TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Heather Eckhardt, CZO - Planner II
DATE: August 12, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-32. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact - A variance request to address accessory structure height and size at 400 Harlow Drive (REID #0417469183000), owned by Christopher and Madeline Bodoh.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
5 - Lynne Greene
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.2 - Invest in community places to ensure revitalization and increase quality of life
Goal 4: Desirable Place to Live, Work and Recreate
• Objective 4.5 - Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods
Executive Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum height of an accessory structure less than 10 feet from a property line from 15 feet to 23 feet and the maximum square footage of an accessory structure less than 10 feet of a property line from 700 square feet to 804 square feet.
30.2.C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner's control (such as exceptional topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue and unique hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Owner: Christopher and Madaline Bodoh
Applicant: Thom Stahl Designs
Requested Action: Increase maximum height and maximum square footage for an accessory structure less than 10 feet from a property line
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 400 Harlow Drive
Size: .39 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single family house
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: SF-10 - Single family house
• South: SF-10 - Single family house
• East: SF-10 - Single family house
• West: SF-10 - Single family house
Letters Mailed: 27
Issues/Analysis:
The single family house located on the subject property was built in 1988 as part of the Kingsford subdivision. The subject property is a corner lot located at the intersection of Harlow Drive and Glenberry Circle. As a corner lot, the structure is required to meet two front yard setbacks which can greatly reduce the available buildable area. Although the structure was built prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the principal structure meets the required front, corner side, side, and rear yard setbacks.
In 2020, a swimming pool was constructed at the subject property further reducing the buildable area.
The UDO requires a minimum 10 foot setback for any accessory structure exceeding 15 feet in height or 700 square feet in size. The applicant has proposed to locate 23 foot tall, 804 square foot structure at the minimum 5 foot setback. As a result, they are requesting a variance to the height and size limitations on structures at the 5 foot setback. The applicant is requesting the following:
Height: Proposed: 23 feet/Permitted: 15 feet/Difference: 8 feet
Size: 804 square feet/Permitted: 700 square feet/Difference: 104 square feet
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following does not constitute grounds for a Variance:
1. The siting of other nonconforming or conforming uses of land or structures in the same or other districts;
2. The request for a particular use expressly, or by inference, prohibited in the district; or
3. Economic hardship or the fact that property may be utilized more profitably with a Variance.
Subsequent Development
Per the applicant, the proposed structure will be dual purpose. The structure will be a pool house as well as an in-law suite for the owner’s aging parents.
The following findings are based on the responses submitted in the application by the applicant and the best available information about the proposal without the benefit of testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “The property at 400 Harlow Dr is a corner lot. Both front yard setbacks were met when the house was built in 1988, reducing the rear yard by 20'. This has impacted the size of the rear yard and made a much smaller rear yard footprint for outdoor living. Also, with design of the house, the double garage juts out the rear of the house further making the rear yard a smaller space.”
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “The property at 400 Harlow Drive, originally lot 39 when the developer laid out the plat for Kingsford, is a corner lot. this site is considerable amount smaller than the other lots in depth. it presents a hardship at this time in trying to accommodate a new pool house with an inlaw suite for my clients to care for aging parents on a first floor handicapped level.”
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “We are asking for 23'-0" where 25'-0" could be asked for in height and 804 sq. Ft. Where 1200 sq ft could be asked for, if we were to max out the sf-10 zoning requirements for 10' off the property line. The presence of an existing inground pool makes the placement of a new poolhouse more difficult to locate, furthermore the reason for the placement of our new pool house 5' off the property line trying to give a little more space to the back yard.
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “We are still in keeping with the SF-10 accessory structure dimensional standards. We are not asking for any height requirement or square footage requirement for our accessory structure that is not within the parameters of the UDO.
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states “Our accessory structure (new pool house) will match the design of the existing house. It will complement the architecture of the surrounding residential area. It will not be towering or overbearing. The Bodoh's rear yard is enclosed with a beautiful 6' brick and wood privacy fence to ensure safety and with the design of the building, aesthetic justice will be met.”
Budget Impact:
There is no immediate budgetary impact.
Options:
1. Approve Findings of Fact as drafted
2. Remand to staff for revisions
Recommended Action:
Approve Findings of Fact as drafted
Attachments:
Draft Findings of Fact