Longmont commission denies variance that would have enlarged ADU at 2 Fifth Avenue

The Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny a variance request on June 18 that would have allowed conversion of an existing garage at 2 Fifth Avenue into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) larger than local code limits.

Principal Planner Nathan Jones Meyer told the commission the property includes a primary residence of about 808 square feet and an accessory garage of about 572 square feet; the applicant proposed converting the garage and an existing loft into an ADU totaling about 898 square feet. Meyer said the proposal exceeds the Land Development Code standard that accessory dwelling units “shall not exceed 1/2 of the finished above ground floor area of the principal dwelling unit,” and therefore requires a variance. “We did find that it met the approval criteria for, variance. And so, we recommend, staff recommends approval of the proposed variance,” Meyer said during his presentation.

The applicant’s architect, Jeff Van Sambic of Ludstone Design Group, said the upper loft does not meet the building‑code definition of habitable space and that from a construction point of view the ADU would be roughly 576 square feet of usable area; he argued the conversion preserves existing structure and neighborhood character. “By definition of the building code, there’s actually no habitable space on that level,” Van Sambic told the commission when explaining the loft’s dimensions and clearance.

Public comment split between neighborhood concerns and statements of intent. Sharon O’Leary, co-chair of the Historic East Side neighborhood association, objected to the application in part because she said the property owner lives out of state and expressed concern about speculative resale and changing neighborhood character: “Out of state people are getting priority over in in town people,” O’Leary said. Noam Feinberg, who identified himself as the son of the property owner, said he intends to occupy the unit if built: “That would be me. That would be my interest.”

Commission debate centered on whether the variance request represented a "self-imposed hardship" — a specific variance criterion. Chair Vice Chair Pullen read the standard aloud: “Variant should not be granted for a self imposed hardship.” Commissioners who voted to deny said converting an existing garage into a larger ADU is a choice by the owner rather than an unavoidable hardship; commissioners who voted yes cited minimal exterior changes and argued the reuse is less impactful than demolition and new construction. Assistant City Attorney Jeremy Turrell reminded the commission that the ADU use itself is allowed by right and that the only question before the commission was the size variance: “The accessory dwelling unit is allowed by right. So the only question before the commission tonight is the variance concerning the size.”

The motion on the record directed the commission to approve a denial of the variance (i.e., deny the variance). The motion passed; the meeting record shows the individual roll-call as Commissioner Lang (Aye), Commissioner Jordan (Nay), Commissioner Wang (Nay), Vice Chair Pullen (Yes), Commissioner Saunders (Yes), Commissioner Earl (Yes). The commission announced a seven-day appeal period for this decision beginning Thursday, June 19 at 8 a.m. and ending Wednesday, June 25 at 5 p.m.

Next steps: the applicant may appeal the denial to City Council within the announced appeal period. Staff and applicants also noted that recent changes to local ADU rules (to align with state law) affect submittal and occupancy requirements: under the newer code, applicants must provide proof of residency as part of an ADU submittal; because this application was submitted under the prior rules, staff said occupancy documentation would still be required prior to issuance of final permits or certificates of occupancy.