Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies homeowner’s request to keep carport built at front elevation
Summary
Commerce City’s Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from homeowner Joseph Rubio to retain an attached carport flush with his home’s front facade, finding the setback violation was self‑imposed after the structure was built without a permit.
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Commerce City Board of Adjustment voted to deny a variance that would have allowed an attached carport at 6388 East 78th Avenue to remain flush with the home’s front elevation.
Deputy Director Heather Vidllock told the board the carport was built without a permit and that staff finds the hardship “self‑imposed,” concluding they could not recommend approval. The property sits in a PUD where the front setback for carports is five feet; the applicant sought a reduction to be even with the front façade.
Joseph Rubio, the applicant, said the structure was built “about five, six years ago” (he estimated around 2020) as a patio cover and that his family built it for shade during the pandemic. Rubio told the board he would prefer to keep the structure flush with the front of the house rather than remove or reconstruct it.
Board members pressed staff and the applicant about whether the structure had an engineered plan and whether it encroached on neighboring property lines; staff said the building division approved the building permit review contingent on the variance outcome and that their field measurements showed no encroachment beyond the side property line.
Board discussion centered on whether the variance met the city’s land development code criteria. One member argued the pandemic context and the site’s staggered lot pattern justified approval; other members said the variance criteria require property‑specific hardships and that building without a permit constitutes a self‑imposed hardship. A motion to deny the variance under the code’s A1 and A2 criteria was moved, seconded and carried by a majority of the board. The denial leaves the applicant the options provided by staff: cut back, remove, or rebuild the carport to meet PUD standards.
The board closed the public hearing on the case and moved to subsequent agenda items. No members of the public testified for or against the variance during the meeting.

