through direct ownership or ownership and then sale to future private development.

[207:05] East Boulder is different, right, in terms of the city does not control any land, in this area. And so, we, you know, it was… it's difficult for us to identify a property that… that we don't control for a future open space or outdoor space, because we're… we're essentially limiting what the, you know, what the development potential would be on a particular property. I do think that there are probably some things that we can look at and see if there's a, you know, a balance to be struck there, but that's partly why there's not definitive locations of those outdoor spaces in East Boulder as compared to some of those other locations. And I think we also learned in creation of the Boulder Junction Phase 2 amendment was that there was a way to indicate that from a policy perspective in the plan itself, if we were to ever develop form-based code for Boulder Junction, then that would also give us a little bit more leverage, you know, to be able to identify those in a regulating plan.

[208:09] The other thing I was going to mention, Which is escaping me at this moment, so maybe it'll come back to me, but for now, I'll stop. Thanks, KJ. I just want to comment on the open space thing, and Kurt, I concur with you about public open spaces, and the essential nature of public open spaces But, when I look at the, the concept review we did. And this speaks to KJ's comment of the concept review we did of the Arts District. I forget, the company, that owns the UPS building, and Earl Saw Shop, and the buildings to the north. So here you have… we're going to… we… someday, maybe we'll have this beautiful arts district, residences, etc, and then

[209:10] in the… at the entrance of that is Earl Saw Shop and a UPS depot, right? So… and because those are privately held, two privately held prop… rentals. Reynolds owns one, and Conscious Bay owns the other. So we can't… we… we can't make Reynolds, like, hey, we'd like that to be an open lawn and a park to serve this development. And I think we've run into that exact same thing Here, so, well, Boulder, if you take a big look, our open space, open space mountain parks, right? that is the quintessential example of community public open spaces that serve the whole community. And people from East Boulder go to the West to hike on those trails, and

[210:00] People go from the west to the east to go birdwatching, and it's a wonderful thing. But, when we have a project. like, the one we reviewed at 55th and Arapaho, that… there is no… there is no space there, and to get to that other space, to get to some public open space, you're crossing 55th, or Arapahoe, or both. And… and so, the, the, the essential nature of small. but… but private or resident open spaces. I think we can't just give up or diminish those, because those people want to walk out and enjoy the sun and enjoy the view without having to cross Arapahoe or 55th. And, you know, they need to be able to benefit from the kinds of things, even in a small way, that we like to benefit from, as well as…

[211:04] You know. Anyway, I just think they… those… those smaller spaces are important, too. Okay? Anything… Kurt, you gotta… okay. Very quick rejoinder to that. I think that the Pearl Arts District example is a good one, and the Reynolds property there, and you're right, if you were to designate the entire Reynolds property as open space, or park, or whatever, that would be considered a taking, right? Because… it would have basically zero value, but you could designate a small portion of it, right, as a, you know, 50 by 50 foot little plaza or something, and that there would still be plenty of value on that property, and you could do something similar, for instance, in East Boulder, you know, along 56th Street, for example, further north. And say, okay, this is a large parcel, but this would be an appropriate place for a small,

[212:02] you know, park, micropark, or whatever, pocket park. So… So, that's kind of the concept that I… So, not to get into a little debate, but would you… would the city buy that 50 by 50 parcel, or would Conscious Bay buy that 5550 parcel? Or would we just say, Reynolds, if you redevelop, even though Conscious Bay has already done their project. When you redevelop, you have to give up this 5550 parcel, and Conscious Bay didn't have to pay a dime for it. How would you manage that, the property rights and value? If I ran the circus, it would work sort of similar to how the Affordable Housing Fund works, right? So there's a park Fund, you know, that people contribute to as they're doing development, and then that money gets used to purchase small pieces of property that Then become, hopefully, you know, that are… that are, like, actual city property, not an easement, not a public access easement, actual deeded city property that the city then, you know, builds as

[213:12] They see as appropriate for the use of public for recreation and open space and so on. But the. residents who let's say… let's say Conscious Bay and the Arts District contributes a ton of money. To this park fund. And we build a park. at… 9th and Alpine. We add on to North Boulder Park. the residents of the Arts District They don't have the park that they can walk to. Now, when we contribute money to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, then we build housing somewhere. And those residents live in that housing. Anyway, it's, it's, it's, I think it's, I think it's perilous to give up on Good open space.

[214:03] in… Within the confines of a project. Yeah. Okay. Anyone else? I only got the last word, okay? I just wanna… I don't need the last word, but I would like the last question, which is… First, I want to thank staff for opening this discussion, making space for it on our agenda, and listening to us on these very detailed, wonky things. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And it sounds like the next step is that you folks will go away, think about it, analyze it, see if there are some changes that you can recommend. I know that there was support on City Council. for making this a work plan item, but because of, logistically, it's a one-year work plan, staff felt that this would take longer than a year. But if there are things that you think can be quickly adjusted and clarified. I think this board, you know, this was our number one priority. We would be receptive. I don't want to speak for everybody, but hopefully we would be receptive to making some changes, quicker than a year.

[215:03] And for the things that can't be changed within a year, you know, hopefully they stay in the queue and get thought about, because we are going to see more buildings come through, and we did not talk tonight about the clarification about our discretion in implying the criteria. But I am interested to see how the next projects to come through will be. I will continue to argue about some of these criteria, that the… if a project is doing a very de minimis thing and using parapets to say that's a change in building height, I'm going to continue to say that's not my interpretation. And hopefully other folks might see the way to have some discretion to do that, too. But I hope staff will take to heart what we have said and try to do what you can to make sure we get good projects. Thank you very much for saying that. That's exactly where we wanted to have the conversation while it was still fresh, so that, you know, we can start giving it some synthesis here. So, thank you very much. Yeah, thanks for this opportunity, this was great. Very much. Okay, any other matters from the director? Nothing. How about our city attorney?

[216:05] Okay. Nope. I did want to ask a question on a completely different topic before… I know everybody's eager to go, so am I. If I may? Please. Area 3, Planning Reserve. Can you folks clarify for us, where this landed at City Council, and what the next steps are, including when it might come back to us? Yes, I am happy to, provide you with a little bit of an overview. So, Council, Council had a good, robust discussion on Thursday. They ultimately, did take a vote and determined, I believe the vote was 7-2, that there was community need, as, as described within the comprehensive plan, and And then they are interested in actually adopting a resolution with some language that would provide some parameters and guardrails and focus around what a future expansion process would, you know, would focus on, and really what the use of the planning reserve would focus on.

[217:13] We are receiving… some feedback from council members via hotline this week on language to be included in that resolution. We will pull together a draft of that, and then, ideally, that will be on their consent agenda at the March fifth meeting, so that's coming up here in a couple of weeks. So once that resolution is passed, if that resolution is passed, then we would, then we would schedule time to come back to Planning Board to, provide that information and request your reconsideration. Realistically, looking at the calendar out over the next, several weeks, it is most likely that it's not going to be until the early part of April that we would be able to get on your agenda to come back.

[218:07] Thank you for that summary, and when it does come back, what are we going to be asked? Are we just being asked to reconsider the community need question, or are we also being asked to weigh in on the resolution? Does that also have to be a double yes from Council and Planning Board around the focus of any potential. Technical… you would… yeah, it's a good question. Technically, you would only be, you would only be asked to reconsider your determination of community need. The resolution language itself would already have been adopted by Council, and that's their, you know, unilateral action to be able to try to put some parameters. I can say that they were very responsive to, you know, some of the comments that were made during the planning board discussion. I know many, or most, if not all of them, actually watched the meeting and the discussion, so took away, I think, a lot of the comments that were provided by all of you, and of course, we summarized that and included that.

[219:09] in the memo packet, and also thank you for, for approving the meeting minutes as well in advance of that. So they were… they were prepared and provided with all of the information from you, so I… I… their intention, I believe, is to, craft that resolution language to address some of the… some of the concerns that were expressed by Planning Board members during your… during your hearing. Thank you, and I do appreciate that. And obviously, we don't know what that resolution's gonna look like yet, but I would encourage staff to think about… You know. how we as planning… what direction can you give us as to how we as planning boards should think about that? Like, is Council's resolution then controlling upon the scope and focus of the… Service area expansion plan, and what if we disagree? So, either in whole, or in part or in some significant way, which I'm not anticipating, I don't know if we would, but I am a facilitator, and I like to think through these process questions, so…

[220:08] Sure. It's a good question. At the end of the day, the initiation of the expansion plan is a city decision by both Planning Board and Council, so you would still maintain your role as far as helping to scope That future process, and it would… it would not be, entirely limited to just what the resolution language put forward. And we can talk about this more when this comes back to us, but I assume that The decision to initiate a service air expansion plan also has to be a double yes, and if either body does not get a majority to approve going ahead with the service air expansion plan, then we would not do that. I believe that is correct. I don't know if it is expressly stated in the amendment procedures, but I will take a look, and we can… we can address that, of course, when we come back.

[221:00] Okay, so that is one of the… I'm sorry, I know I'm prolonging this, but that is one of the questions that I have, is when we discussed this, it was expressed to us that this is just studying the problem further, and that there are off-ramps if we do not want to continue. And I'm going to be asking for a definition of what those off-ramps are, because my concern would be that if we proceed, we are then, basically, we have no off-ramp until we have a completed plan in front of us, and then we have a decision to vote yes or no on it. Gotcha. So, I would like to see some off-ramps before that, if possible. We can, we can explain the off-ramps. Okay, thank you. There are several, and so, yes, but we'll explain that in greater detail. Thank you, Christopher. Okay, on that, I'm gonna count that as the last, the last item on the, matters from the board. Unless I hear… have an objection. Okay. All right, then, we are adjourned. Good night, everybody.

[222:00] Good night.