Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Owner withdraws Venice Street variance appeal after council discussion of options

Longmont City Council · November 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The owner of 1154 Venice Street withdrew an appeal of Planning & Zoning’s denial of setback variances to build a detached garage. Council discussed remanding the application to Planning & Zoning or approving with conditions but ultimately accepted the applicant's withdrawal to allow time for a revised proposal.

The Longmont City Council heard an appeal on Nov. 3 from the owners of 1154 Venice Street seeking two setback variances — a requested 5-foot front setback where 15 feet is normally required and a 5-foot rear setback where 6 feet is required — to build a detached garage. Phil Taylor, senior planner, presented staff’s recommendation that the council uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial.

Owner William Neff and contractor Wayne Hafele addressed council, describing medical and mobility concerns and the lot’s irregular shape. Neff testified the property was developed in the 1950s with a configuration that treats the Twelfth Street side as a front yard, complicating garage placement and access. The applicant offered to reduce the requested variance by a foot in the event it helped win approval.

Council members questioned whether the Planning & Zoning decision had been plainly erroneous and discussed options: approve as requested, approve with conditions, deny and trigger the resubmission limitation, or remand the application to Planning & Zoning for reconsideration with direction. Jeremy Terrell, assistant city attorney, explained that council could remand the application and that denial would trigger the applicable resubmission bar. In response to council counsel and to preserve options for a revised application, the applicant elected to withdraw the appeal; council accepted that withdrawal.

Outcome and next steps: The applicant withdrew the appeal during council discussion to allow time to revise the project and return to Planning & Zoning; council did not make a final ruling on the variances. Staff noted options for the applicant include resubmitting a revised application or returning to Planning & Zoning with modified plans.