Board of Adjustment tables shade-structure variance after dispute over public notice

The Commerce City Board of Adjustment on the evening of the meeting opened a public hearing for case AV26-0007, a variance request by property owner David Valverde to increase a backyard shade structure from 200 square feet to 540 square feet, and ultimately voted to table the matter to the July 14 Board of Adjustment meeting after questions about whether the legally required public-notice sign had been posted.

Deputy Director Heather Vidlock, the city staff presenter, told the board that the 0.17-acre R-1 property at 7050 East 75th Place contains a shade structure the city believes was built in late spring or summer 2023 without a building permit. Vidlock summarized staff's findings: the application does not meet criteria A1 (physical character) or A2 (self-created hardship), but does meet A3 and B2; as a result, staff is recommending denial. "So staff is not recommending that the board approve this variance," Vidlock said.

Several board members pressed staff on definitions and whether accessory structures such as sheds are combined with shade structures for square-foot limits; staff and code-enforcement clarified that sheds and shade structures each have separate 200-square-foot limits and are not combined. But the hearing shifted from technical definitions to a procedural question about public notice after at least one board member said they drove by the address multiple times and never saw the posted sign.

Board member Leffel told the board he had been to the site three times and "I never saw a sign there." After the applicant, David Valverde, was invited to address posting concerns, Valverde said the sign "was on the property on June 2" and explained that wind had previously blown the sign down and that a parked work truck and a willow tree may have obscured the sign from some vantage points.

Vidlock said Commerce City relies on applicants to post the notice using a staff-provided template, submit a photograph of the posted sign, and file an affidavit of posting. "Staff does not go out to take photographs of the sign; we rely on the applicant to do that," she said, and added that the planner who could verify the affidavit was unavailable that evening.

Given the uncertainty about whether notice had been posted for the full required period, several members expressed discomfort proceeding. Board member Frey White moved to table the case, a motion that was seconded by Board member Leffel. The board opened electronic voting and recorded five yes votes; the motion passed, and the hearing was continued to the July 14 Board of Adjustment meeting. Chair closed the public hearing after the vote.

The board did not consider the merits of the variance on the record; staff's recommendation for denial and its findings on the variance criteria remain part of the record and will be available to the board at the continued hearing. If the board concludes the posting was insufficient, staff said the city would need to reissue notices and restart applicable timelines before rehearing the case.

Action and next steps: Case AV26-0007 is continued to the July 14 Board of Adjustment meeting; staff indicated that updated mailings and newspaper notice would be required if the board finds the posting insufficient. The applicant or staff may provide additional evidence of posting or a corrected notice prior to the reconvened hearing.