Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment postpones variance hearing for covered patio setback in Reunion PUD
Summary
Commerce City’s Board of Adjustment postponed a decision on a requested 9-foot rear-yard setback variance for an existing covered patio after split views on whether the hardship was self-imposed. The applicant was absent; staff recommended approval and building plans have been reviewed.
Commerce City’s Board of Adjustment on Tuesday postponed a decision on a requested variance that would reduce the required rear-yard setback for an existing covered patio from 20 feet to 11 feet.
Planner Nathan Chavez told the board the application (case AV25-0002) concerns a 0.18-acre lot within the Reunion planned unit development in the Northern Neighborhoods character area and that staff recommends approval because the lot and house placement create an unusual configuration. “The covered patio was erected in 2020 without any approval, and code enforcement action led to this building permit and then this variance,” Chavez said. He told the board the building-division review finds the submitted structural plans acceptable pending issuance of the permit if the variance is approved.
Board members split over whether the situation qualified as an unpreventable hardship or an avoidable self-created condition. Council member Christy Douglas, who visited the property, said the patio “doesn’t negatively impact any of the neighbors” and indicated she would vote to approve. Board member Loeffel expressed concerns that the owners — who, staff said, owned the property when the patio was installed — had relied on a contractor and that approving the variance could set a precedent for after-the-fact construction. “We’re being asked for forgiveness tonight,” Loeffel said.
The applicant, Troy and Kimberly Clark, were not present because of a family emergency, Chavez said; they submitted a narrative with the application. After discussion about whether to hear the case in the applicant’s absence, Board member Frey moved to table the case to the board’s next meeting. The motion to postpone AV25-0002 to July 8, 2025, passed 4–0 on a roll-call vote (Jean Lepple, Joanne Hernandez, Joe Freiwake and Christy Douglas recorded as yes).
Key facts presented to the board included that the covered patio was constructed around 2020, the property is approximately 0.18 acre, staff received three written comments and one phone inquiry, and building-division plans submitted in 2025 include the required engineering/structural stamp and have been reviewed as meeting building-code requirements pending issuance. Staff noted screening, fencing and landscaping between the patio and adjacent lots and said the structure “matches the existing home” and has no recorded complaints.
Board members asked staff how the violation was discovered; Chavez said it was identified through routine code-enforcement tracking. Board members also asked whether similar variances exist in the neighborhood; staff said they observed other rear patios in aerial imagery but had not researched whether those relied on variances or preexisting permits.
With the case continued, the applicants may return on July 8 to present in person, or they may appeal a final decision in the future; staff told the board that if the variance were denied, the applicants could remove or alter the structure to meet setbacks or appeal to district court. The board asked staff to convey condolences to the applicants for the family emergency.
