Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Bower setback variance after neighbors and staff raise Rio Grande corridor concerns
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission denied a requested 10-foot reduction to the 25-foot front setback at 108 Cottonwood Place NW after staff said the applicant failed to show a qualifying hardship and several neighbors warned that reducing the Rio Grand corridor setbacks would harm the village character.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to deny a 10-foot variance to the 25-foot front setback requested by Robert and Kelly Bower for 108 Cottonwood Place NW.
Director Schultz told the commission staff recommended denial, saying, “the applicant has not demonstrated a qualifying hardship under the variance criteria,” and noting the site constraints cited were common to properties in the village and did not prevent reasonable development in compliance with the code.
Applicant Robert Bower argued that the lot effectively lacks frontage on a public street and that the only access is a 25-foot vehicular easement, making the western property line the only practical “front.” Bower said the requested change would allow practical placement of the house on the lot.
Neighbors opposed the variance at the public hearing. Michael Hannah, a former village planning commissioner, said variance criteria are for relief from an actual land hardship and that the Rio Grand corridor’s 280-foot setback is a villagewide policy intended to preserve rural character and scenic vistas. Bonnie Kelly, who lives across Rio Grand, urged the commission not to confine notice to the usual 300-foot radius when a corridor-wide standard is at issue, saying the 280-foot setback was meant to preserve open space and wildlife habitat along Rio Grand Boulevard.
Supporters included a neighbor who said the lot’s access arrangement makes strict application of the setback difficult and a speaker who noted the adjacent property owner had submitted a letter supporting the variance.
After extended commissioner discussion that focused on whether the lot’s access/easement constituted a qualifying hardship or was instead a known condition when the property was acquired, the motion to deny the 10‑foot variance passed on a roll-call vote. The record was amended to note the applicant had withdrawn the separate request related to the 280-foot Rio Grand setback so the commission’s action addressed only the 25‑foot front setback reduction.
The commission closed the item with the denial recorded; no alternative findings to approve were adopted. The denial is final for the Planning & Zoning Commission and any applicant appeal or revised application would be handled per village procedures.
