Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Brian R. Dunphy, Vice Chairperson Maria-Teresa L. Cozzolino

Members: John Dziurman, Nicole Franey, Micheal Kilpatrick, Melissa Luginski, Paul Miller,

Dr. Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, August 20, 2009

MINUTES of a SPECIAL ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

MEETING held at the Rochester Hills Municipal Building, 1000 Rochester Hills Road,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Dunphy called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, Micheal Kilpatrick, Brian Dunphy, Jason

Thompson, Nicole Franey and Melissa Luginski

Present

6 -

John Dziurman, Paul Miller and Richard Stamps

Absent

3 -

Also Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning & Development

Department

Paul Davis, City Engineer, Engineering Department

Paul Shumejko, Transportation Engineer, Engineering Department

Jeff O'Brien, Road Commission for Oakland County

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that Dr. Stamps provided notice he was

unable to attend this meeting and was excused.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Dunphy announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

Chairperson Dunphy read the following Statement of Standards for the record.

All decisions made by the Historic Districts Commission follow the guidelines of the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, MLHDA Section 399.205, and local

Ordinance Section 118-164(a).

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any announcements or communications. No

announcements or communications were presented.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Non-Agenda Items)

6.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any public comments. He reminded the

audience members in attendance that if they wished to speak on any non-Agenda

items, they should complete a speaker's card and turn it in to the recording secretary.

There were no public comments.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that if any member of the audience wished to speak on an

Agenda item, they should also complete a speaker's card and provide it to the

recording secretary.

(Arrive Commissioner Miller: 7:08 PM)

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, Paul Miller, Micheal Kilpatrick, Brian Dunphy,

Jason Thompson, Nicole Franey and Melissa Luginski

Present

7 -

John Dziurman and Richard Stamps

Absent

2 -

NEW BUSINESS

7.

7A.

2009-0335

1046 E. Tienken Road (HDC File #94-001)

Applicant: Matthew Vincent

Sidwell: 15-01-352-023

District: Stoney Creek

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness

Chairperson Dunphy read the request for the record and invited the applicant to come

forward to the presenter's table to discuss his application. He asked for a brief

summary from Staff.

Mr. Delacourt stated this property had been on the Historic Districts Commission

(HDC) Agenda many times over the years for different reasons related to applications

and other actions taken by the Commission. Mr. Vincent recently purchased the

property and meet with City Staff in both the Planning and Building Departments to

see and understand what was possible to renovate and rehabilitate the structure both

inside and outside. Mr. Vincent was before the Commission seeking approval to

begin some of the initial work to the outside of the structure to secure it and put it

back into good condition, such as refurbishing windows and replacing shutters. The

Staff Report contains a complete list of the preliminary projects, all of which appear to

be well within the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

Mr. Delacourt stated the major piece of work the applicant would like to do, based

on some research of the history of the house, was to refurbish and open up the front

porch. There would still be columns and a half wall, and it would be screened in. The

renovated porch would be very unobtrusive, and appeared to be in conformance with

the Secretary of Interior's Standards.

Mr. Delacourt stated there were several projects proposed by the applicant and he

would let Mr. Vincent explain them. He extended his thanks to Mr. Vincent for

attending the meeting. He pointed out some supplementary information had been

provided to the Commissioners prior to the meeting, which was not included in the

packet. The supplementary information included paint colors and types of materials,

which the applicant had not identified previously. The supplementary information also

included a revised motion including those details in the draft conditions. Additional

elevations were also provided.

Mr. Delacourt referred to the site plan that was included in the supplemental

information, which depicts a revised driveway and deck that Staff had not reviewed.

Those two improvements were not included in the draft motion; however, he asked

that the Commissioners provide their comments regarding the materials, type and

location to assist Mr. Vincent. He noted if the Commission was comfortable with

those improvements, they could approve them or approve them with suggested

changes. He was available to answer any questions.

Matthew Vincent, 5595 Orion Road, Oakland Township, stated he was the proud

owner of 1046 E. Tienken Road. He thanked the Planning Department Staff for their

assistance in this matter. He introduced his architect, Ryan McCaffrey of The Blain

Group, 39209 Six Mile Road, Suite 111, Livonia, Michigan.

Mr. Vincent stated he planned to restore anything that could be restored, and if he had

to replace anything he would use new materials that were closest to the existing

materials on the home.

Mr. Vincent referred to the north elevation, specifically the front porch. He planned to

remove all the windows and replace them with wood-framed screens. He explained

the screen he would use was new on the market, and described it as invisible clear

screen. He hoped the screens would not be visible from the road. He stated the door

on the front porch would be a t-bar screen door with the same type of screen. He

referred to the historic photographs of the house obtained from the Rochester Hills

Museum and pointed out the t-bar screen door on the right which looked like the door

he planned to use.

Mr. Vincent stated that the entry doors to the house would be 6-panel solid wood

beveled glass doors. He provided a picture of the door for the Commissioners to

review. He explained one of those entry doors would face Tienken Road and one

would face the east. He was told that door was manufactured in the 1920s.

Mr. Vincent referred to the proposed brick pavers, which he understood had not

been reviewed by City Staff. He explained that currently there was just a wood front

porch on the north elevation, and he planned to install a brick paver porch with a

cobblestone border. He provided a picture of a porch similar to his proposal to the

Commissioners to review. He pointed out the brick pavers would lead to the

driveway.

Mr. Vincent stated that he would restore all the existing windows on the home that

could be restored and painted. If the windows had to be replaced, he will use exact

replica sash windows that are from that time period. He stated he had purchased a

21x36 antique window from a neighbor in the District, which he planned to use on the

south elevation of the home. He explained he did not intend to change any materials

or window styles on the home.

Mr. Vincent referred to the foundation on the home which is damaged and needs to

be repaired. He stated he planned to repair the foundation with the exact materials

used for the face of the foundation, which was cobblestone supported to a cement

form. He stated that the foundation was currently painted white, which he would

replicate where needed. He noted that some of the foundation around the side had

been cemented over, which he intended to clean up and would use replacement

cobblestones where needed.

Mr. Vincent stated he planned to repair and replace the roof where needed with the

same material. He provided an example of the shingle he was using, along with an

example of the existing roof shingle, both of which are asphalt shingles.

Mr. Vincent stated he planned to add 15-inch vinyl shutters painted to match the trim,

noting he only planned to put shutters on the bottom half of the front of the house,

which is how it appeared in the historic photographs. He pointed that because of the

way the roof was sloped, the shutters would interfere with the existing trim and

architecture of the house. Shutters would also be put on the side of the house.

Mr. Vincent displayed paint swatches and discussed where he intended to use the

various colors. He explained the siding on the main body of the house would be

painted with Castleton Mist, which was selected from the Benjamin Moore Historic

Paint category. He stated he had a print-out from the Benjamin Moore website,

which depicted what his proposed colors would look like used together. He stated

the trim on the house would be painted with Benjamin Moore Moonlight White. The

windows and the trim around the windows and screens would be painted with

Benjamin Moore Van Buren Brown. He explained the dark color would be used for

the windows; the lighter off-white color would be used for the trim, and the light

beige/yellowish color would be used on the siding.

Mr. Vincent stated he planned to add aluminum gutters painted in the Benjamin

Moore Moonlight White to match the trim and the shutters. He stated the front left of

the house would have gutters, as would the right or west side of the house.

Mr. Vincent referred to the west elevation of the house. He pointed out the back side

door, which he planned to replace with a solid wood door with beveled glass. He

explained that all four wood entry doors would be stained with Minwax Gunstock

231, which was a new dark stain which looked very natural. He displayed a picture

of the style of door he planned to use.

Mr. Vincent stated he planned to add an L-shaped deck to the back of the house,

using all natural wood stained in the same Minwax Gunstock 231, with a handrail.

The deck would be constructed right up to the foundation on the back of the house.

He noted that part of the foundation did not match the foundation on the rest of the

house.

Mr. Vincent referred to the south elevation, which is the back of the house. The

windows would be done in the same manner as the rest of the windows on the house,

with the same trim colors. He planned to add one bedroom window on the left-hand

side, using the 21x36 window he purchased from a neighbor. He referred to the

existing window on the back of the house, which was in the kitchen and off-centered,

and stated he planned to add the 6-pane sash window and move it by centering it a bit

more in the kitchen area. He explained it would not be centered on the back of the

house, but centered with the kitchen area.

Mr. Vincent stated that neither the east nor the west side of the house were set up for

gutters because the fascia came out very far out on the top and was curved with

grooves so the gutters could not be attached. He would have to add a treated 2x4

painted in the same trim color to build the fascia out so he could mount the gutters on

the side. He stated that because the house had not had gutters, the foundation on the

east side of the house, besides being 140 years old, had a lot of water damage

problems from the run-off water. He hoped the gutters would help preserve the

house.

Mr. Vincent referred to the east elevation and explained he planned to remove the

existing window next to the side door, and add a door that had windows. He stated

both windows currently in the kitchen went down to about 26-inches off the ground,

which meant there was not adequate space for counters or cabinets. By taking that

window out, he could install a full counter and add a dishwasher. He planned to leave

one of the kitchen windows, but would remove the one next to the door.

Mr. Vincent stated he would build a brick paver porch and steps with cobblestone

borders on the side of the house similar to what he proposed for the front of the

house.

Mr. Vincent referred to the site plan, and stated he hoped to install a wrap-around

driveway to prevent anyone from trying to have to back out onto Tienken Road. He

found there was more room on the west side of the house than where the existing

driveway is located on the east side of the house. He commented it would not be a

problem if it was out of the question, as he could create an area to turn vehicles

around next to the two parking spaces indicated on the plan. He stated he would

eventually like to access the alley, but the slope prevented putting a driveway back

there. His choice would be to install a wrap-around driveway, and his second choice

would be to leave the driveway where it was and add the two parking places and a

little turn-out area.

Mr. Vincent stated the site plan also depicted the L-shaped brick paver porch front

steps leading to the driveway, and the brick paver path leading from the deck to the

driveway and parking area. He explained that he could not even pull in the driveway

when he purchased the house, and noted that currently he could not pull two cars

through there and get back out. He asked for suggestions from the Commissioners

about how to accomplish making that more practical for him while keeping in

conformance with the HDC guidelines.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he would take public comment at this time.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race Road, stated she was aware based on her former

positions as a Councilperson and Historic District Commissioners that this property

had been under a lot of different conditions for a long time. She had a real interest in

seeing the house brought back to what it should be, and complimented the applicant

on his proposals. She liked the proposed change to the front porch and liked the use

of the clear screens, but noted that both the entry-way doors to the home and the

columns had much more of an Arts and Crafts appearance. She suggested the

applicant research what was typical of a farm property of that era. She referred to the

front and east steps and the use of brick pavers, and suggested a cobblestone

appearance was more in keeping with the foundation of the house and the time period.

Although the choice of colors looked very nice, she asked if any research had been

done regarding the original color combination of the home. She thought it might be

interesting to look at the information available at the Museum, although there was

nothing wrong with the applicant's color combination. She questioned whether the

deck wrapped around to the west side of the house (the applicant indicated it did not

and clarified it was just on the south side of the home). Ms. Hill suggested the

driveway be stopped and include the back-up niche to allow access back out. She

pointed out there was a nice yard and was much more of the appearance of the

Village itself, versus having a lot of driveways. She stated she was really happy to see

what the applicant had brought forward, and wished him good luck with his project.

Chairperson Dunphy also complimented Mr. Vincent on his willingness to take on the

project. He explained the Commission had been through many proposals for the

property with numerous owners. He stated that the Commission wished Mr. Vincent

all the best in being able to put together a successful project. He called for discussion

by the Commission.

Ms. Cozzolino stated that as the applicant went through his presentation, he invariably

answered her questions. She noted the applicant had clearly put a lot of work, time

and thought into the project, which was very much appreciated. She noted the

proposal for the driveway was to use recycled crushed asphalt, and asked what was

there currently.

Mr. Vincent stated there was an asphalt apron that was half grown over and could

hardly be seen. He explained there were some buried cobblestones, and it was just a

two-track to the end of the house.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if there was crushed asphalt at one time or in parts of the drive.

Mr. Vincent responded no. He explained he thought that material made sense

because it would hold up over the long term. It also made a good base for any other

type of surface that could be put over it. He noticed his neighbor had a full asphalt

driveway, and explained that asphalt could be put over the crushed asphalt in the

future. He stated it also packed nicely and he thought it would be better than a gravel

driveway or crushed limestone material. He chose it for its practical use, and because

he noticed some of the neighbors had asphalt and this material would look like asphalt

but was not as bound together as asphalt.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if that meant it was also not as stark as asphalt might be, noting

she thought of asphalt as just being black. Mr. Vincent stated it was a mix and

displayed a picture of the material. He noted it almost looked like a gravel driveway,

but was more solid. He stated it was also called tar and chip, which was blacktop

with stones in it. He stated he liked to use recycled materials.

Mr. Miller asked about the proposed siding replacement. He stated he had not seen

the back of the house in a while, but had heard there were some problems with the

siding in that area. He noted the applicant proposed to use a smart lap siding and

asked about the composition of the siding or if it was like hardi-plank. Mr. Vincent

believed it was similar. He discovered it by using the information from a prior

Certificate of Appropriateness issued for the house. He had gone to the same

lumberyard, but they no longer carried it in the same width. He stated it was a

composite that did not warp or hold mold and mildew like natural wood did. He

noted it did have the wood grain finish. He stated all the siding on the back of the

house was replaced, but no structural sheathing was put underneath so it had to be

removed. He stated some siding had been replaced by a previous owner and it

blended nicely.

Mr. Miller stated he was going to ask if the applicant had checked to make sure it

would blend and be unobtrusive and unnoticeable. Mr. Vincent stated he had some

samples the Commission could look at. Mr. Delacourt stated it was the same type of

siding approved by the Commission for a prior owner. Mr. Vincent stated the 7/16th

size was no longer manufactured. Mr. Miller commented one of the down sides of the

lumber business was that materials kept being downsized.

Mr. Miller stated he was inside the house in the late 1980s or early 1990s as a home

inspector for a former owner, and had noticed some of the framing studs were not

correct, and asked if that was still true. Mr. Vincent stated much of the new supports

did not make sense, and it was something he was working on with his architect.

Besides making the house safe and sound, he had to meet the building code

requirements. He planned to open up the walls to see what was there, and would

move or add walls as needed. He would address the structural issues, as well as

some water damage in one area of the kitchen.

Mr. Miller commented it sounded like the applicant had quite an adventure in front of

him and wished him well.

Chairperson Dunphy asked it the applicant was requesting approval of the driveway

plan at this time, noting it was not included in the draft motion.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had not provided a motion for the driveway, and noted it was

lucky that both the City Engineer and the Road Commission were present for another

matter. He had been informed that a second curb cut might be difficult for the Road

Commission to approve along Tienken, plus Staff had not reviewed that plan. He

noted Staff did not have any issues with the proposed material; the extension of the

driveway on the east side of the property; the additional parking area, or any

additional T-turn around or anything Mr. Vincent wanted to do in the rear. He

suggested the Commission could craft a set of guidelines based on those parameters

for a motion to approve the driveway. He pointed out it was the same with the

proposed deck, as Staff did not have a problem with that. The only reason it was not

included was because Staff had not had an opportunity to review it prior to submittal

to the Commission for the meeting. If the Commission chose to move on those items,

a revised site plan could be required with an administrative approval based on those

parameters. He reiterated a second curb might be a problem for Tienken Road.

Chairperson Dunphy stated in terms of keeping the property consistent with the

historical design, he would personally have trouble approving the full wrap-around

driveway. He understood the need and certainly did not want anyone to have to back

out onto Tienken Road, but if the applicant could work with a turn-around in the

back, he thought that was a much better approach. He noted there could be some

concerns on the part of the Road Commission, which might be the deal breaker. Mr.

Vincent acknowledged that.

Ms. Luginski also wanted to thank the applicant for taking on the project as the house

needed him. She mentioned that the Greek Revival style was one of her personal

favorites in terms of housing styles. She was glad the applicant's focus was to maintain

the architecture of the house, which she thought was critical. She stated the City did

not have a lot of examples of Greek Revival in the Stoney Creek Village, so the

applicant's house and the house next door were key examples located on the main

road getting a lot of exposure.

Ms. Luginski referred to the historical photograph of the house, and discussed the

difference in the porch as it was shown in the photograph and how it currently existed.

She stated she had seen porches like that on Greek Revival houses, although the

applicant's drawing did not exactly reflect how that porch looked originally. Her goal

was to restore houses back to their original look. If that was not possible, she thought

the applicant's drawing was something she had seen on other houses. She asked if the

door the applicant chose had been reclaimed. Mr. Vincent indicated it had. Ms.

Luginski stated it was nice example, but noted she was not used to seeing that style in

a Greek Revival house. She commented since it was a front door, it would get a lot of

exposure. She encouraged the applicant to research that again because it was a front

door and it was important to the style of the house.

Ms. Luginski stated the applicant had mentioned he was replacing a window on the

south side, and was eliminating a window on the east side. She asked if the applicant

had thought about moving the window. Mr. Vincent stated he had thought about it

depending on where the counters would lay out, noting he had not totally set up the

kitchen layout on the inside. He stated he had also thought about putting in a smaller

window to allow light to come in. His second thought was to put in a window door.

He thought about a shorter window so a counter could be installed in front of it.

Ms. Luginski asked if the applicant was taking out that window and putting in

elsewhere in the house. Mr. Vincent explained the window that was being added

would be a bedroom window on the south elevation, and would not add anything to

the kitchen area.

Ms. Luginski asked if that was the reclaimed window he had gotten from a neighbor.

Mr. Vincent indicated it was. Ms. Luginski asked how old that window was or if it

was historical. Mr. Vincent stated his neighbor told him it was an original window

from the neighbor's house. Ms. Luginski pointed out that house was a reproduction

built in 1980. Mr. Vincent stated it was not a 1980 window. Ms. Luginski asked if it

was possible to use the window he was eliminating because it was original to the

house. Mr. Vincent stated the window he was taking out was part of the addition and

did not match the original windows. Ms. Luginski stated she appreciated the applicant

repairing rather than replacing the windows, and noted it would help retain the value of

the house itself.

Ms. Luginski referred to the pavers the applicant indicated he wanted to use, and

noted there were a lot of stone walls and brick in the Village. She pointed out his

neighbor was doing a paver project and had obtained reclaimed brick from Detroit.

She encouraged the applicant to use more natural materials. She thought the pavers

the applicant proposed really looked modern, and if there was a way to go back to an

aggregate material, which was a lower cost alternative that looked like a gravel road;

or antique brick or cobblestone, she would appreciate seeing real materials because of

the age of the home.

Ms. Luginski suggested the applicant invest in wood shutters because that would have

been original to the house. She noted materials were really important in restoration.

Ms. Luginski stated one mistake often made when putting shutters on a house, was

that they were not sized accurately. She suggested the shutters be sized to make sure

they actually close fully across the window, so the size looks proportionate to what

would have been there 150 years ago. Oftentimes people install very narrow shutters

and the look does not make sense.

Ms. Luginski referred to the color choices and asked how they were chosen. Mr.

Vincent stated he selected those colors based on his painting experience and because

he knew that yellow, white trim and dark windows worked in general and in the

historical atmosphere. He stated he would not be painting for some time, and wanted

to give the Commission an idea of what he wanted to do, if the colors were

acceptable.

Ms. Luginski asked where the dark brown paint would be used. Mr. Vincent

explained just the window mullions, and the framing around them would be the

Moonlight White. He stated the framing for the screens on the front porch would also

be dark brown.

Ms. Luginski stated that Greek Revival was a specific period and architecture, and

she had not ever seen the colors presented by the applicant, although she personally

liked them. She stated there were many books depicting Greek Revival homes, and

encouraged the applicant to research that because of the age of the home and because

it was located in a Historic District. She thought the house deserved that respect. She

stated she had seen Greek Revival homes painted yellow with white trim quite often

on the East Coast, although not so much in Michigan. There was documentation that

would support that, and part of the fun of restoration was looking back at what was

done 150 years ago.

Ms. Luginski stated she would be supportive of a single driveway with a pad in the

back. She hoped in the future the alley would be straightened out so the applicant had

access because it would be easier to get in and out.

Ms. Franey stated she owned a Greek Revival home, but it was already renovated

when she bought it. She stated there was a yellow Greek Revival home on Dutton

and Adams with an off-white trim. She thought it might help taking a picture of that

home to compare it to the applicant's color choices. She stated one thing she disliked

about her house was that someone put plastic shutters on it. She was currently

searching for the right shutters, and commented they could be found fairly

inexpensively, even in comparison to plastic; however, it was a matter of finding the

right size. She thought there were some examples in the area that might help the

applicant.

Ms. Franey stated her front door was a double panel wood door, not a 6-panel,

which was replaced, but did have the beveled wood. The door the applicant selected

was a Frank Lloyd Wright 1920s style, but it was a beautiful door. She thought the

applicant might want to look at the other Greek Revival examples in the area because

he would see they all have similar styles for the entryway door. She acknowledged

that might not be the applicant's taste, but it might be something he could incorporate.

Mr. Thompson stated the applicant's house had been a problem for many years and

noted he was glad the applicant had taken it on as it needed a tremendous amount of

work. He indicated he did not have any problems with the Commission establishing

parameters for the administrative approval of either the deck or the driveway with the

pad in the back. He suggested the applicant look into wood shutters. He stated he

was glad to meet the applicant and looked forward to seeing the project done.

Ms. Franey stated the home a couple doors down from the applicant did have a

horseshoe driveway. She noted it was not a wrap around going around the back, but

was a horseshoe drive, and asked if that was original or fell within the time frame as

she did not believe it was done recently. Ms. Luginski stated that house was not

contributing, but was a 1980s Colonial reproduction.

Mr. Miller stated that the houses in the Village did not have wrap around driveways,

but if the driveway was removed, it would go back to its original state. He continued

that although a driveway seemed permanent, if the gravel were removed and grass

laid, it could be restored to its original condition. He pointed out if this were a request

for an adaption for a commercial use, there would be required parking lots, driveways

and sidewalks that would be added. He understood there could be a problem with

the additional curb cut, but the location on Tienken Road required the applicant be

able to get safe access to the Road.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified it was his understanding that half of the wrap-around

proposed for the west side of the property did not currently exist. Mr. Vincent

explained the current driveway was on the east side of the house and was basically

just grass to the back of the house and a couple tracks. When he purchased the

house, the shrubs were all overgrown and he could not get to the back of the

property. He referred to the site plan and pointed out the proposed additional

driveway expansion, noting that area was currently grass.

Chairperson Dunphy recapped there were a couple issues discussed by the

Commission. He suggested the Commission review the proposed draft motion, and

noted Condition #5 referred to the interior door which seemed to be a concern to the

Commission. He asked the applicant if he was willing to reconsider that item, noting

he shared the concern that the proposed beveled door was not in keeping with a

Greek Revival Farmhouse and suggested the applicant look at what else might be

available. He noted the Commission had some concerns with Condition #12,

specifically the paint color choice for the exterior siding. The concern was that the

color chosen by the applicant was truly in keeping with the historical character of the

structure and the area. He asked if there were any other comments from the

Commissioners or he would entertain a motion.

Mr. Miller stated he was willing to make the motion and clarified that some changes

should be made to the proposed draft motion in the packet.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that concerns of the Commission focused on those two

points, plus the driveway, noting the proposed driveway was not included in the draft

motion. He pointed out that draft Condition #5 referenced the 6-panel beveled glass

door, and Condition #12 referenced the paint color. He suggested those conditions

be amended with language that proposed some alternatives and whether those items

could be approved administratively rather than asking the applicant to re-appear

before the Commission. He asked Staff to provide some input on the most

manageable way to handle those items.

Mr. Miller asked if Condition #9 should also be amended because it referred to vinyl

shutters. He explained vinyl was a useful material but was not truly a historic material.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if Mr. Miller was prepared to make a motion. Mr. Miller

moved the motion in the packet, but asked if the conditions in question should be

removed or handled administratively.

Mr. Delacourt suggested the motion in the packet could be moved with the elimination

of Conditions #5 and #9, if the vinyl shutters were not acceptable. He noted

Condition #9 could be left in place if the dimension and type of shutters were

acceptable and replace the word "vinyl" with the word "wood". That would allow the

applicant to move forward with the shutters if he were able to find some that were of

the same size and type. He referred to Condition #12 and noted that was up to the

Commission. If the Commission was not happy with the paint color choices, they

could eliminate that condition, or state the colors they felt would be acceptable to be

approved by Staff at a later date. He commented paint colors had always been a

touchy issue with the Commission. He stated if the paint colors did not meet the

Secretary of Interior's Standards, he thought the applicant was willing to come back at

a later date with revised colors. In that instance, Condition #12 would be eliminated.

Mr. Miller asked if Condition #5 could simply be amended to eliminate the 6-panel

beveled glass door and reword the condition to read "a new interior solid wood

door". Mr. Delacourt stated whatever the Commission was comfortable with was

acceptable to Staff.

Mr. Thompson suggested that Condition #12 be eliminated, noting he would prefer to

see the paint colors before they were approved. Mr. Miller suggested that just the

reference to the paint colors be removed, leaving the removal and replacement of the

lap siding potion.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified that Mr. Miller had proposed a motion and called for a

second. Mr. Thompson seconded the proposed motion. Chairperson Dunphy called

for discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Ms. Luginski stated it would be great if the applicant reviewed books and local

buildings. She wanted to qualify that when she saw the Castleton Mist color sample it

looked a little green to her. She suggested using a stronger yellow, such as the local

example pointed out by Ms. Franey at Dutton and Adams. She thought it would be

great if the applicant re-looked at the interior door and the colors and came back to

the Commission next month.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if Condition #9 was changed to wood shutters. Mr. Delacourt

indicated that was correct.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if Condition #4 should be revised, as it referred to the screen

door to Condition #5. Mr. Delacourt noted those were two separate doors, one

being the interior and one being the door onto the porch itself. Chairperson Dunphy

stated that the T-Bar door shown in the historic photograph provided documentary

evidence it was in keeping with the historical background of the home.

Mr. Delacourt suggested that if the Commission did not have any issues with the

proposed rear deck, they could add a condition that the deck was approved to be

built consistent with the materials identified on the plan.

2009-0335

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the motion maker and seconder would approve that

additional condition. Mr. Miller and Mr. Thompson both agreed to the addition of a

new Condition regarding the deck.

Mr. Thompson inquired about whether the proposed driveway should also be

included in the motion. Mr. Delacourt suggested a separate motion be prepared for

the driveway if the Commission wanted to handle that item at this meeting. Mr.

Thompson asked if the driveway could be addressed at another meeting with updated

parameters provided to the Commission. Mr. Kilpatrick stated that would be his

preference as it appeared an additional curb cut might not be acceptable to the Road

Commission for Oakland County. He pointed out that even if the additional curb cut

was acceptable to the Road Commission, some of the Commissioners might feel that a

wrap-around driveway was more appropriate, and that would give the Commission

another opportunity to discuss the matter.

Chairperson Dunphy agreed the Commission did not appear to have sufficient detail to

make an informed decision on the driveway. He suggested it would be better to hold

off on that decision at this time. He called for any other discussion on the motion.

Upon hearing none, he called for a roll call vote.

A motion was made by Miller, seconded by Thompson, that this matter be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Miller, Kilpatrick, Dunphy, Thompson, Franey and Luginski

7 -

Absent

Dziurman and Stamps

2 -

RESOLVED in the matter of File No. HDC 94-001, regarding the request

for a Certificate of Appropriateness for renovation to the existing house

located at 1046 E. Tienken Road, the Historic Districts Commission

APPROVES a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following Findings

and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The plans for the renovation of the existing house are compatible with

the existing resource.

2. The subject site is a contributing resource within the Stoney Creek

Historic District located in the City of Rochester Hills.

3. The architectural features, design, arrangement, texture and materials

proposed are consistent with those of the Stoney Creek Historic

District, and do not have a negative impact on the resource.

4. The proposed renovation is consistent with the following requirements of

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation:

A. Number 1, which states: "A property shall be used for its historic

purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to

the defining characteristics of the building and its site and

environment". The Applicant is maintaining the historic purpose of

the resource.

B. Number 2, which states: "The historic character of a property

shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or

alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall

be avoided". The Applicant is retaining the historic character of the

property and is restoring the front porch back to its original look.

C. Number 3, which states: "Each property shall be recognized as a

physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a

false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural

features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall no be

undertaken". The Application is not adding any features or

architectural elements that would create a false sense of historical

development.

D. Number 5, which states: "Distinctive features, finishes, and

construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that

characterize a historic property shall be preserved". The Applicant

has not proposed any renovation or repair work that detracts or

changes the craftsmanship of this resource.

E. Number 6, which states: "Deteriorated historic features shall be

repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration

requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall

match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,

where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be

substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence". The

Applicant is repairing as much as possible, and where that cannot

be accomplished, is replacing with like materials.

Conditions:

1. All improvements shall be consistent with plans and materials presented

to the City dated August 20, 2009.

2. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit for and receive all

required Building Permits from the City's Building Department.

3. The existing windows on the front porch will be removed and replaced

with wood framed screens with Clear Advantage fiberglass charcoal

screen manufactured by New York Wire. Paint color choices for the

windows will be submitted for review at a future Commission

meeting.

4. The inappropriate metal door on the front porch will be removed and

replaced with a T-Bar wood screen door manufactured by Columbia

and stained with Minwax Gunstock 231.

5. The fascia on the front and rear of the home will be built out using pine

wood as indicated on the plans dated received August 20, 2009,

and aluminum gutters will be installed. Paint color choices for the

fascia and gutters will be submitted for review at a future

Commission meeting.

6. The damaged stone foundation on the front and rear of the house will be

repaired with CMU's and cobblestone exterior to match existing as

indicated on the plans dated received August 20, 2009.

7. The existing asphalt shingles will be replaced with matching GAF Elk

Royal Sovereign Autumn Brown 3-tab asphalt shingles as necessary.

8. Wood louvered shutters will be installed on the north and west elevations

of the house as indicated on the plans dated received August 20,

2009. Paint color choices for the shutters will be submitted for

review at a future Commission meeting.

9. The existing windows on rear porch will be removed and replaced and

centered with 21" x 36" Antique Sash Windows. Paint color choices

for the shutters will be submitted for review at a future Commission

meeting.

10. Replace existing rear metal and side door with solid wood doors with

beveled glass and stained with Minwax Gunstock 231.

11. Damaged and deteriorated wood lap siding will be removed and

replaced with 3/8" x 16' LP Smart Lap Siding as noted on the plans

dated received August 20, 2009. Paint color choices for the siding

will be submitted for review at a future Commission meeting.

12. Repair all existing windows as needed using wavy glass. Paint color

choices for the windows will be submitted for review at a future

Commission meeting.

13. Install 21" x 36" antique sash window in back bedroom as noted on the

plans dated received August 20, 2009. Paint color choices for the

window will be submitted for review at a future Commission meeting.

14. Install a deck on the south elevation constructed of 2'x6' stained, treated

lumber and 2'x2' spindles, stained with Minwax Gunstock 231, as

noted on the plans dated received August 20, 2009.

2009-0335

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that the motion had carried. He advised

the applicant it was hard to express just how much the Commission wanted the

applicant to succeed. He stated they appreciated Mr. Vincent's willingness to work

with the Commission, and they wanted nothing better than to see him make the house

the jewel it could be in the Historic District.

Mr. Vincent thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity and their consideration.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commission would take a brief recess.

(Recess 8:11 PM to 8:31 PM)

Chairperson Dunphy called the meeting back to order at 8:31 PM.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2008-0678

Stoney Creek Village (Tienken Road Bridge)

- Discussion with Road Commission

Chairperson Dunphy stated that representatives from the Road Commission for

Oakland County and the City's Engineering Department were present to provide some

additional information to the Commission and discuss the renderings submitted in their

packets. He invited them to come forward to the presenter's table.

Chairperson Dunphy thanked Mr. O'Brien for returning and providing the Commission

with more material to review. He stated the Commission appreciated Mr. O'Brien's

willingness to accommodate this process and the thoroughness of the documentation

provided. He asked Mr. O'Brien to provide a summary and overview of how the

project was fitting together.

Jeff O'Brien, Design Engineer, Road Commission for Oakland County, referred to his

August 12, 2009 cover letter and the questions asked at the July meeting regarding

funding. More specifically whether or not if a separated pedestrian facility was

constructed adjacent to or beyond the traffic bridge, could local bridge funds be used

for such facility? Essentially, the answer he received was that a separated pedestrian

facility would not be funded if completely separated as local bridge funds could not be

used for that purpose. It would have to be funded entirely by the local Community.

Mr. O'Brien indicated the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) did state

that if the pedestrian facility was immediately adjacent to the traffic bridge itself,

MDOT had in the past on one occasion extended a sub-structure unit to facilitate the

construction of a superstructure at a later date. The superstructure is actually the

bridge itself. The proposed bridge facility they are building is essentially a three-sided

culvert, and it would be a matter of extending the sub-structure units, which would

ultimately result in the look being proposed with a pedestrian facility immediately

adjacent.

Mr. O'Brien stated the question was asked whether MDOT would approve the

funding of a bridge without a pedestrian facility. The answer to that is "as there is no

existing pedestrian facility on the current bridge, they would fund a bridge without a

pedestrian facility".

Mr. O'Brien noted the question was also asked if there were any surplus local bridge

funds that were allocated to the project, that were not used for the traffic bridge, could

they be used for a separated pedestrian facility. The answer he received was a

"unanimous no". The funds would go back to the local bridge fund and would be

allocated to a traffic bridge somewhere else.

Mr. O'Brien stated one other question asked was whether MDOT would fund a

traffic bridge that did not meet current legal loadings. The answer was a resounding

no, it must meet current AASHTO (American Association of State and Highway

Transportation Officials) live load design criteria.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission had done some additional work; essentially

completed their TS&L (Type, size and location plans) discussions with MDOT, and

asked a series of questions that were asked by the Historic Districts Commission with

regards to offsets to bridge barriers, width of pedestrian facilities, etc. He stated he

would provide the information first and then go through the plan set.

Mr. O'Brien stated MDOT would approve a 2-foot offset to the barriers, instead of

the previous proposed 4-foot offset. That is what is now being proposed as part of

the Road Commission's proposal. The Road Commission has chosen the traffic

barrier, which is an open two-tube steel barrier. The barrier is a crash-worthy barrier,

and still has two 8-foot reinforced concrete ends on the barrier, where the traffic

barrier ties to the guardrail, where the guardrail extends off the bridge. That is

necessary from a crash-worthiness perspective. He displayed the plans as he

discussed these items.

Mr. O'Brien stated the end wall elevation dictated an 8-foot long reinforced concrete

area where the two tubes bolt to the concrete, noting the location of the guardrail on

the plans on display. He indicated the guardrails would continue out to the grassy

areas with a crash appropriate ending.

Mr. O'Brien displayed a drawing depicting the existing bridge deck, noting the

jersey-style reinforced concrete traffic barriers, and stated the current proposal on the

bridge deck itself was the two-tube traffic barrier. He stated the pedestrian facility

was separated by a traffic barrier, noting the pedestrian facility was roughly 7-1/2 feet

in width. There was a strong likelihood that there may be bikes using the pedestrian

facility, making the barrier separation a very good safety feature to ensure there is no

conflict between pedestrians or bikers and the motoring public.

Mr. O'Brien stated another change was the width of the pedestrian facility. The

previous proposal was 10-foot wide; however, upon further discussion with MDOT,

AASHTO guides from a sidewalk definition require a maximum of 8-feet in width or

less, or if a multi-use path, it is 14-feet in width on the structure (10-foot multi-foot

path, two 5-foot lanes with 2-foot offsets to fixed objects). Those are the

requirements given the Road Commission. In discussions with the local Community,

and based upon the size, scale and scope of the bridge itself, it was decided to go with

the 7-1/2-foot pedestrian facility.

Mr. O'Brien stated one other change to the proposal was that the Road Commission

had been in contact with MDOT and MDOT salvaged some R-4 barriers (bridge

railings) from a previous project which are located at MDOT's Mason garage. He

viewed the site and reviewed what MDOT had available, and the railings were in

surprisingly good shape. MDOT did have steel posts available for the connections to

reinstall the railings, although some refurbishment is necessary. He stated they may

need to manufacture some posts, and the railings are good candidates for

refurbishment. He stated MDOT verbally and graciously agreed to do a material

transfer to the Road Commission, and the Road Commission would incur

refurbishment and reinstallation costs as part of the contract. The proposal is to

include that on the south fascia.

Mr. O'Brien stated the plan had been submitted to the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) for comment. SHPO agreed to take a look at the plans and

potentially offer some comments, although no meeting had been scheduled between

the Road Commission and SHPO. He hoped to provide either written documentation

or feedback from a meeting with SHPO the next time the Road Commission came

before the Historic Districts Commission.

Mr. O'Brien stated one other issue brought up at the last meeting was about the traffic

counters on Tienken Road. He indicated they were Road Commission traffic counters

performing their annual counting. He commented since the Road Commission had

been out several times counting traffic, he was not sure any other counts would be

performed, as they should have the data they need.

Mr. O'Brien displayed an aerial view depicting the existing structure and existing road

on the top, as well as the proposed plan on the bottom. He explained the yellow

depicted the paving or repaving of the existing road cross-section, and extension of

the path system. The dark brown area was the size of the bridge deck, which extends

approximately 6-feet beyond the existing wing wall to the south. On the north side,

they pretty much line up. The Road Commission proposed a retaining wall along the

southeast quadrant of the project to minimize impacts for the construction of the

pathway. He noted there was some grade differential, which is why they were

proposing the wall in order to minimize any grading or vegetation loss. They proposed

to extend the existing mill race culvert approximately 20-feet to extend beyond the

retaining wall, which is necessary. No decisions have been made regarding the type

or color of retaining wall, but the Road Commission was leaning toward a

keystone-type, modular block retaining wall. The current plans depict a vegetated

wall for the entire height, but that is being re-evaluated. The Road Commission may

use a more vertical-type wall with a couple rows of the planting-type in the middle to

facilitate vegetation growth. The Road Commission anticipated that even if no

plantings were installed, the vines would cover the bulk of the wall over time,

essentially making the wall disappear. The full-height planting wall would extend the

slope stake line or earth disruption because it is much wider than a vertical wall, and

the Road Commission was trying to minimize the impact or footprint of the

construction project. In order to do that, a vertical-type wall is necessary.

Mr. O'Brien explained another benefit would be to pull the toe of the wall farther from

the existing 36-inch water main in the vicinity. He noted the City was very concerned

about how close the bridge project would get to the water main because it is a large

facility and if it ever requires repair or maintenance, the City would prefer the bridge

project be as far as possible away from it.

Mr. O'Brien stated they had elected to shorten up the location of where the pathway

ended. The Road Commission felt they would end the path in a more appropriate

location, giving the City more options as to where to extend the path in the future. He

discussed the various extension options toward Van Hoosen Road, or through the

Van Hoosen Farm, or along Tienken. That was a potential future project to be

discussed between the City and Historic Districts Commission.

Mr. O'Brien stated it did not appear that the proposed retaining wall would impact

any large trees, although some brush and undergrowth would be impacted. They

expected that to grow back and reestablish itself within a few years of project

completion. The Road Commission took great care in locating the significant trees in

order to avoid them and avoid impacts to those features.

Mr. O'Brien referred to plans circa 1951 of the MDOT bridge railings, which were a

similar style to those observed at MDOT's Mason Yard. He noted the details for the

posts were a little different than what he observed in Mason, but were a steel type

post with a flange at the bottom bolted to a concrete block end wall or head wall.

Mr. O'Brien stated he had provided some detail regarding the keystone block planter

walls, but noted no decision had been made as to color or number of rows, as the

Road Commission wanted to minimize impact. They would probably select a more

vertical wall to pull the slope stake lines in as far as possible.

Chairperson Dunphy thanked Mr. O'Brien and the Road Commission for

accommodating the Commissioners questions and concerns. He lauded the Road

Commission for their efforts in trying to accommodate the process and meet the

standards the Commission is concerned with. He noted he had one request for public

comment, which he would take at this time.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated she had reviewed the plans and appreciated

the reduction in the actual bridge structure, which was approximately 10-feet greater

than the existing bridge. She asked how far east the repaving of the road would go.

Mr. O'Brien responded it was proposed to be repaved to Van Hoosen Road. Ms.

Hill asked if the width of the road would increase. Mr. O'Brien responded no. Ms.

Hill clarified it would be exactly the same width as the road currently existed. Mr.

O'Brien stated that was correct. Ms. Hill asked if that was in both directions. Mr.

O'Brien stated it would be a little different west of the structure because of

adjustments required to add curb and gutter, and some shoulder areas would be

eliminated to address some drainage concerns.

Ms. Hill clarified that no large trees would be eliminated. Mr. O'Brien stated some

brush would come out, and explained their surveys typically picked up any trees six

inches in diameter or greater, and none were indicated on the plan for removal.

Ms. Hill asked if the tubular guard rail on the inside went into a concrete block

segment at either end. She hoped photographs of this type of rail could be provided

because it would be helpful to see how existing railing like this looked. Mr. O'Brien

stated the Road Commission could try to provide photographs. He explained there

would be an 8-foot reinforced concrete connection between where the guard rail

extended away from the structure. Ms. Hill asked if that would look like the Paint

Creek Bridge. Mr. O'Brien stated it was an 8-foot long concrete piece that was the

connection detail between the guard rail and the actual bridge rail. He noted it was

more vertical and was not jersey shaped.

Ms. Hill asked how tall the guard rail segment was. Mr. O'Brien stated it was roughly

two-feet, and 8-1/2 was the top of the top rail.

Ms. Hill was concerned about the retaining wall and was glad to hear the Road

Commission was exploring the more vertical option. She asked if keystone would be

used or a poured concrete. Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission was looking at

a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall. He explained it was a keystone-type

wall with geo-fabric or geo-grids that go back into the slope to hold the wall up. Ms.

Hill asked if the slope would be reduced. Mr. O'Brien explained there was more of a

slope with the living retaining wall because for every course of block there was

approximately 5-inches for growth. A vertical wall would have much less than that,

which would pull the toe of the wall closer to the road.

Ms. Hill was concerned because there was a similar wall on Livernois, and she was

not certain the look was compatible. She commented it would take a long time to

hide that wall with plantings or re-growth. She hoped there could be something that

looked more like a cobblestone that would be more appropriate for the area, or some

type of vertical structure.

Ms. Hill noted the City was limited to where the pedestrian path could go, and asked

what the City was proposing, especially to the east of the bridge. She thought the

Commissioners needed to know exactly what the intention and where it would go so

they got a clear picture of what it would look like.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City was absolutely looking at every option for the

pedestrian path, and noted they wanted to avoid just extending it due east along the

edge of the road because of the impact it would have on the landscaping and the stone

wall at Van Hoosen Road. The City would like to swing it south, noting the City's

Engineering Department was trying to accommodate it and avoid the impacts of

extending it due east along the edge of the road to save those trees. The option might

be through the red house parking lot, and all concerns were being considered.

Paul Davis, City Engineer, stated he had been asked to provide information regarding

the construction costs for a separate pedestrian bridge at a prior meeting, and the

direction of the path related to what the ultimate alignment would be.

Mr. Davis stated he looked at how a separated pedestrian bridge could be

constructed; and where it made the most sense to try to construct it given the existing

constraints in the area. He came up with two locations and provided a cost estimate

to the Commissioners for both locations. He displayed a drawing depicting the Two

Hundred Thirty Thousand ($230,000.00) Dollar proposal. They looked at how the

bridge would be without the pedestrian component, considering the wing walls that

were also be a part of bridge; considering the 36-inch water main running east/west

parallel to Tienken Road offset from the bridge, and also considering the retaining wall

included in the Road Commission’s proposal because that was an important piece of

the design for the bridge because it allowed a quicker elevation difference to be

achieved to avoid grading out into the floodplain a significant amount.

Mr. Davis pointed out where the wing wall ended very close to where a separated

pedestrian bridge would be located, and considering the water main, he was still in the

retaining wall causing a conflict. That would give about an 11-foot separation

between the pedestrian bridge and Tienken Road. Basically, that was still

unacceptable, although it was probably the best location given the existing constraints.

The toe of the proposed retaining wall was projected to be about 1-foot off of the

existing 36-inch water main, which was a very undesirable situation. If repair work

was required on the water main, a significant portion of the retaining wall would have

to be removed. Being a large main on a mile road, it was probably deeper than the

typical 6-foot minimum barrier. Normally a water main easement is 20-feet, and the

City did not want to have anything in the easement, whether it was trees, and certainly

not a retaining wall. In this case, there was no way to achieve that. He noted that

between the center of the water main and the pedestrian bridge was 6-1/2 feet.

Although it was probably the best location given the existing constraints, it was not

desirable from an engineering perspective.

Mr. Davis stated the other location he looked at was south of the water main. There

was an opportunity to use a bridge to go across the floodway, south of the water

main, but that presented other problems. Instead of the pathway east of the steel

pedestrian bridge being mostly out of the floodplain limits, it would be in the floodplain

limits and required construction of a wooden pedestrian bridge. He estimated it would

be 110-feet and noted those bridges were not only initially expensive to construct, but

were also a maintenance problem, and there was also a replacement cost. He had

checked with two different engineering consulting companies that had proposed

bridges like this; one company estimated Three Hundred Thirty ($330.00) Dollars a

foot, and the other estimated Three Hundred Fifty ($350.00) Dollars a foot. Just that

small 100-foot section would cost over Thirty Thousand Dollars. Being made of

wood, it would deteriorate and be a maintenance problem.

Mr. Davis stated the other difficulty in going south of the water main was that they

would have to obtain an easement from the Mill Stream Village development because

that put the bridge in their property. He pointed out the right-of-way line and

explained although they could try to squeeze the bridge in, it was really too close to

the water main. He also pointed out the location of the storm sewer that ran from the

detention basin that discharged to the Stoney Creek. He explained that would cause

the pedestrian bridge to be moved further down into a wider area of the floodplain,

including areas where trees would have to be removed, and an easement would be

required for construction. He noted that also was not a very desirable location.

Mr. Davis stated the original question was "what would happen if the Road

Commission bridge was incorporated, how the alignment would run". He noted there

were some unique problems in figuring out the alignment. He explained there were

Detroit Edison utility poles that might be able to relocated, but there were also

established trees along Tienken. One of the biggest constraints was the existing stone

wall running along the Museum property, which ran into the right-of-way of Tienken

Road. There was really no room to fit a pathway along Tienken considering the utility

poles, the existing tree stands and where the stone wall terminated.

Mr. Davis stated that forced the City to consider bringing the pathway down into the

Museum property. He commented there had been some question about whether the

City had the right to do that because the property might have some deed restrictions

from Michigan State when it was originally donated to the City. He stated the City

Attorney had reviewed that matter and felt that based on the limited information he

had reviewed, as long as ownership of the property was not transferred for a pathway

easement, and it did not materially impact the function of the remainder of the

property, the pathway could be put through there. He pointed out how they would try

to put the pathway between two existing trees and swing it to the southeast.

Mr. Davis explained there were two locations they could try to bring the pathway out,

figuring they would have to come out to a driveway location. The stone wall goes up

to each driveway, one driveway by the red house and one by the Museum. He

pointed out the horseshoe driveway for the Museum, and commented he did not

know if both driveways were needed. They would have to explore whether a portion

of that driveway could be abandoned to bring the pathway through to run back up to

Tienken, to avoid disturbing the stone wall.

Mr. Davis referred to the west side of the pathway and stated they were trying to stay

north of the detention basin, and would like to match up to existing pathway for the

Millstream Village development.

Mr. Davis stated he had identified the constraints associated with a separate

pedestrian facility, and the estimated costs. He explained MDOT would not pay for a

separate pedestrian bridge, it would be 100% City cost if it was determined a

separate bridge was needed for this portion of the pathway.

Chairperson Dunphy called for questions or comments from the Commissioners.

Ms. Franey clarified if the pedestrian pathway was not incorporated in the bridge

project, four-foot sides would be required rather than two-foot. Mr. O'Brien stated it

would be the Road Commission's recommendation they go back to the four-foot

shoulders because there would be a higher probability of bicyclists and other uses

along the road shoulder edge. They felt it was important to have a wider separation

along that bridge facility.

Ms. Franey clarified that with the pedestrian bridge added, there was 7-1/2 feet

added for the pathway with two-foot shoulders. If there was no pedestrian bridge,

there would be four-foot shoulders, resulting in a 3-1/2 foot difference. Mr. O’Brien

clarified it was a matter of four to six feet because the barrier would be lost off the

outside. The outside of the south fascia to the traffic barrier was 7-1/2 feet for the

path, and roughly a foot and a half for the south railing, resulting in nine feet. He stated

it was about a five-foot difference because of adding another four foot of bridge.

Mr. Kilpatrick noted there were items MDOT would and would not approve with

respect to the weight and safety restrictions. He stated there was some discussion

about speed limits, such as the City trying to reduce the speed limit, and asked if that

would be an impediment to MDOT funding the project.

Mr. O'Brien stated the speed limit was independent of the funding for the bridge

replacement. Speed limits were set by the Michigan State Police through a speed

study. The Road Commission designs the road based upon an appropriate design

speed, which for this project was 40 mph. There way very little in the way of profile

change, because all they were talking about was the replacement of the bridge. The

vertical curves meet the design speed, but they almost meet that design speed today.

The Road Commission was essentially matching the existing. If they got into a

situation where they significantly changed the vertical alignment of the road, they would

have to review driveway impacts, but they were essentially matching the existing.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the City were to encourage or there was the possibility of

decreasing the speed, whether that would not impact the project. Mr. O'Brien stated

that was an independent discussion.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the City were to have weight restrictions, although the bridge

had the proper weight restriction, but because of protection of resources, whether that

would have any impact on the bridge. Mr. O'Brien stated that the City could request

the Board of County Road Commissioners to consider a traffic control order, but he

could not speak for the Board and did not know how that would be received. Studies

would have to be conducted for alternate routes for the trucks that would not be

allowed, and noted it was a public road.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated that would not impact the bridge one way or the other. Mr.

O'Brien stated as long as the bridge was designed in accordance with current

AASHTO live load designs, which meant allowing legal loadings, and the bridge was

not posted, it was fundable.

Mr. Thompson stated he appreciated the Road Commission's patience in working

with the City and the Commission. He noted the proposed bridge pretty much

mirrored the existing, with the difference being the width of the pedestrian pathway

which was absolutely needed. He did not think it was practical or cost effective to

have a separate pathway, although he understood the argument for it. He did not

know how the City would fund a separate bridge, and encouraged the Commissioners

to look at the budget projections for the City.

Mr. Thompson stated that although the speed limit was a separate issue, he

encouraged the City to take a look at it or to try to slow down the traffic. He was

encouraged by what he had seen and the improvements made by the Road

Commission and stated he looked forward to final approval of the project.

Ms. Luginski appreciated what the Road Commission presented. She noted they had

started at 54 and went to 48 and she was encouraged by that. She wanted to try to

understand exactly what speed the bridge was engineered for. Mr. O'Brien stated it

was posted at 40 mph currently, and he believed the design speed was 45 mph. Ms.

Luginski stated that was her impression from previous discussions. She referred to the

Road Commission's cover sheet which indicated the posted speed was 40 mph and

the design speed was 35 mph, which she believed was an error. Mr. O'Brien

concurred.

Ms. Luginski stated she was encouraged in looking at the cross-section diagram of the

east proposed approach, from the center of the road there was a 50-foot expansion

to the south. She noted much of that was due to the modular retaining wall, which she

understood the Road Commission was now reviewing as more of a vertical wall.

Mr. O'Brien explained there was close to a 9-foot batter, which is the horizontal

distance from the toe of the wall to the top. Each course of block had a 5-inch batter

for the vegetated wall. He stated they could go to a more vertical wall which would

pull the toe further away. He commented some of the wall was buried, noting the

existing ground elevations were not noted. Mr. Davis added he found the foot off to

be unacceptable, and stated he felt it needed to be more vertical. He explained it

could not be hanging over the water main even in a buried condition, as it was not

desirable to the Engineering Department.

Ms. Luginski asked if the Commissioners could have access to pictures of the railings.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission took photographs of the vintage railings

when they were at MDOT's Mason Garage, and could provide them. Mr. Delacourt

asked if those could be provided prior to the next packet being prepared. Mr.

O'Brien indicated he would send them.

Ms. Luginski stated she took the opportunity to look at the wall on Livernois and

indicated she had heard from the residents that it was unsightly. She knew the

keystone wall that was part of the proposed project would be buried and would have

foliage, but pointed out that the foliage might not survive the Michigan winters and the

wall would not look like the walls in the catalogs because those examples were mostly

in warmer climates. For the record, if she had her way, she would have something

that was a little less modern looking, although she was not sure what other options

there were.

Mr. O'Brien stated there were various keystone options, noting the Livernois one was

the sculpted type look. He stated the Road Commission constructed one recently at

14 Mile and Farmington, which was a split-face type look, which was very flush and

did not have the oblong shape. From his perspective, the flush-faced type wall looked

fairly attractive. He suggested the Road Commission could provide photographs of

that wall as well.

Chairperson Dunphy pointed out that from the standpoint of visual impact, there was a

big difference between having something on Livernois that was at street level and

above, as opposed as something like this project that would be below grade.

Ms. Luginski stated she agreed but the mitigating factor was that it was in the Historic

District. She said there were people in that area participating in the "Fun Fridays" at

the Museum, and there was some visibility from people who frequent the Museum.

Ms. Luginski stated the dimension was definitely an improvement, but she was still

interested in the concept of traffic calming devices. She hoped the City would work

on that because this was a widening and she wanted to go on record that she hoped

there was an attempt to try to narrow it down. In terms of the weight limit, she stated

she was familiar with the Traffic Control Order (TCO) opportunity and would like to

look at that. She felt the Road Commission had worked with the Commission very

well, and now there some things the Community had to do to mitigate the issues that

would be created. Obviously speed was one of those.

Ms. Luginski was encouraged to see the walkway staying away from the stone wall.

She noted the stone wall was one of the key components to the entire Historic

District, and it really signified the Stoney Creek Village. Anything they could do to

stay away from it, which meant leaving the Road Commission sidewalk where it was

and making smart choices about where it goes in the Village, she was behind.

Chairperson Dunphy referred to the comments about taking a request to have the

weight limits and speed limits reviewed, and asked if that was best done by the

Commission. He asked if the Commission should be making some parallel motions or

it should come from City Council.

Mr. Delacourt stated it would be appropriate for the Commission could make a

motion supporting the request and asking City Council to move forward. He indicated

that the Advisory Committee that had met with the residents in the two Historic

Districts focusing on the Tienken Road and Washington Road Corridors, would be

meeting with the residents again on May 26, 2009. At the meeting, the initial

recommendations were very much in support of reducing speed and requesting TCOs.

He commented a lot went into the TCO requests, but he thought everyone was on the

same page with respect to the traffic calming devices, although not all of them would

be approved, and some alternatives might have to be considered. He thought it was

appropriate for the Commission to request City Council request those items from the

Road Commission. He did not think the TCOs could be acted upon without the

approval of Council. He thought the Advisory Committee was very supportive of the

same issues discussed by the Commission such as speed, traffic calming measures,

and the location of the pathway, and had some good thoughts about how to

accomplish that.

2008-0678

Mr. Miller stated he was intrigued to see that the pedestrian bridge that was originally

along Tienken over the Paint Creek was still in the City's possession. Mr. Davis

pointed out his cost estimates assumed they were using that bridge. He stated the City

had the bridge since it had been removed as part of the Tienken/Kings Cove Bridge

Project, noting it was sitting in Spencer Park. He commented there were a couple

locations it could be put to use, but this particular project was not a good location for

it.

Mr. Miller stated it was also intriguing that using that bridge would only save the City

about $20,000.00. Mr. Davis stated that using the bridge would actually save the

City about $90,000.00 over the cost of a new bridge. He explained the estimates

pointed out there was a significant cost to do a separated bridge, even if it was a

donated bridge. There were other items that came into play in trying to set a donated

bridge in place. The main difference in the costs was separation, with one proposal

being north of the water main location and one proposal south. One was more

difficult to get to with a crane and required an easement and required a wooden

boardwalk, which were some of the differences in the costs.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any other discussion by the Commissioners.

He thanked Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Davis for their input. He looked forward to seeing

the formal application at the next meeting.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

Ms. Luginski stated Mr. Tripp had told her, in terms of the circular driveway for the

non-contributing structure on Tienken Road discussed with the 1046 E. Tienken Road

matter, that home went before the Historic Districts Commission years ago. She

wanted to clarify it was not a circular driveway in terms of the home having two

access points off Tienken Road, they were sharing a driveway with their neighbor.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had spoken to the applicant and the applicant could wrap the

driveway around the front of his house if he wanted to make that request. He did not

know if the Commission would consider that request approvable because it got rather

tight across the front yard. The applicant might pursue the possibility of the curb cut

through the Road Commission to find out what their opinion would be.

Chairperson Dunphy reminded the Commissioners that the next regular meeting of the

Commission was September 10, 2009 at 7:00 PM, noting he had a potential conflict

with that meeting date. The Commissioners would be contacted if it became

necessary to change that date. He then asked if there was any other business. No

other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Dunphy adjourned the meeting at

9:20 PM.

________________________________

Brian Dunphy, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

{Approved as presented at the October 8, 2009 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting.}