Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Zoning Board of Appeals

Chairperson Ernest Colling‎, ‎Jr‎.‎, ‎Vice Chairperson Gerard Verschueren‎

Members‎: ‎Deborah Brnabic‎, ‎Jim Duistermars‎, ‎Adam Kochenderfer‎,‎

Kenneth Koluch‎, ‎Michael McGunn‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Colling called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎03 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the ‎

Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Deborah Brnabic, Ernest Colling, Kenneth Koluch and Gerard Verschueren

Present

4 -

Jim Duistermars, Adam Kochenderfer and Michael McGunn

Absent

3 -

Also Present‎: ‎James Breuckman‎, ‎Manager of Planning‎

Scott Cope‎, ‎Building Department Director‎

Tim Hollis‎, ‎Building Inspector‎/‎Plan Reviewer‎

Jack Sage‎, ‎Ordinance Enforcement‎

Sandi DiSipio‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2013-0127

February ‎13‎, ‎2013 ‎Regular Meeting Minutes‎

A motion was made by Verschueren‎, ‎seconded by Koluch‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Approved as Presented‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Brnabic, Colling, Koluch and Verschueren

4 -

Absent

Duistermars, Kochenderfer and McGunn

3 -

COMMUNICATIONS

- ‎Planning ‎& ‎Zoning News‎, ‎January and February ‎2013 ‎issues‎

- ‎Building Department‎'‎s brochure relative to Accessory Structures‎

PUBLIC COMMENT

No members of the public came forward to speak on any non‎-‎agenda items‎.‎

NEW BUSINESS

2013-0126

SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS‎

PUBLIC HEARING ‎- ‎FILE NO‎. ‎06‎-‎013‎

Location‎: ‎The northwest corner of a parcel of land located on the west side of ‎

Crooks Road‎, ‎north of Avon Industrial Drive and south of Hamlin Road‎, ‎adjacent ‎

to the parcel identified as Parcel Number ‎15‎-‎29‎-‎228‎-‎004‎, ‎zoned B‎-‎3 ‎(‎Shopping ‎

Center Business‎).‎

Request‎: ‎An extension of variances to allow one ‎(‎1‎) ‎off‎-‎premises real estate ‎

sign to continue to be located in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way immediately adjacent to Parcel ‎

Number ‎15‎-‎29‎-‎228‎-‎004‎. ‎The sign in question is an advertising sign for the ‎

M‎-‎59‎-‎Crooks Business Park‎. ‎The Business Park is located on the south side of ‎

Avon Industrial Drive‎.‎

Item ‎#‎1‎ ‎- ‎A ‎variance‎ to permit one ‎(‎1‎) ‎off‎-‎premises real estate sign pursuant to ‎

Section ‎134‎-‎115‎(‎a‎) ‎of the Code of Ordinances‎, ‎which prohibits any sign that is ‎

not an on‎-‎premises sign‎.‎

Item ‎#‎2‎ ‎- ‎A ‎variance‎ to permit one ‎(‎1‎) ‎off‎-‎premises real estate sign to be located ‎

in a public right‎-‎of‎-‎way pursuant to Sections ‎134‎-‎109‎(‎b‎) ‎and ‎134‎-‎115‎(‎c‎) ‎of the ‎

Code of Ordinances‎, ‎which both prohibit signs from being located in the public ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

Applicant‎: ‎Avon Star‎, ‎LLC‎

4036 ‎Telegraph‎, ‎Suite ‎#‎200‎

Bloomfield Hills‎, ‎Michigan ‎48302‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report dated March ‎17‎, ‎2008 ‎(‎original variance request‎) ‎by ‎

Derek Delacourt‎, ‎former Deputy Director of Planning‎, ‎and associated ‎

documentation were placed on file in the Planning and Economic Development ‎

Department and by reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Chairperson Colling read the request for the record‎, ‎and invited the applicant to ‎

come forward to the presenter‎'‎s table‎, ‎state their name and address for the ‎

record‎, ‎and provide a brief summary of their request‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Linda Oak‎, ‎Avon Star LLC‎, ‎4036 ‎Telegraph‎, ‎Suite ‎#‎200‎, ‎Bloomfield Hills‎, ‎

MI‎, ‎came forward‎, ‎introduced herself and explained they have had the sign in ‎

place for five years‎. ‎It has not caused any problems or accidents‎, ‎and helps ‎

their tenants‎' ‎customers find the location‎. ‎The sign also helps keep the property ‎

leased up‎, ‎as people who are looking to lease will know where the property is‎, ‎

and will know that their clients can find them‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling asked if the property is currently fully leased‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Oak ‎

replied no‎. ‎

Chair Colling then asked if staff has anything to add‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman commented as this is an extension of a variance‎, ‎staff included ‎

all the information from when this request was before the Board five years ago‎. ‎

Nothing has materially changed in the past five years‎, ‎physically where the sign ‎

is located‎, ‎the environs of the site‎, ‎or even the occupancy percentage of the ‎

use in question‎. ‎Potential motions have been provided and he will answer any ‎

questions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage added that approval of the original variance was contingent on a ‎

permit from the Engineering Department to continue to locate the sign in the ‎

public right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎Additionally‎, ‎the Engineering Department called Mr‎. ‎Sage ‎

with a concern about the forecast for the longevity of this sign to remain in the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way indefinitely‎. ‎This extension would be contingent upon the applicant ‎

continuing to secure a permit from the Engineering Department for the location ‎

in addition to the permit from the Building Department for the sign permit itself‎. ‎

The applicant has been renewing the permit every year for the last five years ‎

since the Sign Board of Appeals granted the initial approval‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling asked if Engineering has come forth with any objections at ‎

this time‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Sage explained the only objection they had was concern about the duration ‎

that the sign is going to remain in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎This is a precedent that has ‎

never been set before‎. ‎The Engineering Department always has concerns ‎

about temporary things eventually becoming almost permanent things in ‎

rights‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling commented he doesn‎'‎t see where much has changed and ‎

feels the need for the sign is still there‎. ‎He clarified to the applicant that this ‎

approval is not going be permanent‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Oak replied she understands that and ‎

will renew both permits every year‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Colling stated as long as Engineering ‎

has no problems with the sign‎, ‎he would like to renew the approval‎, ‎especially ‎

with the economy down‎, ‎any edge the applicant can have to lease is in the City‎'‎s ‎

best interest‎. ‎The question is does the Board do the same as last time ‎- ‎that ‎

motion was to approve for one year with five one‎-‎year extensions by way of ‎

permit‎. ‎If the sign was still standing after five years‎, ‎the applicant would have to ‎

request their extension through the Sign Board‎. ‎The Board can amend this ‎

approval to whatever duration they feel is appropriate‎. ‎Chairperson Colling said ‎

if the Board favors granting the variance‎, ‎it should be for a specific time period‎, ‎

e‎.‎g‎.‎, ‎three or five years with a renewal from the Building Department annually‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Colling asked if the Board grants a five year variance‎, ‎the sign permit is ‎

pretty much defacto renewed for that time period ‎- ‎it‎'‎s the Engineering permit ‎

that is up on a yearly basis‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Sage indicated this is correct‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling asked the applicant what time period they feel would work ‎

for them before having to appear in front of the Board again for another ‎

approval‎, ‎to which Ms‎. ‎Oak indicated five years‎, ‎the same as last time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Colling indicated he does not have a problem with this time frame this time‎, ‎but ‎

five years from now‎, ‎he would like to approve for a lesser period if it is extended‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Verschueren‎, ‎seconded by Koluch‎, ‎in the matter of File No‎. ‎

06‎-‎013‎, ‎that the request for the extension of variances from Sections ‎

134‎-‎109‎(‎b‎)‎, ‎134‎-‎115‎(‎a‎) ‎and ‎(‎c‎) ‎of the Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances to ‎

allow one off‎-‎premises real estate sign to be located in the public right‎-‎of‎-‎way of ‎

Avon Industrial Road‎, ‎west of Crooks Road‎, ‎adjacent to the parcel identified as ‎

parcel number ‎15‎-‎29‎-‎228‎-‎004 ‎be ‎APPROVED‎ for the applicant‎, ‎Avon Star LLC‎, ‎

on behalf of GVA Strategies because competent‎, ‎material‎, ‎and substantial ‎

evidence does support the following affirmative findings with conditions‎:‎

Findings‎:‎

1‎. ‎A special condition or circumstance does exist for this applicant in that the ‎

property the sign advertises ‎(‎the M‎-‎59‎/‎Crooks Business Park‎) ‎does not front ‎

upon a major thoroughfare and has no visibility at the intersection of Avon ‎

Industrial Drive and Crooks Road‎.‎

2‎. ‎Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant ‎

of property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district‎.‎

3‎. ‎Substantial justice will be done by allowing this approval‎. ‎This approval will ‎

not be contrary to the public purpose and the general intent of the Sign ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎Specifically‎, ‎the sign will not endanger the public in terms of location ‎

and will assist the public in finding the area‎, ‎and minimize traffic problems in that ‎

particular location‎.‎

Conditions‎:‎

1‎. ‎The approval is granted for the period of one ‎(‎1‎) ‎year from April ‎10‎, ‎2013‎. ‎

Annual renewals of this sign permit will be authorized by the City‎'‎s Building ‎

Department as set forth in Section ‎134‎-‎147 ‎(‎Real Estate Signs‎) ‎of Chapter ‎134 ‎

(‎Signs‎) ‎of the City‎'‎s Code of Ordinances‎. ‎If the sign is still being renewed five ‎

years from April ‎10‎, ‎2013‎, ‎a variance request must be brought back to the Sign ‎

Board of Appeals for review‎.‎

2‎. ‎The sign must meet all Ordinances and requirements specific for a ‎

temporary real estate development sign‎.‎

3‎. ‎The sign will be specifically for GVA Strategies for the M‎-‎59‎/‎Crooks Road ‎

Business Park‎.‎

4‎. ‎The sign will be no greater than ‎35 ‎square feet‎, ‎as depicted on the plans ‎

dated received April ‎10‎, ‎2013‎.‎

5‎. ‎The sign is to be located in the public right‎-‎of‎-‎way substantially as shown on ‎

the aerial example provided in the application‎, ‎and subject to the City ‎

Engineering Department‎'‎s approval‎.‎

6‎. ‎The location must conform to all applicable Ordinances and laws‎.‎

A motion was made by Verschueren‎, ‎seconded by Koluch‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Brnabic, Colling, Koluch and Verschueren

4 -

Absent

Duistermars, Kochenderfer and McGunn

3 -

2013-0128

PUBLIC HEARING ‎- ‎FILE NO ‎13‎-‎003‎

Location‎: ‎1468 ‎Ruby Avenue‎, ‎located on the northeast corner of Ruby and ‎

Cone Avenues‎, ‎between Crooks and Livernois‎, ‎Parcel Identification Number ‎

15‎-‎33‎-‎401‎-‎009‎, ‎zoned R‎-‎4 ‎(‎One Family Residential‎).‎

Request‎: ‎A ‎variance‎ of ‎917 ‎square feet from Section ‎138‎-‎10‎.‎102‎A ‎(‎Detached ‎

Accessory Structures‎) ‎of the Code of Ordinances‎, ‎which limits the combined ‎

floor area of all detached accessory structures located on a lot to the ground ‎

floor living area of the main building or ‎720 ‎square feet‎, ‎whichever is less‎. ‎In ‎

this case‎, ‎the maximum permitted area for all accessory structures on the lot is ‎

720 ‎square feet‎. ‎The total square footage of all existing detached structures is ‎

845 ‎square feet and the proposed carport is ‎792 ‎square feet‎, ‎resulting in ‎1637 ‎

total square feet of accessory buildings‎. ‎This is a violation of ‎917 ‎square feet‎.‎

Applicant‎: ‎Daniel Kinnaird‎

1468 ‎Ruby Ave‎.‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48309‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report dated April ‎4‎, ‎2013‎, ‎prepared by Jim Breuckman‎, ‎

Manager of Planning‎, ‎and associated documentation were placed on file in the ‎

Planning and Economic Development Department and by reference became ‎

part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Chairperson Colling read the request for the record‎, ‎and invited the applicant to ‎

come forward to the presenter‎'‎s table‎, ‎state his name and address for the ‎

record‎, ‎and provide a brief summary of the request‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dan Kinnaird‎, ‎1468 ‎Ruby Avenue‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48309‎, ‎the applicant‎, ‎

came forward and introduced himself‎.‎

The public hearing was opened at ‎7‎:‎23 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

One telephone call was received April ‎9‎, ‎2013 ‎from Robert Taylor‎, ‎3627 ‎Mildred ‎

stating he has no objections to granting the requested variance‎. ‎

There being no one in the audience‎, ‎the public hearing was closed at ‎7‎:‎25 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird then summarized his request for the Board‎. ‎He is seeking a ‎

variance for something he has already done‎. ‎He called the Building Department ‎

and asked them what the criteria was for a carport‎. ‎He originally wanted to put it ‎

in the driveway‎, ‎but was told he could not do that because it would be in front of ‎

the house‎. ‎He was told he could put the carport on the side or in the back of the ‎

house and that no permit was necessary because it is a self‎-‎standing structure ‎

on a non‎-‎permanent foundation‎. ‎It is not on concrete‎. ‎With that‎, ‎he bought the ‎

carport and built‎/‎installed it himself‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird supplied photographs for the ‎

Board‎'‎s review‎. ‎He cares for the neighborhood‎, ‎wants it to be aesthetically nice ‎

and built a fence around it‎. ‎He wants to be courteous of his neighbors‎, ‎sent ‎

them a letter asking if anyone had a problem with carport and if so‎, ‎what could ‎

he do to make it more pleasing‎, ‎and no one expressed any issues with it‎. ‎As ‎

the pictures show‎, ‎he is on a corner lot surrounded by woods‎, ‎with the carport ‎

only being seen from the front view‎. ‎He is asking for a variance to protect what ‎

he has already done‎, ‎and asks for leniency‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling called for the staff report summary‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman indicated the staff report provides an overview of the unplatted ‎

site‎; ‎it is an interesting transition point between the platted lots to the west and ‎

south and unplatted lots to the north and east‎. ‎The ordinance sets forth five ‎

criteria for determining whether or not a practical difficulty does or does not ‎

exist‎; ‎those are the criteria for approval or denial of a variance‎. ‎By summary‎, ‎

it‎'‎s whether or not the regulations would unreasonably prevent the owner from ‎

using the property or if they would be unnecessarily burdensome‎. ‎Substantial ‎

justice deals with the applicant‎'‎s rights and enjoyment of his property as well as ‎

other property owners in the district and whether or not a lesser variance would ‎

give substantial justice to the applicant as well as other property owners‎. ‎

Unique circumstances of the property ‎- ‎it‎'‎s hard to say there are unique ‎

circumstances in this case‎. ‎Self creation of the problem is one of the criteria‎. ‎

And finally the spirit of the ordinance being observed‎, ‎public safety and welfare ‎

secured and substantial justice being done‎. ‎Sample motions are included in the ‎

packet‎. ‎Representatives from the Building Department are present to answer ‎

any questions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hollis added that the ordinance is self‎-‎explanatory about the size limits on ‎

this property being ‎720 ‎square feet and the detached accessory structures that ‎

already exist on the property‎, ‎without this new structure‎, ‎exceed that ‎720 ‎square ‎

feet‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling clarified the existing structures ‎- ‎an ‎8‎' ‎x ‎8‎' ‎shed behind the ‎

garage‎, ‎two garden sheds at ‎8‎' ‎x ‎12‎' ‎and ‎10‎' ‎x ‎6‎'‎. ‎In looking at this lot‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎

Colling asked if he was to consider the carport an attached structure‎, ‎because ‎

the garage is attached to the home‎, ‎and the carport became part of the house‎, ‎

is it legally within the building envelope meeting all setbacks‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hollis replied the garage that appears to be attached in the aerial‎, ‎is in fact‎, ‎

detached by ordinance definition‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling commented there is a roof over it and it is joined‎. ‎In the ‎

past the Board has considered anything joined by roofs to be one structure‎. ‎It is ‎

not a removable roof‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hollis explained there is specific language in the ordinance about a ‎

breezeway attachment‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Colling‎'‎s point is‎, ‎if this garage were to be treated like an attached structure ‎

versus stand‎-‎alone‎, ‎and if the carport was attached to the garage it would be ‎

considered part of the house and as long as setbacks were met‎, ‎it would be ‎

legal‎. ‎He‎'‎s trying to find out if that is the case here‎, ‎as he believes it is‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope stated that is something they could look at‎. ‎A brief review of the ‎

ordinance indicates that it might be different than that interpretation‎, ‎but he could ‎

look at it a little closer‎. ‎Another consideration is the total square footage of the ‎

accessory structures ‎- ‎do they exceed the square footage of the house‎. ‎That is ‎

another question‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hollis indicated that they do exceed the square footage of ‎

the home‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Colling pointed out the section of the ordinance that states a garage or an ‎

attached garage can not exceed the square footage of the first floor of the ‎

home‎. ‎While he understands what the applicant is trying to do‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Colling is not ‎

trying to create a situation‎, ‎but is trying to find out what the building envelope is ‎

and what the applicant can do to get more parking space for his vehicles and ‎

still remain within the ordinance‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling then commented it appears that the carport is deeper than ‎

the garage‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird clarified this is correct‎, ‎that is why the carport is set back farther ‎

than the garage‎. ‎He did that to help with the aesthetics and landscaped around ‎

it‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling asked staff to take a look and see if there is any wiggle ‎

room for the applicant to do anything here as far as the attached structure‎. ‎He ‎

does not consider the garage to be detached at this point‎. ‎There are a number ‎

of sheds that add up to significant square footage also‎. ‎But if there is any ‎

square footage left that he could do something attaching to the side of the ‎

garage to put something out of the weather‎, ‎he‎'‎s for the applicant enjoying his ‎

property rights provided he doesn‎'‎t exceed any other ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Scott said staff could certainly look at that and see what that extent would ‎

be‎, ‎and re‎-‎review the ordinance as far as the definition of when a structure is ‎

considered attached ‎- ‎it‎'‎s a confusing section of the ordinance‎. ‎He added he ‎

has been with the Building Department for ‎20 ‎years and knows there was a ‎

comment about staff indicating no permit is necessary‎, ‎but there are permits ‎

necessary for this type of structure and they have always been required‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling suspects that even if the carport was attached to the ‎

garage‎, ‎the applicant would be in violation of another ordinance ‎- ‎the square ‎

footage of the garage is going to exceed the house‎. ‎That can‎'‎t be allowed either‎. ‎

The question is what can be salvaged‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Colling wants to be fair to the ‎

applicant and that‎'‎s why he‎'‎s asked staff to look into the numbers‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman referred to Section ‎138‎-‎10‎.‎101‎(‎b‎) ‎of the Ordinance‎, ‎which deals ‎

with attached accessory structures‎, ‎but subsection ‎(‎b‎) ‎deals more specifically ‎

with breezeway attachments‎. ‎It‎'‎s confusing‎, ‎but if you delete the middle clause ‎

and read the sentence as ‎"‎accessory structures that are attached by a ‎

breezeway or similar device shall ‎... ‎conform to the maximum height and floor ‎

area limitations applicable to detached accessory structures‎". ‎That is the clear ‎

reading of the section‎. ‎The deleted clause deals with accessory structures ‎

which are not physically attached to the main building ‎(‎no breezeway‎)‎, ‎but are ‎

considered attached under subsection ‎(‎a‎) (‎setbacks‎)‎, ‎by virtue of being located ‎

within ten feet of the main building‎. ‎So‎, ‎what this section on breezeway ‎

attachment is saying is that anything that is attached by a breezeway or not ‎

attached by a breezeway but is located within ten feet of the main building shall ‎

conform to the maximum height and floor area limitations applicable to detached ‎

accessory structures‎. ‎And‎, ‎detached structures are the ones that are subject ‎

to the ‎720 ‎square foot floor area limitations‎. ‎

Chair Colling pointed out in this case we have a garage that is attached by a roof ‎

and also less than ‎10 ‎feet from the main structure‎. ‎It conforms to the height ‎

and regulations of the building‎. ‎Theoretically‎, ‎if the sides of the breezeway are ‎

closed up‎, ‎a floor put in and it meets all codes‎, ‎now the garage is an attached ‎

structure because it is no longer considered a breezeway‎. ‎He wants to be fair to ‎

the applicant‎, ‎and also live within the spirit of the ordinance‎. ‎Assuming this was ‎

an attached garage‎, ‎what‎, ‎if any‎, ‎structure or addition to that garage could be ‎

done‎?‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope indicated he would have to look at it‎, ‎but Mr‎. ‎Hollis has the numbers at ‎

his desk upstairs‎. ‎Staff was asked to get this information‎. ‎

The Board was in Recess from ‎7‎:‎42‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎7‎:‎48 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hollis explained if we take the total square footage of the first floor of the ‎

house ‎- ‎803‎.‎25 ‎square feet‎, ‎and subtract the garage at ‎593 ‎square feet‎, ‎this ‎

leaves ‎210‎.‎25 ‎square feet‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling stated the current carport is ‎792‎, ‎so there is definitely no ‎

room for that‎. ‎Even if all the existing sheds were removed‎, ‎he is still over the ‎

maximum allowable area by ‎72 ‎square feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Colling explained to the ‎

applicant that even if the garage is considered attached and all the sheds were ‎

removed‎, ‎a variance would still be required to keep the carport‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hollis pointed out that even if the applicant were to do that‎, ‎he would still ‎

exceed the home‎'‎s first floor square footage with the detached structure‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling stated the Board is between a rock and a hard place‎, ‎and ‎

asked the members for their thoughts as he is open for suggestions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Koluch feels bad the applicant was given wrong information and asked him if ‎

he discussed the size of the carport with staff when he called‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird responded they did not discuss the actual size‎, ‎only the location‎. ‎

He remembers mentioning size‎, ‎but doesn‎'‎t remember if actual square footage ‎

was discussed‎. ‎The person he spoke with said she would have to check into ‎

his request‎. ‎She did‎, ‎called the applicant back‎, ‎and they went over the criteria‎. ‎

He didn‎'‎t get anything in writing because of not needing a permit‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Koluch asked what type of vehicle is stored in the carport‎, ‎to which Mr‎. ‎

Kinnaird replied a stock Ford F‎250 ‎truck that is too tall to fit in the garage‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Koluch feels bad for the applicant because he probably spent a lot of money‎, ‎

but certain criteria has to be met in order to approve a variance‎, ‎and he is ‎

having a hard time with finding a practical difficulty‎. ‎The property is not the ‎

issue‎, ‎it‎'‎s the fact that the truck is too big to fit‎. ‎There is not anything about the ‎

property that makes it unique enough to grant a variance of this size‎. ‎He would ‎

like to find a way to work something out‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird noted he is seeking leniency and does understand and appreciate ‎

the Board‎, ‎that they have to uphold the laws of the land and look after the City‎, ‎

but this is just a carport‎. ‎He exceeds the maximum accessory structure ‎

square footage‎, ‎but has almost an acre of land‎. ‎He just wants to keep the truck ‎

out of the elements‎, ‎protect his property and do it in a manner that is nice and ‎

up‎-‎keeping with the City‎. ‎He took the time to grade and landscape the carport‎, ‎

brought in stone and erected a fence‎. ‎He will paint it to match the house and ‎

add shrubs‎. ‎It‎'‎s somewhat self‎-‎created‎, ‎but he tried to do the right thing by ‎

contacting the Building Department before doing anything‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic would like to find a something to help the applicant out‎, ‎but with all ‎

things considered‎, ‎it‎'‎s hard‎. ‎She mentioned everything is geared by square ‎

footage of the main building‎, ‎and asked if anything is based on property size‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman stated there is nothing in our ordinance keying accessory ‎

building size to parcel size‎. ‎The only thing staff can offer is ‎-- ‎taking what ‎

existed before the carport was built ‎- ‎there was ‎845 ‎square feet of accessory ‎

building area‎. ‎If both of the sheds located at the north end of the site were ‎

removed‎, ‎the resulting accessory building area on this site would now be ‎856‎. ‎

So‎, ‎it‎'‎s almost even‎. ‎He is not suggesting this is the right thing to do‎, ‎but it‎'‎s an ‎

argument that could be made‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird if he would be willing to remove both sheds to ‎

keep the carport‎, ‎and the applicant replied he could entertain removing them‎, ‎

but would rather take down the one behind the garage and the dilapidated one in ‎

the rear as he just rebuilt one of the sheds in the rear property‎. ‎This would ‎

result in a difference of ‎4 ‎square feet‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised this is for the Board‎'‎s consideration‎. ‎This is predicated ‎

on their considering the breezeway attached garage as attached‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Verschueren commented the Board tries to help applicants any way they ‎

can to find a solution‎, ‎but it‎'‎s very hard to find a solution in this case‎. ‎The only ‎

one he sees is to remove a section of carport in order to meet the square ‎

footage requirement‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope explained the applicant is limited to an additional ‎210 ‎square feet for ‎

accessory structures based on the square footage of the first floor of the house ‎

and the garage‎. ‎That is how big the carport could be in order to be within the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎

Chairperson Colling indicated his problem is that it will take more than one ‎

variance to make this happen‎; ‎a variance from the detached structure‎, ‎from the ‎

use of the property that says you can‎'‎t have a garage bigger than the square ‎

footage of the house‎, ‎and maximum accessory structure floor area‎. ‎This only ‎

leaves ‎210 ‎square feet for the carport‎. ‎He also does not want to set precedent‎. ‎

Even if you considered the garage attached‎, ‎the square footage of such a large ‎

accessory structure to be added would be twice the square footage of the ‎

house‎. ‎You are not allowed to have a garage that is bigger than the house‎. ‎

Right now‎, ‎there is only a difference of ‎210 ‎square feet between the house and ‎

garage‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope said he and Mr‎. ‎Hollis were discussing this and would like to offer ‎

something that may be a little help‎. ‎As far as the evaluation of when the ‎

accessory square footage can be in comparison to the house square footage ‎- ‎

when there is an attached garage‎, ‎it is the total square footage that is used‎, ‎not ‎

just the first floor square footage‎. ‎So‎, ‎what that does is if the existing garage ‎

was attached‎, ‎and the other structure that the applicant is talking about putting ‎

there is attached‎, ‎that would make it within ‎22 ‎square feet if we looked at both ‎

structures as attached‎. ‎This means the applicant would have to create that ‎

breezeway and make it an attached garage‎, ‎and then the carport structure would ‎

need to be attached to the existing garage and reduced by ‎22 ‎square feet‎. ‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Kinnaird if this is something he could live with and he ‎

responded yes‎. ‎The deal is ‎- ‎the breezeway will cost some money to enclose it ‎

and the garage will then be attached‎; ‎and then the carport will have to be ‎

reduced by ‎22 ‎square feet‎. ‎If this is done‎, ‎no variance would be required‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Colling asked staff if the carport has to be attached or can it be free‎-‎standing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Verschueren said instead of solving this with a motion tonight‎, ‎maybe the ‎

applicant could go to the Building Department and work everything out‎. ‎We ‎

could postpone a decision tonight‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope feels this would be a good idea and could work out different options ‎

with the applicant to see what might work the best‎. ‎The applicant may not need ‎

to come back to this Board‎, ‎but it would be an option‎. ‎

The Chair asked that a report of the resolution to this issue be forwarded to the ‎

ZBA‎. ‎

A motion was made by Verschueren‎, ‎seconded by Koluch‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Postponed‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Brnabic, Colling, Koluch and Verschueren

4 -

Absent

Duistermars, Kochenderfer and McGunn

3 -

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Election of Officers‎

Chairperson Colling opened the floor for nominations‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Verschueren‎, ‎seconded by Brnabic‎, ‎to nominate Mr‎. ‎Colling as ‎

Chairperson‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Colling accepted the nomination‎.‎

MOTION ‎by Colling to nominate Mr‎. ‎Verschueren as Vice‎-‎Chairperson‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Verschueren accepted the nomination‎.‎

MOTION ‎by Verschueren to retain the Planning and Economic Development ‎

Department Staff as Secretary‎.‎

Chairperson Colling closed nominations and moved to re‎-‎elect the current slate ‎

of ZBA officers for the coming year‎.‎

Ayes‎: ‎All Nays‎: ‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

There was no further business to come before the Board‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Colling reminded the members the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for May ‎8‎, ‎2013‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business‎, ‎and upon Motion by Verschueren‎, ‎Chairperson ‎

Colling adjourned the meeting at ‎8‎:‎20 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

_______________________________‎

Ernest W‎. ‎Colling‎, ‎Jr‎.‎, ‎Chairperson‎

Zoning Board of Appeals‎

City of Rochester Hills‎

_______________________________‎

Sandi DiSipio‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎