Board grants variance for attached carport at 6011 Olive Street after neighbors and applicant speak

The Commerce City Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing an attached carport to be sited closer to the property line at 6011 Olive Street.

The board voted to grant a 3-foot reduction to the side-yard requirement, producing a 2-foot minimum setback for the applicant’s attached carport (case AV24-003). The property is a 0.14-acre parcel in an R2 (single-family attached residential) zone.

Applicant Frank Martinez told the board he built a metal carport previously after being told by a building inspector that an unattached carport did not require a permit; he later removed the carport after code enforcement action and is now applying for a permitted, attached carport. Martinez said the requested variance would increase the usable clearance under the carport from about 9 feet 7 inches (if standard 5-foot setback applied) to about 12 feet 7 inches, which he said is necessary to maneuver classic vehicles stored in his garage. Martinez said he previously sought a 1.5-foot setback but the Building Division required a 2-foot minimum; the board considered a 2-foot minimum setback in its decision.

City planner Nathan Chavez explained that a variance is a site‑specific deviation from bulk standards; staff found the application met the approval criteria and reported that planning, engineering, fire, and building divisions had no outstanding comments. Chavez confirmed staff received zero public comments before the meeting.

Neighbors spoke in support. Verona Gonzales, who lives across the street, and Cynthia Luna, a nearby resident, told the board the metal carport had not been an eyesore while it stood and expressed concern about the administrative enforcement and the burden on residents. Board members emphasized the narrow scope of the Board’s action: the board was voting only on the side-yard reduction, not on construction materials, firewall specifications, or other building‑permit technical requirements. Those details will be reviewed during the building‑permit process.

Board member Christie Douglas apologized to the applicant for the time he spent resolving the issue and for the earlier confusion relating to council guidance. The board approved the variance by a 4-0 electronic vote. Staff noted the approved variance runs with the land; building-permit approval remains required and will address design, fire-rating, and construction standards.

The board and staff discussed procedural issues and requested a planning/training session for board members; staff and the city attorney offered to schedule training to review meeting flow, bylaws, and the land development code.