What a difference six inches makes?

Within the past two months, the Boulder City Planning Commission denied a request by Toll Brothers, the anticipated developers of the area adjacent to Boulder Creek Golf Course known as Tract 350, to build homes that are closer to the street than the city’s current legal requirement of 20 feet.

But that does not mean that no one can get a variance to do the same thing.

The commission proved that earlier this month when they voted 4-1 (with two members absent) to approve a variance request in the Lake Mead View Estates subdivision on lakeside for a setback that is virtually identical to the one they denied to Toll Brothers weeks earlier.

Toll Brothers was asking for a 15-foot setback variance and the owners of 829 Moonstone Dr. were asking for a 15-and-a-half-foot setback variance. But don’t look for consistency on this issue. The same members of the same commission also approved a similar setback request earlier this year for a small subdivision of about 15 homes.

When it came time for the public hearing on the matter, only one nearby resident called in. John Andredon said, “I don’t live directly across from this subject property, but set up the hill a little bit, but I’m across the street and familiar with the neighborhood. The front setback is inconsistent with the neighborhood. That’s all I have.”

Two written comments were received, one supporting the application and the other, like the caller, noting that it was inconsistent with existing homes in the area.

The justification offered by the property owner is that the special condition associated with their property is that it is being “squeezed” in by the adjacent properties to the west and east. According to a city report, the property to the west has a downhill landscaping wall rather than a retaining wall, which hinders the applicant’s ability to move the proposed home to the west.

The subject property will require a large rock retaining wall to support the current load of the existing property to the east and a portion of the south (front). The applicant states these conditions narrow the proposed home necessitating the footprint to be placed forward by 4 feet, 6 inches.

In response, city staff did not make a recommendation, but did note other cases in which a setback variance had been requested.

As previously noted, the Tract 350 variance request was denied, while the Diamond Ridge variance for an 18-foot setback request was approved.

In a 2020 request, an “addition on a principal structure” for a home on Utah Street that would result in a 15-foot setback was approved. In 2017, the same 15-foot setback denied to Toll Brothers was approved for the Storybook development in the same area. (Part of Tract 350 will actually be branded as Storybook as Toll Brother acquired that firm in 2021.)

From that point, going back to 1998, a handful of similar requests were pretty evenly split between denials and approvals. However, the approvals were all for sunrooms, covered porches and a garage addition, not for the main living area of a house.

The property owners asked for a second variance, also approved, to cover 43% of the property on the lot with the home when Boulder City code calls for a maximum of 40%. The commission noted that, unlike the setback variance request, there was no precedent for a request to cover more than the maximum square footage allowed by law.

In addressing possible responses to the request, City Planner Nakeisha Lyon noted that, “So while the property does have elevation differences and the development of the parcel will necessitate retaining walls within certain areas of the parcel, these characteristics are not necessarily uncommon in the Lake Mead Estates subdivision and as well as throughout Boulder City. There are other lots within the area and throughout Boulder City that have retaining walls as well as substantial elevation differences that were able to comply with all of the applicable space requirements. It’s the proposed livable space that is encroaching into the front yard setback, which is a gym that the applicant could reduce in size in order to meet the front setback requirement. And then that would also reduce the lot coverage, allowing them to comply with that requirement as well.”

Kevin Smith was the only commission member to vote nay and the motion passed 4-1 with two members absent.