Planning commission approves variance to keep 6‑foot fence at 1445 Sunset Street

At its March meeting the Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance allowing a fence that exceeds the city’s 42‑inch front‑yard height limit to remain at 1445 Sunset Street, by a 5‑0 vote.

Senior Planner Christine Cody told the commission the property is approximately 0.19 acre (8,276 square feet) in the Stroh Heights subdivision and is zoned single‑family residential. “Front yard fences must be no taller than 42 inches in height and at least 50% transparent,” Cody said, and the homeowners requested a variance under the Longmont Development Code so the existing cedar fence with welded wire could remain at its current height.

The variance request grew out of the house’s atypical orientation: although the yard that faces Sunset is technically a front yard by city address, the home’s primary entrance and driveway face Fifteenth Street and the alley. Homeowner Jeremy Yoder told the commission the layout creates a safety concern for the family’s dog and young child, describing an incident he said occurred the day he filed the application: “Lo and behold a large goldendoodle comes Jumps over the fence … clears the fence,” he said, arguing the additional height improves safety. Yoder said he designed the fence to respect the code’s transparency intent and to match the house’s character.

Neighbors speaking in support said the new fence is an improvement on the prior enclosure and suited the home’s unusual layout. Jude Biggs, a former owner who lives nearby, said the previous solution “was uglier than sin” and praised the current fence as “a heck of a lot better and much, much more beautiful.” Several other neighbors described the fence as well‑built, aesthetically pleasing and not obstructive to sight lines.

Commissioners questioned whether the fence had been built with a permit and whether the property could be readdressed to Fifteenth Street to avoid front‑yard restrictions. Planning staff reported the fence was built without a permit and that no formal complaint prompted enforcement; staff said code enforcement observed the fence during routine duties. Staff also explained the development code defines front‑yard setbacks by the front face of the dwelling and that changing the official address raises practical issues; the code contains a special provision for corner and reverse‑corner lots but staff and the city attorney said that provision did not, in their reading, make the fence area a rear or side yard in this case.

Commissioner Mott moved to adopt Planning and Zoning Resolution 2025‑2A approving the variance. Commissioner Boone seconded. The roll call vote was: Commissioner Boone — yes; Commissioner Pollan — yes; Chair Hite — yes; Commissioner Arment — yes; Commissioner Earl — yes. The motion passed unanimously, 5‑0. The commission chair read the required notice that the decision is subject to a seven‑day appeal period to the City Council.

The commission’s findings emphasize the lot’s “exceptional limitation” in shape and orientation and concluded that the fence, as built, maintains the intent of the transparency requirement while addressing the applicants’ safety concerns. The record shows the fence’s opaque portion is six feet in places and that the applicant calculated the fenced panels at about 45% transparency where the code specifies 50%. Planning staff and at least one city traffic reviewer reported no sight‑distance safety concern for motorists.

The commission’s approval does not finalize the matter until the seven‑day appeal period closes; staff read the appeal instructions into the record at the meeting.