Centennial planning commission denies front‑setback variance for 5927 South Grant Street

The Centennial Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 10 denied a variance that would have allowed a front‑setback reduction to 11 feet 1 inch at 5927 South Grant Street, rejecting an application the city planner said did not meet the Land Development Codeapproval standards.

Planner Katie Ginap told the commission staff had reviewed nearby properties in the NC‑18 zone and found most meet the 25‑foot front setback; staff concluded the application did not satisfy multiple approval criteria and recommended denial.

Commissioners spent the bulk of deliberations on two issues identified in staff analysis: whether the property faces an extraordinary condition compared with other NC‑18 lots on the same block, and the implications for the citypublic‑right‑of‑way if the variance were granted. Ginap highlighted that the South Grant Street right‑of‑way is 60 feet and includes about 19 feet between the property line and the street; granting the variance would, in staffanalysis, reduce private‑property distance to 11 feet 1 inch and could complicate future street build‑out and driveway standards.

The applicant and supporters said the proposal fits the neighborhood pattern and argued for flexibility. Jolene White, who identified herself for the record as the property owner at 5927 South Grant Street, said the interior changes and new attached garage would allow her household to install medical equipment and move a bedroom to the main floor for accessibility. "That is where his cold plunge and hyperbaric chamber and workout and all the things that keep him up and moving around," White said, describing the functional reason for the layout. Several neighbors, including residents of nearby houses, told the commission the block is a "patchwork" of lot sizes and setbacks and urged consideration of that context.

Commissioners acknowledged the neighborhoodvariability — several described the Pickletown area as irregular and older than Centennial's current zoning standards — but many agreed the LDC requires that a variance meet all approval criteria. Commissioner Panek said he "really struggle[d] with this one" because the standard asks whether the property is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district and vicinity; staff had identified only one nearby NC‑18 lot with a smaller setback. Commissioner Lloyd, who moved to adopt a resolution denying the variance, argued that past irregularities are not a legal standard to perpetuate and that the commission must move forward with the city's established dimensional standards.

Commissioner Lloyd moved and Commissioner Fisher seconded a resolution denying the variance. The clerk called the vote and the commission approved the resolution denying the front‑setback variance; the transcript records that the motion "passes," but it does not record individual roll‑call tallies in the public hearing text.

Because the variance was denied, the applicant is not permitted to build an addition that would result in the 11‑foot‑1‑inch front setback. Staff told the commission that, if a variance were approved, building permits would then be reviewed for conformance with the variance; the denial leaves alternatives intact, including retaining the existing garage, using tandem parking, or pursuing a detached rear garage that meets setbacks. The commission concluded the hearing and staff noted the next regular meeting is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2026.

Authorities and procedural citations mentioned in the hearing included the referenced resolution (Resolution 2025‑PZ‑R‑085927) and provisions of the Centennial Land Development Code and the Centennial Roadway Design and Construction Standards manual, which staff cited when discussing driveway widths and right‑of‑way build‑out.