Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont commission denies setback variance for garage at 1154 Venice Street
Summary
The Longmont Planning & Zoning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, denied a variance request to build a detached garage with 5-foot setbacks where the code requires larger distances. Commissioners cited sight-line and review-criteria concerns; the decision is subject to a seven-day appeal period.
The Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Longmont, sitting as the Board of Adjustment, voted 5-0 on Sept. 24 to deny a request for a setback variance at 1154 Venice Street that would have allowed a proposed detached garage to sit 5 feet from two property lines where larger setbacks are required.
The applicant, William Neff, who identified himself as the homeowner at 1154 Venice Street, asked for a 5-foot front setback where the Land Use Code requires 15 feet and a 5-foot rear setback where 6 feet is required. Neff said the standalone garage would spare him from scraping ice and snow off his car after recent health problems and asbestos remediation tied to the house’s older additions. “I didn’t want to... scrape ice and snow off the car this next winter,” Neff said.
Commissioners focused on safety, code consistency and the variance review criteria. Commissioner Boone said buildings placed near a street/alley corner can block the view corridor used for vehicle and pedestrian safety and that the proposed garage would sit inside a visual-triangle area. “That’s the view corridor. And it’s a safety issue,” Boone said, citing the sight-triangle rationale the commission applied in its deliberations.
City staff described applicable Land Use Code standards (15-02-02055 and 15-02-02060.I, as discussed in the hearing) and clarified that accessory structures are treated differently than primary dwellings for front-yard setback calculations. Assistant City Attorney Jeremy Terrell advised the commission that the general review criteria in 15-02-02055 apply in addition to the variance-specific standards under 15-02-02060.I. Public Works engineering staff sketched the 30-foot sight triangle measured from the edge of pavement and said the proposed garage “hits the edge” of that triangle; the engineer estimated the incursion was on the order of “a couple feet” but did not provide a precise measurement to the commission.
Commissioners asked whether the requested relief represented the least deviation necessary and whether alternatives existed, including a smaller or differently sited garage or an attached garage. Neff told commissioners he could reduce the structure’s size or move it closer to the house but that attaching a garage to the existing structure would likely require extensive work because of unknown wiring and asbestos in the rear additions. Commissioners repeatedly said those practical constraints do not necessarily meet the variance criteria if smaller or less intrusive alternatives exist.
Vice Chair Pullen made the motion to deny the variance; Commissioner Earl seconded. The five voting members on the Board of Adjustment — Vice Chair Pullen, Chair Hite, Commissioner Boone, Commissioner Earl and Commissioner Arment — voted to deny the variance. Commissioners Lane and Saunders recused themselves from this agenda item because the Board of Adjustment is a five-member body for variance requests.
The commission’s resolution denying the variance was read into the record. The decision enters a seven-day appeal period; any aggrieved party may file a written appeal with the city clerk and the planning office. The appeal period begins at 8 a.m. the day after the commission’s action and closes at 5 p.m. seven days later.
Background and next steps: The subject lot is roughly 0.17 acres and is in a single-family residential zone. Staff presented the survey plat and a proposed site plan and noted the accessory-structure rule that accessory buildings cannot be located closer to the front property line than the primary structure unless a variance is granted. Commissioners instructed the applicant that reducing the building footprint and moving it closer to the existing structure could reduce or eliminate the need for a variance and encouraged the applicant to consider revised plans if he wishes to pursue the garage again.
Appeal information: The commission read the administrative appeal instructions into the record and set the appeal window to open the morning after the meeting and close seven days later at 5 p.m.
