Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners uphold site‑plan decision for Perkins–Lance remodel, modify pullout requirement and offer bedroom alternative
Summary
The Board upheld the director’s site‑plan review determination for SPR‑25‑0017 (Perkins–Lance additions and garage) but modified off‑site requirements: it accepted two pullouts recommended by the Sugarloaf Fire Protection District and added a condition that off‑site improvements would not be required if the applicants remove the proposed new bedroom.
The Boulder County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 6 considered an appeal of the director’s site‑plan determination for SPR‑25‑0017, a proposal by Robert Lance and Elizabeth Perkins to add approximately 980 square feet to an existing home and build an 864‑square‑foot detached garage at 385 Millionaire Drive East.
Sam Walker, the reviewing planner in Community Planning & Permitting, told the board the application—submitted before new site‑plan regulations—resulted in a total residential floor area of about 4,156.8 square feet, below the presumptive maximum. The principal staff concern was access: Millionaire Drive East does not meet Boulder County’s multimodal transportation standards (MMTS) in places. Access & Engineering recommended emergency pullouts at roughly 400‑foot intervals; Sugarloaf Fire Protection District also requested a turnaround and specified pullout locations to ensure emergency access.
The applicants said their proposed renovations improve on‑site fire safety (closing open eaves, noncombustible siding, safer stairs) and argued county conditions requiring off‑site improvements on neighboring properties (pullouts) are disproportionate, especially because their easement and neighboring property owners do not consent to off‑site construction.
Commissioner discussion focused on two issues: whether the proposed additions materially increase public‑service burden on access and emergency response, and whether the board should require off‑site improvements if the applicants cannot obtain neighbor consent. Several commissioners said the addition of a bedroom would increase potential occupancy and therefore public‑service needs; others noted the applicants’ wildfire safety work would mitigate risk.
The board voted to uphold the director’s determination with two modifications: 1) require the two pullouts identified by the Sugarloaf Fire Protection District (rather than the locations originally proposed by Access & Engineering) as the off‑site improvement that must be provided to serve the property if the applicants proceed with the additional bedroom; and 2) add a condition that, if the applicants remove the proposed new bedroom and submit amended plans showing removal, the off‑site pullout requirements would not be required. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote (two in favor, one opposed).
The outcome preserves staff’s core finding of the director’s determination while tailoring off‑site mitigation to the site‑specific needs identified by the fire protection district and allowing an alternative pathway for the applicants to proceed without off‑site improvements by removing the bedroom from the proposal.
