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 Melinda Hill, Vice Chairperson Brian R. Dunphy

Members: Maria-Teresa L. Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Micheal Kilpatrick, Paul Miller,

Michael Sinclair, Dr. Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, November 13, 2008

MINUTES of the REGULAR ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

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

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Hill called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Melinda Hill, Richard Stamps, Micheal Kilpatrick, Maria-Teresa Cozzolino,

Jason Thompson and Paul Miller

Present

6 -

John Dziurman, Brian Dunphy and Michael Sinclair

Absent

3 -

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

Department

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Hill announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

Chairperson Hill 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, MCL Section 399.205, and

City Code Section 118-164."

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2008-0569

Minutes of the October 9, 2008 Regular Meeting

Chairperson Hill asked for any comments or corrections regarding the October 9,

2008 Regular Meeting Minutes.

Chairperson Hill suggested the following changes:

Page 13 Finding #2 Change: , and the District itself.

To: , and adjacent resources.

Page 13 Finding #3 Change: abandoned former orchard

To: abandoned orchard

Page 13 Finding#4 Change: 84-inch round natural wood posts

To: 84-inch tall round natural wood poles

Page 13 Finding #4 Change: fence" as shown on the submitted

application on the Washington Road

To: fence," as shown on the submitted

application, for the Washington Road

Page 13 Finding #4 Change: 84-inch fence on the other two sides

To: 84-inch fence for the other two sides

Page 13 Finding #5 Change: of Washington Road, nor affect any

To: of Washington and Winkler Mill Roads, nor

affect any

[Note: It should be noted that the above changes were suggested for a motion

passed by the Commission at its October 9, 2008 Meeting. However, changes

cannot be made to an approved motion in this manner. To effectively change the

wording in an approved motion, the motion must be brought back to the floor by a

member who voted in the affirmative; the original motion must be rescinded; a revised

motion appropriately made; and a vote taken on the new, revised motion. Therefore,

the above suggested revisions could not be made to the October 9, 2008 Historic

Districts Commission Minutes.]

Chairperson Hill called for any other comments or corrections to the October 9, 2008

Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, she called for a motion to approve.

A motion was made by Thompson, seconded by Miller, that the Minutes be

Approved as Amended.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Hill, Stamps, Kilpatrick, Cozzolino, Thompson and Miller

6 -

Absent

Dziurman, Dunphy and Sinclair

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the October 9, 2008 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting be approved as amended.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

6.

Chairperson Hill called for any announcements or communications. She noted the

Commissioners had received some literature from Copper County Preservation, Inc.,

attempting to raise funds for the restoration of the Quincy Smelting Works.

2008-0289

Vacant Parcel - Winkler Mill Pond Historic District

Applicant: Nathaniel Brock

Sidwell: 15-01-201-009

Request: Discussion regarding proposed restoration of orchard

and proposal to fence orchard parcel

Dr. Stamps referred to HDC File #08-001, and noted that Condition #4 required the

applicant to investigate possible archeological resources of the property prior to

completing the proposed project. Dr. Stamps advised the Commissioners that Mr.

Brock had contacted him. Dr. Stamps indicated he had reviewed the known records,

and wanted to inform the Commissioners that Mr. Brock had completed the

requirements of Condition #4.

Chairperson Hill stated that information would be included in the Minutes of this

meeting, so it would be known that Dr. Stamps had that conversation with Mr. Brock.

This matter was Discussed

Announcements/Communications (continued):

Mr. Miller reminded the Commissioners that the Open Space Millage that had been

passed a few years ago had been accumulating funds, and the City had purchased a

number of parcels. The latest parcel approved for purchase was 24 acres on Harding

Avenue. He explained it was the 24 acres directly surrounding the existing

non-contiguous Eureka Farm Historic site and in fact, was the old farmland for the old

Eureka Farm.

Chairperson Hill called for any other announcements or communications. No other

announcements or communications were discussed.

PUBLIC COMMENT

7.

Chairperson Hill asked if there were any public comments on any non-agenda items.

There were no public comments.

Chairperson Hill stated that Melissa Luginski from the Stoney Creek Village hoped to

attend this meeting. She explained the Village had their own Village meeting tonight as

well, which began at 7:00 PM. Ms. Luginski hoped to attend the Village meeting and

then come to the Commission meeting around 8:15 PM. She wanted to let the

Commission know what the residents had been doing in the Village and some of their

plans. If she cannot make this meeting, she will try to attend the January Commission

meeting.

DISCUSSION

8.

8A.

2008-0570

Historic Districts Commission Discussion

- Year End Recap

- Overall District Look Back

- Outstanding Certificates of Appropriateness

- Present/Future Preservation Issues/Concerns

Year End Recap:

Chairperson Hill stated this was an opportunity to recap what the Commission had

done over the past year; to take a look at the districts, either as a whole or

individually, to see if there are some areas of concern; to look at the Certificates of

Appropriateness and where they stand, and where the Commission needed to put in

some extra effort for next year.

Chairperson Hill noted a Memorandum was included in the packet material titled

"Year End Recap" which indicated that with tonight's meeting, the Commission had

held six meetings during 2008. She thought the December meeting would most likely

be cancelled unless an approval item was submitted. She stated that one of the six

meetings held was the Tax Credits Workshop. She thought the recap reflected that

the Commission had put out the effort to communicate with the residents in the

Districts and to provide some educational information, which was all part of the

Certified Local Government (CLG) process should the City receive CLG

Certification. She noted that was also part of the Commission's charge under the

Ordinance. She felt from that perspective, the Commission had done a good job.

Chairperson Hill asked for the Commissioners' thoughts and feedback regarding the

past year and how to continue their efforts in the coming year.

Mr. Thompson suggested the Commission hold another workshop or seminar. He

noted the tax credits workshop was very informative and had been well attended.

Chairperson Hill agreed and noted the General Maintenance Workshop held at the

Dairy Barn was also a good workshop. She thought the Commission might reach out

to the other communities that had historic districts commissions, which could increase

attendance at the workshops or seminars. She commented she received information

about events in other areas some of which were similar to the events the Commission

had held.

Mr. Thompson stated he did not have any specific workshops or seminars in mind,

but thought the outreach should be continued as he thought it had been well received

and was a good approach.

Ms. Cozzolino commented that the Commission had previously put together a list of

workshops and had prioritized the ones they felt should be held first.

Chairperson Hill agreed that was why the General Maintenance workshop had been

held, as well as the Tax Credits workshop. She remembered the Commission had

discussed a window repair workshop that had not materialized.

Ms. Cozzolino suggested the Commissioners review the feedback from the Open

House survey to see what the residents were interested in.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not recall what other seminar suggestions were on the

list from the survey, and suggested that information be included on the January

Meeting Agenda. She thought another seminar should be held at the end of April or at

the latest in May because if residents were going to be working on the exterior of their

homes, they would start that work in late Spring or during the Summer. She

suggested the Commission could select a workshop at the January meeting in order to

give both the Commission and Staff sufficient time to schedule the event.

Mr. Miller stated that the workshop held at the Diary Barn was very nice, but did

require a lot of extensive planning. Chairperson Hill asked if Mr. Miller was referring

to the Open House held in 2007. Mr. Miller stated he was. He suggested if another

workshop was held, the Commissioners first determine if there is enough interest to

hold one, and suggested the possibility of using the City Hall Building for the next

seminar. He commented the Commission would want to keep the outside Staff time

and any rental costs down. Chairperson Hill noted the Museum was open on

Saturdays and was free for the Commission's use. Mr. Miller commented the

Museum was a better destination draw, but noted it did require extra time and effort.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that the General Maintenance and Tax Credits workshops had

received the most votes based on the survey results, with the rest of the available

workshops receiving mixed results. He suggested a presentation be held for both the

Commission and the residents in the Districts about preservation easements. He noted

there were tax incentives to creating a preservation easement, although specific criteria

had to be met. He commented he was not that familiar with preservation easements,

and thought a representative from the Michigan Historic Preservation Network might

give a presentation on the easement program and how it worked.

Chairperson Hill agreed that was a good suggestion, and noted that type of a

presentation could be held at City Hall on a regular Commission meeting night. She

thought invitations could be extended to the residents in the Districts, and the adjacent

communities since they were dealing with the same issues. She suggested a list of

workshops be reviewed by the Commission at the January meeting with the idea of

scheduling something in early Spring before people became too busy with other

activities.

Chairperson Hill thanked Staff for the information that had been included on the City's

website for property owners. She thought it was very helpful, and commented it

would also be nice to include some historic preservations items on the City's cable

channel.

Overall District Lookback:

Chairperson Hill referred to the Quarterly Report, and noted the Commissioners had

received a copy of the Historic Districts Map, which depicted all the Districts in the

City. She suggested the Commissioners review the individual Districts for input about

them. She thought it could be very easy to lose the context of the Districts over the

years, and depending how in tune the Commission was with the property owners,

things could slip through the cracks. She noted when Dr. Busch conducted her survey

in 2002, she had made recommendations for some Districts to be delisted because of

the changes that had been made. She was most concerned about the two contiguous

Districts, but there was also potential for that to happen with the existing

non-contiguous Districts.

3681 S. Adams (District Map Item #3):

Chairperson Hill stated this is the stone house that is part of the Lorna Stone

Development. She commented the developer had intended to return to the

Commission for review regarding windows when the project began, but nothing had

been started to date. She asked about the condition of the house, or whether it had

been mothballed or would experience deterioration, given the fact it did not appear the

project would begin any time soon.

Mr. Delacourt stated that what the developer was experiencing with the property was

constant vandalism. The house was vacant; was not being rented, and like any other

vacant building in any city, there were constant attempts to strip it of metal, copper or

anything else that could be taken. He stated Mondrian Properties was constantly

re-securing the site. They had boarded the windows, although he did not know if the

structure had been completely mothballed. They had turned off the water to prevent

that type of damage from taking place, but the biggest issue was constant vandalism.

The house is an attractive nuisance, especially being surrounded by so many trees and

its location, not being well lit or having any nearby street lighting. He indicated that

each time the City speaks with the representatives from Mondrian Properties, they

were immediately on site resolving any issues. He did not think the project would be

going forward any time soon.

Dr. Stamps asked if the City could alert the Sheriff's Department and request the

property be routinely checked during their patrols of the area. He thought an

increased presence might be helpful.

Mr. Delacourt stated that was already being done, and noted the members of the

adjacent Church were very good neighbors and kept an eye on the property.

Oftentimes, members of the congregation contacted Mondrian Properties or the City if

they noticed a problem.

Chairperson Hill understood the problem, and noted more of those situations could

occur around the City because of the foreclosures going on. She asked what role and

what extent the Commission should play with respect to the mothball question. She

noted some historic property owners had been required to do that, such as the

property on Rochester Road where another large development had not moved

forward.

Mr. Miller confirmed that the developer responded quickly to any telephone calls, and

stated he assumed the City was also keeping an eye on the property. Mr. Delacourt

stated the Ordinance Enforcement Officers were aware of the problem properties in

the City, and paid attention to those sites during their normal rounds.

Mr. Miller stated if the water was turned off and the windows were boarded up, there

was not much more the Commission could ask them to do, lacking great deterioration;

holes in the roof, or structural problems. He did not think there was much more the

Commission could ask the developer to do at this time.

Chairperson Hill agreed as long water was not entering the resource. She was

concerned that the vandalism could result in a fire being set inside, such as sometimes

happened when squatters took over a building. She noted the Commission was

concerned about the exterior, but if wood or other items were removed from the

inside, that could destroy the resource from the inside out.

1385 S. Adams Road: (District Map Item #60)

Chairperson Hill noted this was the location of the University Presbyterian Church.

No problems have been noticed with the property.

1381 Brewster (District Map Item #10):

Chairperson Hill stated this was the Brewster Road Cemetery property.

2498 W. Tienken (District Map Item #26):

Chairperson Hill stated this was the house located at the corner of Brewster and

Tienken.

Dr. Stamps stated that the property owner had recently passed away. He noted there

had been a problem on the east side of the house, which had been repaired. He was

unaware of the status of the ownership of the property.

Chairperson Hill stated she had not seen a "for sale" sign on the property, and did not

know if the home was occupied. She was not sure how the ownership of the property

could be tracked, if it did change hands or was being held in the estate.

Dr. Stamps thought descendants of the former owner currently owned the house, but

he did not know what would happen to it in the future.

2332 W. Avon (District Map Item #45):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was the Bishop House and the house appeared

to be in good shape.

1841 Crooks Road (District Map Item #53):

Chairperson Hill stated this was the property owned by Mr. Dunn, and asked if

anything was happening with this property.

Mr. Delacourt stated there had been involvement by the City almost daily on that

property. He noted Mr. Dunn's builder had pulled a building permit over a month

ago, and commented a building permit was in good standing for six months. He stated

there was another hole in the roof, although Mr. Dunn had already patched up one

hole in the roof.

Mr. Delacourt stated the demolition by neglect motion passed by the Commission was

still enforceable should Council choose to enforce it. In fact, a meeting was being held

with the City Attorney on Monday to discuss this property. Mr. Dunn had pulled his

permit; had approved plans, and sent out bids to select a contractor. However,

nothing had begun with the property, the resource was deteriorating, and winter was

approaching. He noted Council had taken some interest in the structure as well.

Mr. Miller asked if the City had sent a letter to the property owner about the hole in

the roof. Mr. Delacourt stated the City has been calling him every day and was in

constant telephone contact with Mr. Dunn.

Chairperson Hill pointed out that this was one of three properties the Commission had

sent out letters regarding Demolition by Neglect.

Mr. Delacourt stated a stay had been given to Mr. Dunn based on the fact he had

secured the property and had plans under review. One of the things that would be

discussed with the City Attorney was whether the Commission's motion was still in

good standing, or whether the Commission needed to pass another motion. He noted

Mr. Dunn had been granted a stay from the motion based on the progress he showed,

and the matter had not been pursued with Council or a court order requested to enter

the property for that same reason. Part of the discussion with the City Attorney will

be whether action should be taken, if Mr. Dunn shows no additional progress in the

near future.

Mr. Thompson stated he hoped something was done as he had driven past the

property a number of times and was very disappointed with the property owner's

progress. He noted Mr. Dunn had been given every opportunity and the house was

falling apart, was an eyesore, and looked terrible.

Chairperson Hill stated the mothballing did not look nice. She questioned the

Commission waiting another month if another resolution would be required. She

stated the Commission would be happy to provide another resolution in order to allow

the City to move forward, if that was necessary.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Commission could pass another resolution as a precaution,

but he did not think it was necessary.

Mr. Thompson stated a second motion might provide some added emphasis.

Mr. Miller asked how long the City had been in contact with Mr. Dunn. He noted

Mr. Dunn had pulled a building permit over a month ago, and asked if Mr. Dunn was

refusing to acknowledge that there was work to be done, or had expressed a desire to

wait until his wholesale renovation and remodeling work began.

Mr. Delacourt stated Mr. Dunn expresses his desire to start immediately every time

the City speaks with him.

Mr. Thompson pointed out that had been Mr. Dunn's response for several years now.

He had been before the Commission several times; both the Commission Chairperson

and Member Dziurman had sat down with him, and the Building Department had

worked with him several times. He was unsure what else the Commission could do as

the house was now falling apart and something needed to be done.

Chairperson Hill stated there was a consensus that the Commission was very

interested in seeing some action taken regarding Demolition by Neglect because it had

been over a year and the property owner had been given every opportunity to have

the situation rectified. Now it is a year later and the Commission was in the same

position as they were one year ago. The Commission would like to see the City take

action and expedite this before it was absolutely too late. The Commissioners all

agreed there was consensus among the Board with respect to this matter.

3030 Crooks Road (District Map Item #55):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was located on Crooks Road near Auburn

Road. She thought the current owner had done some nice restoration work.

1580 South Boulevard W. (District Map Item #22):

Chairperson Hill commented the property had not been before the Commission for

many years. She believed the current owner was an architect, and stated she had not

seen any work done on the property lately.

1160 South Boulevard W. (District Map Item #21):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was owned by a current member of the City's

Historic Districts Study Committee and was in good condition.

3610 S. Livernois (District Map Item #50):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was the white stone house with the barn. She

was not sure about the condition of this property, noting the barn appeared to be

deteriorating. Mr. Delacourt agreed it needed a coat of paint, although he was not

sure about deterioration.

Chairperson Hill was not sure about the roof, and noted she was not sure who lived

there, but it might be more recent owners. She had heard they were interested in

keeping this preserved, but had not had any conversations with the current owners.

Chairperson Hill stated it might be helpful to try to have a conversation with the

homeowner, or to send a letter, asking if there was a way the Commission could help

them with anything. Rather than waiting until a resource reaches such a terrible state

that the Commission or the City had to issue a violation, she would prefer the

Commission hold a conversation before a resource reaches a violation stage.

Ms. Cozzolino stated the Commission should be careful because the Commission was

trying to promote the idea of historic preservation and was not "big brother" looking

for problems and trying to chase people down. She agreed it would be good to be

proactive, but the Commission had to be really careful in how they approached it.

Chairperson Hill agreed, noting it was more difficult with the non-contiguous districts,

than enforcing something in a contiguous district. She noted that recently letters had

been sent to the historic district property owners trying to encourage communication.

Mr. Delacourt suggested that prior to the next meeting, Staff would work on a draft of

gentle introduction-type letter, including a reminder to be aware of certain things

before they got to the next step. He stated the letter would be sent to property

owners who had not hit the duty to maintain level or the demolition by neglect status,

but before it got to that stage to let them know what the options were.

Chairperson Hill suggested the letter might also encourage property owners to attend

a Commission meeting to talk about some of their concerns, or perhaps there was

something the Commission could help them with. She stated that simply being able to

put a face to a resource helped build some rapport. She noted a property owner did

not have to come to a Commission meeting only for a review, but could come to hold

a discussion.

Mr. Delacourt stated perhaps a letter could be drafted for all the non-contiguous

property owners so it would not appear a certain property was being targeted. He

indicated the letter could include information about the process.

1081 W. Auburn (District Map Item #5):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was located near Crooks Road, and that the

property owner, Mr. LeBreque, had come before the Commission to discuss his

potential use of the resource, but it had been some time since that occurred.

Mr. Delacourt stated there had been a "for sale" sign on the property for a long time.

Chairperson Hill asked if Mr. LeBreque was still the property owner. Mr. Delacourt

stated he did not know. He believed Mr. LeBreque had an option on the property

when he came before the Commission. He stated he had received some interesting

requests about use for the property, but no one had ever come in and followed

through.

Chairperson Hill stated the house was relatively close to the road and pretty visible,

and asked if there had been any problems with vandalism on this property.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had not heard of any problems or received any complaints

about the property. He commented the building appeared to be pretty secure,

although the columns in the front could use a coat of paint.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated that house was pretty visible. Mr. Delacourt agreed it was right

up on the road and had neighbors. He thought one of the neighbors was a family

member of the former owner and kept a close eye on the property. He noted the

lawn appeared to be maintained.

2371 S. Livernois (District Map Item #49):

Chairperson Hill stated the house sat back on the property and appeared to be

occupied. Mr. Delacourt stated it was renter-occupied, and the property was

purchased by a developer several years ago who wanted to incorporate the resource

into a Planned Unit Development. He stated the resource appeared to be in very

good shape.

Mr. Miller asked how large the parcel was. Mr. Delacourt stated it was about ten

acres in size.

1631 W. Avon and 1651 W. Avon (District Map Items #46 and #81):

Mr. Delacourt stated a parcel was split and a new home built on the vacant parcel,

although it was still considered part of the historic district. He noted the Commission

had approved the new home, and the historic home was structurally solid. He stated

the aluminum siding had been removed from the historic home, but the home had

never been repainted.

Chairperson Hill stated both homes were occupied, but unfortunately nothing had

been done to the historic house other than the siding being removed. She commented

that the Certificate of Appropriateness had expired and the property owners would

have to come before the Commission for approval of any work.

1568 W. Avon (District Map Item #44):

Chairperson Hill noted the structures on the site were in good shape.

Mr. Delacourt stated the property owners had recently replaced the cedar shake roof

on their barn with new cedar shake, using the exact same materials. He commented

they redid the entire roof and it was a nice improvement.

71 N. Livernois (District Map Item #80):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was known as the Avon Prairie House.

1365 W. Tienken (District Map Item #23):

Chairperson Hill stated she was not sure if the property was currently occupied, noting

it was owned by the Heyniger's and was up for sale. She indicated the property was

close to the road, with many adjacent neighbors; it was highly visible; there did not

seem to be the appearance of vandalism, but it was an empty home.

1750 W. Tienken and 1470 W. Tienken (District Map Item #24 and #47):

Chairperson Hill stated that these properties were both in good shape. She noted

1470 W. Tienken was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rice.

1481 Dutton (District Map Item #9):

Chairperson Hill stated that this property was owned by the Nicholson's, and was

formerly owned by Glenda Byers. She believed the house was renter-occupied, but

appeared to be in good shape.

1005 Dutton (District Map Item #8):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was the Tay residence and was in good shape.

1207 N. Livernois (District Map Item #12):

Chairperson Hill asked if this property was studied with a view toward being delisted.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Study Committee had studied that property and would be

making a decision about the property shortly.

1021 Harding (District Map Item #57):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was owned and occupied by a Commission

Member.

370 W. Avon (District Map Item #56):

Chairperson Hill stated this resource was part of the Rochester College complex. She

commented the buildings looked fairly decent, and although the barn still needed some

work, the roof looked secure. The other outbuildings had been repaired.

1812 S. Rochester (District Map Item #41):

Chairperson Hill stated this resource housed medical offices and was in good shape.

1585 S. Rochester (District Map #40):

Chairperson Hill stated the resource had been mothballed and asked if there had been

any change since the last time the Commission discussed the property. She inquired if

the City was addressing anything with respect to the Planned Unit Development

(PUD) Agreement on the property.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was nothing for the City to address. He explained the

Agreement had been recorded and was in good standing, but the developer had not

acted on the second phase of the project. The 5th/3rd Bank was constructed as the

first phase of the project, and some of the utility connections had been put it.

However, there was not a time frame for the expiration of the PUD once it had been

recorded and acted on. It was a matter of whether the developer intended to move

forward with the project or come back to the City to request changes.

Mr. Miller asked if it was usual for there to be no expiration for a PUD Agreement.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Agreements ran with the land and were recorded as part of

the deed and on the title. He explained it ran with the land unless it was vacated.

Chairperson Hill asked if this particular Agreement contained a clause for a time

period. She noted some of the PUD Agreements contained a statement indicating that

after a certain number of years if there was no activity, it would be looked at.

Mr. Delacourt stated he believed the language in the subject PUD Agreement stated

"significant construction" and noted he was not sure if the bank was considered

significant construction.

Chairperson Hill stated the bank would be for Phase One of the project, but not for

Phase Two. Mr. Delacourt stated City Council would have to determine they no

longer wanted to support the Agreement, or that it had not been lived up to

significantly. He was not aware of that discussion having taken place between the

parties.

(Depart: Member Kilpatrick 8:28 PM)

1425 E. Auburn (District Map Item #17):

Chairperson Hill stated the property owner had been before the Commission for

approval for the construction of a detached garage. She noted the garage had been

completed and the property owner had done a nice job.

861 E. Avon (District Map Item #52):

Chairperson Hill stated the property was located on Avon Road, just west of John R.

She stated it was a white house; the property owners had done a really nice job with

the property, and the house was in good shape.

Mr. Miller asked why the numbers assigned to the non-contiguous districts were not in

numerical order. He was advised that when the original districts were looked at back

in 1978 a long list of possible properties was created; however, not every property on

the list was designated. The numbers were not reassigned after the decision was

made on which properties should be designated.

(Return Member Kilpatrick: 8:30 PM)

2008-0570

1950 E. Avon; 23 Mile & Dequindre (District Map Items #6 and #72):

Chairperson Hill stated these properties comprised the Yates Cider Mill property.

She stated Item #72 crossed over the creek and was on the west side of Dequindre.

She understood part of this property was being discussed by the Greenspace

Advisory Board as a potential site for acquisition. She was not sure if this property

was divided into a number of parcels, and one of the parcels might be sold. She

stated the parcel on the east side of Dequindre was the actual Cider Mill location.

1100 Mead (District Map Item #4):

Chairperson Hill stated this property was owned by the adjacent property owner, and

as far as she was aware it was occupied and in good shape.

Mr. Miller stated that property was a large parcel, perhaps the largest of all the

non-contiguous properties.

Chairperson Hill thought it was about 65 acres. She was not aware of any proposed

development for the property. She believed the owner wanted to keep the property

as open land.

2008-0678

Stoney Creek Village

- Discussion Regarding Resident Issues

Chairperson Hill stated that Melissa Luginski had arrived and wanted to talk about the

Stoney Creek Village with the Commissioners.

Melissa Luginski, 985 E. Tienken Road, stated she used to be a resident in the

area in 1977, having lived in the old farmhouse with the huge barn at the corner of 25

Mile Road and Dequindre. She stated it was a rental at the time with a 99-acre

farming parcel in the back, and was a great place to grow up.

Mrs. Luginski stated she returned to the area about six years ago, and was familiar

with the Stoney Creek Village and found a home there for sale. She stated she had

looked at many houses in the Bloomfield Township area, and had not planned to live

this far north. She stated she bought one of the homes built by Jim Mallon, which was

right next door to the Nathanial Millard house. She said they had been watching over

that house for the two years it had been for sale.

Mrs. Luginski stated she had fallen in love with the Historic District. She noted she

was from a family that appreciated older homes, and since she was about 12 years

old, she had been renovating older homes with her parents. She stated she had a very

deep commitment to historic properties, and it was a pleasure to be in the Historic

District.

Mrs. Luginski stated there were about eighteen historic contributing buildings directly

in the Village. She commented the residents had spent thirty years protecting,

restoring and maintaining their properties, and they all enjoyed living in the Village as it

is a nice environment.

Mrs. Luginski stated that about a year and a half ago she started to notice some

problems, with Tienken Road in particular. She commented it had changed a lot since

1977, and took some getting used to the traffic and to the development, but everyone

in the Village had accepted that to some degree. About a year and a half ago they

started experiencing tractor/trailer traffic coming through. The noise was the first sign,

and has increased every month for the last sixteen to eighteen months. In the last year,

the residents started comparing notes, and they had noticed rattling windows, and

physical vibration of the structures, which goes on all day and night. She has

mullioned windows in her dining room, which rattle all through dinner. She recently

had preservation architects out to her house, and she served them soup right next to

the windows so they would hear what is happening to the structure. She noted her

house is a reproduction, built in 1980, and sits almost an acre off the road, and her

windows are rattling. She was very concerned about the historic structures that line

Tienken, and she could not imagine they were not experiencing foundational damage.

Mrs. Luginski stated that is what started the Village's project, as the residents are

united. She noted the residents were holding a meeting this evening that she had to

leave to come to the Commission meeting. They were primarily concerned about the

physical structures in the Village, but were also concerned about the effect it is having

on the neighborhood. They cannot cross the road; getting the mail is very dangerous;

going to the Museum, and trying to play where they live is very difficult. Dogs and

children are not a good thing to have in the neighborhood.

Mrs. Luginski stated it had really changed their way of life. It has also inhibited people

coming to enjoy the Village and to enjoy the asset that Rochester Hills has. She knew

that Pat McKay stopped all of the Historic District walking tours through the Village

because it was not safe any longer, and that asset had been lost unless the truck traffic

can be dealt with.

Mrs. Luginski stated there were hidden views on the road, such as the intersection at

Van Hoosen. She explained in looking east there was hidden view, and with traffic

travelling 40 miles per hour, oncoming traffic cannot be seen to make a left off Van

Hoosen. She stated they had school bus stops in the Village and with the hill and the

traffic circles, there are tractor/trailers that cannot stop in time for the school buses

because they do not see that the buses are stopped.

Mrs. Luginski stated they had safety issues; the structural issues, as well as the entire

landscape of the Village changing to the negative. Those are the things the residents

started talking about. Also, there was an overall degradation of the value of historic

properties in the Village. They understood there was a natural lowering of values

because of the economy. She pointed out the former Prewitt House (1046 E.

Tienken) has been empty for at least eight years, and stated it was a real concern that

one of the oldest and most significant structures in the Village was not being bought.

She stated that affected another property across the road that was for sale, because

potential purchasers did not want to look at an abandoned house across the road.

Mrs. Luginski stated that housing sales were slowing down. She noted that historic

homes will find a buyer, even in a difficult economy. She believed there was less value

in the Historic District that there used to be five years ago because of the road, and

because of the Prewitt House. They were concerned because as the houses do not

sell and continue to be rented, the properties will not be properly maintained, creating

more Prewitt Houses. She pointed out it was a gradual decline they were starting to

see.

Mrs. Luginski stated there were several rental properties in the Village. The old

stagecoach tavern has been a duplex for a number of years, and there have been

problems with the renters of those homes. She pointed out that was not consistent

with their neighborhood. She indicated there have been renters with criminal issues,

and there have been security issues. She stated the neighborhood has a nice network,

and they spend time talking to each other and sharing information about the issues, but

that was still a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Mrs. Luginski stated the second rental was the Putnam property (947 E. Tienken),

which she believed is an 1840s structure, and is one of the old homes right on the road

with the barn where Van Hoosen intersects Tienken Road. She indicated there had

been issues and concerns with the renters in that home. She explained one of the

renters came to her door asking to do work for her, which was uncomfortable.

Mrs. Luginski stated she had been told that one of the houses that sold recently would

be used as a rental. Her issue with that was maintenance of the property. She stated

that the Millard House was one of the most significant houses in the County, not just in

Rochester Hills.

Mrs. Luginski stated that three houses out of eighteen historic houses were now

rentals. She stated the residents of the Village were concerned about that and it was

one of the issues that brought them together.

Mrs. Luginski stated the residents of the Village wanted to get support from the City

to understand what the issues were in the Village that they needed help with. She

advised the Commission that the residents had gone directly to Oakland County

because Tienken was a County Road to deal with the traffic issues. She stated they

had gone to the County twice and had been told there was nothing they could do.

Mrs. Luginski stated they were trying to take a historic approach, and hoped the City

saw the Village as an asset. She indicated there was potential for cultural tourism, and

it was one of the only Villages like that in the Midwest. She stated that Dr. Jane

Busch was working on a Statement of Significance for the Village residents, which

they would be following up with some research because they could not afford to pay

Dr. Busch for her research. They were trying to find out, in terms of their significance,

how far geographically that expanded, which they would document.

Mrs. Luginski stated the residents had spoken to Mayor Barnett about their concerns,

and Pat McKay at the Museum had been very helpful. She stated she had spoken to

Melinda Hill for some advice about who to talk to and how to proceed. She noted

that Mayor Barnett was happy to hear that the residents were trying to do their part

before coming to the City for help.

Mrs. Luginski stated that because traffic was such an issue, and getting the character

of the Village restored was so important, the residents had tried to think of things they

could do on their own before they went to the City for support. She noted they

understood traffic calming concepts, and narrowing of the road visually could help

with that, while they were trying to work on getting the speed limit lowered.

Mrs. Luginski stated the residents were trying to do short-term things because they

were looking at developing a master plan. The master plan would be a long-term plan

and they were anxious for the Commission to be a part of that. She noted the plan

had not been started yet, but that was part of the reason she was before the

Commission. She wanted to be sure they had that representation on their advisory

board.

Mrs. Luginski stated they had installed historic signage book-ending the

neighborhood, and asked if the Commissioners had seen them. Chairperson Hill

stated she had seen the signs. Mrs. Luginski provided a black and white rendering of

the signs, which was placed on file and becomes a part of the record herein.

Mrs. Luginski stated the purpose of the signs was to educate the commuters who

came through. She stated it was a goal of the residents to have historic signs built right

in to the new bridge, which was a separate subject. They would also like to install a

stonewall with a historic marker at the traffic circle at the east end of the Village. She

noted these were a temporary, inexpensive way to educate the commuters coming

through that this was a historic site and deserved some respect.

Mrs. Luginski stated that another thing that would help affect a narrowing of the road

and unify the space, and something that could be done quickly and easily, would be to

put in mailboxes that are taken in concept from the Van Hoosen Farm. The mailboxes

would all be painted white and would line that section of the District. They thought

that would bring the road in; bring some recognition to the drivers, and unify the

space.

Mrs. Luginski stated they had just gotten a vote from the neighbors for the prototype

of the mailbox, and the residents voted last week that they were interested in

participating. She stated they wanted to show the Commission what they had been

working on. She stated it could be a temporary measure, but if it worked out well,

they could keep them. At this point, they were trying to put in an emergency stopgap

until such time they can get the speed limit lowered and start implementing some of the

other traffic calming projects.

Mrs. Luginski stated those were the two things she wanted to make the Commission

aware of. The attempts the residents were making to help themselves. Dealing with

the Road Commission required more than twenty-five residents as that would not be

successful if the residents tried to do that themselves.

Dr. Stamps asked what companies were driving the trucks through the Village and

where they were going. Mrs. Luginski responded they were seeing more every

month, but the majority of the truck traffic was Allied Waste, who is currently working

on a contract with the City. She stated another company was Faurecia, which had set

up a new distribution center on 26 Mile Road near Mound Road. Faurecia's trucks

were coming through all night, every half hour, and pretty much through the day.

Mrs. Luginski stated they had contacted Faurecia directly last summer and let them

know that the Historic District existed, and asked them to re-route their trucks.

Faurecia said they did not have to, so they would not.

Dr. Stamps verified that the current speed limit on Tienken Road was 40 miles per

hour. Mrs. Luginski confirmed that, and noted it was very difficult to patrol that area

because the traffic was so heavy. She explained it was difficult for a police officer

parked on Van Hoosen to even pull out to pull someone over. She stated the road

was not regularly patrolled at all. She thought most people would say the average

speed through that stretch was 48 miles per hour. She stated they had traffic count

data that just came back which indicated the average speed was 48 miles per hour

with eight cars per hour exceeding 50 miles per hour. That meant the average speed

was ten miles per hour over the speed limit. She explained their concern was that the

road was very narrow and there was nowhere to stop if there is a problem.

Obviously, in a neighborhood there were dogs and balls and people getting their mail,

and left-hand turns, making it very dangerous.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if because it was a County road, the County was keeping the

speed limit at 40 miles per hour. Mrs. Luginski stated the County told them that the

traffic and the existing speed dictated 40 miles per hour. She stated she was lucky

enough to obtain a resource from another municipality that helped her out with the

process in reviewing the speed limit assignments, and explained there was something

called a traffic control order that was issued. That could be reviewed if it was issued

within the last eight years. She was able, through a Freedom of Information Act

inquiry, to obtain a copy of the original traffic control order, which was dated 1979.

She felt it was definitely ready for review. She stated that as far as speed, Oakland

County and the Rochester Hills Engineers discussed with the residents the 85th

percentile rule. That rule basically states that 85 percent of the people are going the

correct speed, and only 15 percent are exceeding it. Whatever 85 percent are going

should be the correct speed limit. She indicated that if the residents wanted to do a

study, the speed limit could go up if 85 percent of the people drove that speed. The

only problem with that argument, in looking at the 85th percentile ruling, is that it

assumes a flat, straight road with no obstructions. The Village did not have that as

there is a very steep hill in the Village, and there were obstructions, such as the

intersection with the limited site visibility, the hidden driveways, cars pulling in and out,

and she did not think the 85th percentile rule applied.

Mrs. Luginski stated that in addition to that, when the new road is put in, they would

put in a new curve in the road, which would be another obstruction. Those were the

things the residents were trying to discuss with Oakland County, with help from

Rochester Hills.

Dr. Stamps stated the Commission was a very understanding and sympathetic

audience. He guessed the residents would have strong support from the Commission

to lower the speed limit, and he thought they would be willing to send a letter to that

effect to the residents' group. He thought they would like to know when the review

would be, and perhaps some of the Commissioners could also go with them to the

County indicating they agreed with the residents about the concern about the

vibrations and the foundations. He commented that places like Mesa Verde National

Park limited the number of tourists who can walk there because of the vibrations.

That was just walking vibrations. He thought with 18-wheel large trucks travelling the

area, they would have grounds to say vibrations were damaging. He noted the

Commission needed to find a way to help.

Mrs. Luginski stated she was looking for formal support. Specifically, she was

looking for some engineering support, perhaps to look at the foundations. She would

like to document the current status. She pointed out that twelve of the eighteen

contributing buildings were on Tienken, which was very significant. She would like to

look at the foundations, observe the rattling windows, and go back in six months and

take another look to see what the degradation was. She was confident there would

be measurable evidence.

Mrs. Luginski asked if the Commission had a recommendation of someone the

residents could speak to, or whether the City could do that. She stated she had tried

to contact John Dziurman because of his historical background and his architectural

business but had not been successful in reaching him.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the residents had talked to the school system since there were

schools in the District. Mrs. Luginski stated the schools were the reason the residents

previously talked to the County each time, but were absolutely shut down. She stated

they not only had the Stoney Creek High School, but also the one-room schoolhouse,

which was operating. One positive thing that came up in the past nine months was that

the new Hart Middle School Assistant Principal, Rachel Guinn, lives in the Village.

Ms. Guinn had been asked by the residents to solicit comments and concerns from the

parents of the children attending the school. Their buses were also part of the

problem, and the residents were going to complain through the school administration

to the bus garage to slow down the buses. They had documented perilous situations

where children were walking down the road, trying to cross over the bridge, and

traffic would not slow down for them, and noted she had seen the fear in the children's

eyes when they are walking there.

Dr. Stamps asked if Bret Rasegan had attended the meetings. Mrs. Luginski stated he

had attended the meeting held this evening.

Dr. Stamps thought if there was something the County could do, Mr. Rasegan might

be aware of what could happen, and could be a good resource. Mrs. Luginski stated

Mr. Rasegan was concerned about a conflict of interest as being a resident. She

thought there might be the appearance of some financial benefit to Mr. Rasegan in

improving the Village, and he wanted to be careful to avoid that conflict. She stated

Ron Campell, a preservation architect who works for Mr. Rasegan, made it clear they

saw the issues, completely agreed with it, and was supposed to be responsible for

developing the master plan. She stated the residents had been told they had to get a

letter from the Mayor stating he wanted to solicit Oakland County's resources. She

explained the residents could not ask for the help, the City had to do that. She stated

Mayor Barnett was happy to do that when she met with him, and agreed to send out

the letter.

Dr. Stamps stated it was too bad the Commission had not requested the Mayor to

write the letter. He thought it would be appropriate for the Commission to make that

request. Chairperson Hill stated the Commission was not aware of the situation, and

that was one of the reasons she had asked Mrs. Luginski to attend this meeting. The

Commission had not had a dialog with the Village residents about what was going on,

their concerns and what they were proposing to try to do about it. She wanted to

create that loop so the Commission would not be unaware of the issues and unable to

assist.

Dr. Stamps asked if the Mayor had already sent the letter, or whether it could be

revamped such that after the Commission met and become aware of the problem, the

Commission felt it was appropriate for the City to take some action. Chairperson Hill

added to include a request for assistance from the County if possible.

Dr. Stamps wondered if the Commission could ask the City to do the engineering

examination of the City properties, i.e., the little Red House, and the Van Hoosen farm

building. He noted that was a stone building and if there were vibrations, it could

cause damage. Ms. Luginski pointed out there were also stonewalls along the farm

property. Dr. Stamps stated the Commission would make the request to the Mayor

as they had just become aware of the problem, and ask as part of their stewardship as

being responsible for the Historic District, if there were City recourses that could help

the Commission examine and see what is going on, and then also request the County

resources.

Chairperson Hill agreed the City should create a baseline for the City's resources to

provide a benchmark. Mrs. Luginski agreed they would not know unless that was

done.

Mrs. Luginski stated the reason she brought up the matter with Mr. Rasegan was

because she was concerned. She stated the residents felt it was a victory that the

Mayor would send the letter and his support of their issue. But, Mr. Rasegan let her

know that Ron Campbell was busy and he had 61 other municipalities to cover, they

were losing staff and there were budget issues, and he could not tell her if Ron

Campbell would be available after Mr. Campbell had committed to do the work on

the master plan. She was confused and concerned about the response. She wanted

to make the Commission aware of that situation, and requested any help the

Commission could provide in securing that support. She stated it was critical to

develop the master plan because then they could do grant writing, budget work, and

all the other work that needed to be done. She pointed out a master plan cost money,

and they had hoped to have five or ten years to gather the money, which was not the

case. If they did not have a master plan, she did not know what they would use to do

that work.

Mr. Miller stated that brick masonry chimneys would show problems pretty quickly

because they were up above the ground, were long, and were not supported as well

as the house foundations. He stated a lot of cracks could be an obvious sign,

especially if homeowners knew the cracks were new. He explained cracks did occur

on their own given time, gravity and weather.

Mr. Miller stated that the Museum and the Historic Village were important to the

County because their Economic and Planning Department recently put out a vacation

destination brochure that also included Oakland County and northern Macomb

County, and those places were identified on the map. They were also looking at the

watershed areas and their importance to the whole County and the adjoining areas.

He suggested that was another area to explore.

Mr. Miller noted Mrs. Luginski had made a statement about looking for the money to

do what everyone knows should be done, and asked if the residents had a proposed

solution to the problem. Mrs. Luginski stated she was new to this, and that was why

they wanted a preservation architect involved, and the Commission involved. She said

there was a long list of people that they would like to be on the Mayor's Advisory

Board for this project. She did not have all the answers; however, the residents

believed the power poles should be buried in the Village; they believed there should

be some sort of aggregate on the road to provide a physical change when they drive in

that can be felt and that was a calming device; they believed they should consider

things like period lighting if that was considered appropriate, and they would like to

replace the fencing that was originally there. Those were the things the neighbors had

talked about, but had not been in a formal environment to discuss with anyone else.

Mr. Miller clarified that when the residents were talking about a master plan, it was

more than just traffic control, but included the overall preservation and improvement of

the Village. Mrs. Luginski pointed out that no improvements would matter if no one

could come to the Village to enjoy it.

Mr. Miller thought that the traffic situation, especially the large trucks, would be a

priority. Mrs. Luginski agreed. He stated his daughter was in third grade last year

and went to the schoolhouse, and he was concerned because the traffic on Tienken

did move quickly. He was not sure what could be done about the waste hauler but

thought it could be looked into.

Mrs. Luginski stated that when she met with the Mayor, he knew that Allied was one

of the trucking companies that was causing some of the problem in the area. She

stated Allied had more trucks than Faurecia and were through the area more often and

caused more vibrations. The Mayor indicated he intended to talk to Allied about their

routes. She pointed out that with the proximity to Macomb County, they could not

assume that that was Rochester Hills hauling going on. She thought the safest but most

difficult solution was to request "local deliveries only" which was their goal, and to

offer the route made for trucking, which was Parkdale and the Letica bypass. She

had sympathy for Rochester and that intersection, but trucks could also take

Dequindre to M-59, and did not have to go through Rochester. She noted there were

alternate routes, and stated the Rochester Hills Engineers had discussed that.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if there had been any discussion with respect to enforcement of

the trucks because the fines for violations on the trucks were enormous, such as

weight enforcement. Mrs. Luginski stated she had never seen the Sheriff's

Department pulling over cars in that area, let alone trucks. She indicated the

proposed new bridge was intended to increase the tonnage.

Mrs. Luginski stated that when the residents found out that Oakland County wanted

to pave Washington Road, it was easy to see that a natural pathway from Van Dyke,

down 26 Mile Road, down Washington Road and then dumping into the Village

would occur, with Livernois being five lanes. She stated the residents had heard from

other elected officials that the feeling about Tienken Road was that it should be the

next M-59, and "the historic district be damned". That was the sentiment the residents

had been told existed when the planning for Tienken was done.

Mrs. Luginski stated the residents were concerned the bridge that was going in would

be extra wide, with the ability of 72 tons, not the current 42 tons, and that Washington

Road would be the new funnel for traffic going through the Village. She questioned

what would happen to the historic structures. She believed that the truck traffic would

increase substantially.

Chairperson Hill believed the bridge was slated for around 2010 or 2011. Because

there were Federal dollars associated with it, a Section 106 review would be

required, which included an environmental impact study. She hoped the Commission

would be kept in the loop regarding the plans since it was in the heart of the District.

She noted she had not personally heard anything about the bridge other than what

Mrs. Luginski had told them. She was not aware of whether the City had seen plans

for the bridge. She commented the surface of the bridge was in horrible shape, and

needed to be resurfaced until they move forward with the plans for Tienken. She

noted that the resurfacing on Tienken north of Rochester Road had helped

tremendously. She stated there were actually holes in the deck of the bridge. She

thought the Commission should ask the City if they could do something about it or

communicate that to the Road Commission.

Dr. Stamps asked if the bridge was in the District. Chairperson Hill responded it was,

noting the District went to the portion of the condominiums across from the high

school.

Dr. Stamps suggested the Commission send a communication to the Mayor or even

the Engineering Department indicating the Commission had become aware of the fact

there is a proposal to widen the bridge, which is in the Historic District. The

Commission should ask to be kept informed or ask the Engineering Department to

attend the next Commission meeting to tell the Commission about the plans. Then the

City would know the Commission was aware, was interested, and wanted to be kept

in the loop on the review process. He thought an environmental impact study would

be required. He pointed out the County would have to talk to the City, and then the

County would know that the Commission was also in the loop.

Mrs. Luginski thought there might be something the Commission could help the

residents with. She believed 95% of the funds for the bridge are Federal, which

would invoke a Section 106 review. She stated that Pat McKay attended a meeting

held by the Oakland County Project Manager, and that was not discussed. Rather it

was a narrow discussion about the historic focus. She felt responsible to make sure

that someone who puts the project together knows about that. She stated that Ron

Campbell gave the residents some contact information for the Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT) who would be responsible for reviewing this project. She

thought that person might work with the National Register of Historic Places, and

stated she believed the person's name was Margaret Bessimer. Mr. Campbell told

them that Ms. Bessimer had an interest in bridges from a design perspective. She

asked if the Commission would be the appropriate party to contact Ms. Bessimer,

rather than the residents.

Chairperson Hill stated the residents could make the contact and copy the

Commission to help create the loop. She did not know what the status of the bridge

project was at this time. She commented that 18 months out was not very much time,

which suggested the project must be moving along at some level. She thought perhaps

the City's Engineering Department could provide some information about the project

to the Commission, such as the status and the time frame.

Mr. Delacourt stated he could ask the Engineering Department if a Section 106

review was planned for the project. Chairperson Hill agreed that was something the

Commission would like to know. Mr. Delacourt stated he could ask the City

Engineer if that was part of the scope of the project and where the project stood.

Chairperson Hill asked if the intent of the contact information at MDOT was provided

for some other reason. Mrs. Luginski stated it was just to make sure that the bridge

plans include a Section 106 review.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had not seen any plans for the bridge and did not know if

they had let the contract for the initial design or if the bids had even gone out for it. He

found it hard to believe that something that ran through the middle of a National

Register District would somehow slip out of a Section 106 review because that was

part of the normal process. He stated he would check on the status and provide an

update to the Commission.

Mr. Miller said he was proud of what the residents were doing as a neighborhood and

a community. He offered whatever support he could as a member of the Commission.

He stated that just because the plans were there, it did not mean they could not be

changed. He pointed out there were many instances where residents stood up and

changed what was going to happen.

Mrs. Luginski agreed, stating she thought the main role of the residents was to educate

the Community. She did not want Oakland County to dictate what happened to their

asset. She said that Rochester Hills did have some pull with Oakland County as the

County was there to support Rochester Hills. If both Rochester Hills and Oakland

County, or one or the other, decided that they did not value the Historic asset that

would have to be said in public. The residents wanted to raise awareness.

Mrs. Luginski stated they were working with other neighborhoods and had

representatives from other neighborhoods attending their meetings. She explained

they were training lead resident neighborhood organizers, and had a Washington Road

contingency; a Stony Creek Ridge contingency, and were working with the historical

society, and this was an important meeting with the Commission to make everyone

aware. She stated that the residents in the communities around them were also as

upset as the Village residents were because they saw what was happening to the

District.

Mrs. Luginski stated the historic homes tour held a couple months ago was attended

by over 200 people, who came in the driving rain. She thought that was pretty

impressive, and noted there was not one person who came through that did not have

very strong feelings about what they had just experienced. She stated the Village

residents knew how they themselves felt, but they had not realized that others felt the

same way.

2008-0678

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission had been reviewing the Historic Districts at

this meeting. She agreed there was an increase in the traffic through the Village. She

commented she usually intentionally slowed down driving through, much to the

consternation of the vehicles behind her. She pointed out that walking through the

District had also changed considerably. She participated in the homes tour and there

was an entirely different feeling walking along the side of Tienken Road, compared to

what it was even two years ago. She shared the residents' concerns, as did the entire

Commission. The Commission wanted to be sure the District retained its integrity,

because it could disappear.

Mrs. Luginski envisioned the Village becoming a destination in ten years. She

commented that the southeast corner contained homes built in the 1970s that she

thought people would want to tear down to build historic reproductions because they

wanted to live in the Village. She felt it was a destination place with charm, character

and homes that were maintained and filled with antiques. She thought that if a little

care was taken now, an even better asset would be created for Rochester Hills.

Dr. Stamps stated that earlier in the evening the Commission had talked about

potential workshops and suggested the ideas presented by the Village residents could

be such a session. Perhaps reviewing the master plan or discussing the master plan

the residents were preparing. He thought the Commission could hold a work session

on the status of the Village that would be well attended. The City Engineer and the

Mayor could be invited, which would provide some education and also lend some

support.

Chairperson Hill thought the two contiguous Districts could be done together because

they had some bearing on each other, particularly with the road plan which would run

the length of both. She agreed that might be another potential idea.

Chairperson Hill asked if the Commissioners had any other questions for Mrs.

Luginski. Upon hearing none, she thanked Mrs. Luginski for attending the meeting.

She noted the Commission would welcome any property owner who wanted to attend

a meeting to discuss their thoughts and concerns, of if there was a need for help.

Mrs. Luginski stated that the Village residents were not happy and needed the

Commission's help. She thanked the Commission for listening to and discussing their

concerns.

This matter was Discussed

2008-0570

Stoney Creek Historic District and the

Winkler Mill Pond Historic District:

Chairperson Hill stated that the concerns just discussed with Mrs. Luginski were also

a concern to the Commission, although it was not easy to address. She thought the

condition of most of the homes in the Districts were good, although Mrs. Luginski had

brought up the condition of the former Prewitt House. She asked if the purchaser

who bought the house with the intention of fixing it and flipping it, still owned the

property.

Mr. Delacourt believed the same people still owned the property, but they had not

come back in to talk to the City.

Chairperson Hill stated that the exterior of the house was deteriorating again. She

noted there were two different for sale signs up, one for the adjacent vacant parcel

and one for the house. She presumed that the Building Department had not been able

to conduct the inspections behind the drywall. Mr. Delacourt stated he did not think

the drywall was ever removed to allow the inspections.

Chairperson Hill stated that sometimes she had seen the windows open and other

times they were closed. Mr. Delacourt stated he could check with the Building

Department to see if there had been any activity on the permits. He had not heard

anything new about the property.

Chairperson Hill stated the condition of that house did not help the other houses in the

area that were up for sale.

Chairperson Hill stated there was a white barn that sat on the alleyway with the house

on Van Hoosen across from the Museum that had been painted. She noticed when

she was on the homes tour that it appeared some interior work had been done on the

barn but they had also cut in and installed a door on the barn. Mr. Delacourt asked if

Chairperson Hill could provide an address so a letter could be sent. He stated he

tried to keep the Ordinance Enforcement Officers aware of what required approval,

but it was also hard for them to keep track of. He suggested if any of the

Commissioners saw something like that, to let him know. He would like to send a

letter advising the homeowner that although the paint looked great and appeared to be

the same color, it should have come to the Commission for approval. The

homeowner could be directed to the property owners guide on the City’s website.

He agreed a door that altered the exterior should have come before the Commission.

Chairperson Hill stated that the door could eventually be removed and the boards put

back up, but it should have come for review.

Chairperson Hill referred to the home on Runyon that had come before the

Commission and commented the porch was done and looked fabulous. She believed

that house also had an outhouse at one point, and stated she did not see the outhouse

while on the homes tour. Mr. Miller asked if the outhouse listed in the survey on the

property. Chairperson Hill stated it was one of only two in the District, although she

did not know if the other one was still there.

Mr. Delacourt stated the outhouse was surveyed. Chairperson Hill stated it was gone.

Mr. Delacourt stated it was listed as non-contributing, but that did not mean it did not

need permission to be removed. Chairperson Hill stated that the Certificate of

Appropriateness issued in 2004 was for renovation of the front porch, exterior

painting and installation of a new roof.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not know if the garage had been redone, because the

garage had also been fixed up and looked very nice, but the outhouse was gone. She

noted the property owners had come back to the Commission earlier this year to

discuss changing the front porch, and the porch had been finished and look very nice.

Chairperson Hill stated that the new siding and the window replacement had been

completed at 1058 E. Tienken Road. That particular house was built right next to the

school as infill construction, and the hardy plank siding had been installed.

Dr. Stamps asked if the Commission could recap what they were going to do with

respect to the Village issues discussed with Mrs. Luginski. He asked if the

Commission was going to write a letter to the Mayor with the various ideas suggested.

Chairperson Hill stated the letter would express the Commission's concern about the

traffic issues that seemed to have increased in the District and the potential damage of

the resources.

Dr. Stamps added that the City's properties should be looked at to see what is

happening to the other structures in the District that the Commission has stewardship

over.

Chairperson Hill suggested that the letter could include whether any assistance could

be provided by having the County address the situation or having the County address

a temporary cleanup or paving of the bridge surface until a new bridge is installed.

She thought there were a number of issues the Commission was concerned about,

including the traffic increase; the present state of the bridge that was not helping the

situation; whether a baseline inspection could be done of the City's resources within

the District, and any other assistance the City might be able to provide in looking at

the overall District.

Chairperson Hill thought if the Village residents had talked to the Mayor regarding the

issues, the Commission could express their agreement that the City needed to look

into the issues and would appreciate any assistance the City could provide.

Dr. Stamps thought a short letter to the Village residents from the Chairperson of the

Commission stating the Commission appreciated their appearance at the meeting; that

they had provided excellent information; the Commission appreciated all the residents

were doing; the Commission supported their activities, and requesting to be kept in the

loop. He thought those residents should be encouraged to keep on doing what they

had been doing. Chairperson Hill agreed the Commission should try to help where

they could, and to keep the relationship and communication going.

Mr. Miller suggested the Village residents be encouraged to have a representative

attend the Commission meetings to provide regular updates since the issues were so

important.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not know if the residents were forming some type of

board or whether one of the Commissioners would be allowed to be a part of that or

not. She did not know if there would be any conflict, but noted it would be nice to be

included in the loop in some respect.

Dr. Stamps suggested the letter could say that the Commission welcomed updates and

information, and if someone from the residents organizing group would like to attend

the Commission meetings and provide an update, the Commission would be happy to

put them on the Agenda. Chairperson Hill agreed that even a five-minute update

would be helpful.

Chairperson Hill stated she also shared the concern with the Winkler Mill Pond

District of the Washington Road paving project. She hoped an update could be

provided on that project.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would ask about all infrastructure projects affecting or that

may have an impact on any of the Districts, both non-contiguous and contiguous. He

stated he would talk to the City Engineer about what was on the books; what was

upcoming, and what information was available.

Chairperson Hill stated that the Winkler Mill Pond District was next, and noted there

were more newer homes than designated structures in that District. She commented

that at some time the District might be reduced in size eliminating the newer homes.

Dr. Stamps asked if it was appropriate to request the same information from the

County. He noted the assumption was that the City was "hand in glove" with the

County, but if the same request went to the County, the County would know that the

Commission was aware and was working with the City, but would also like to work

with the County. He asked if all MDOT programs went through the County, or

whether the Commission should make a request of all three agencies.

Mr. Delacourt stated if it was an infrastructure project in the City, whether it was a

County, City, State or Federal project, the City was aware of it. He did not know

what type of response the Commission would get if the request went directly to each

agency. He stated the Commission would have to send the County information about

the Historic Districts so the County could look at that in relation to infrastructure

projects. He commented it would be easier for Staff to work with the City's

Engineering Department, but that did not preclude the Commission from making the

request.

Chairperson Hill stated her first inclination would be to see what the Commission

heard from the City. She noted that Pat McKay had been included in some type of

meeting with the County. It would have been nice if Mr. Delacourt or someone from

the Commission had also been included in that meeting to hear what they were

planning to do in the District. She stated she had not had any conversations with Mr.

McKay about the meeting, and was only aware because Mrs. Luginski had mentioned

the meeting and indicated it was with the County.

Mr. Delacourt stated he did not know these issues were going on until just recently.

He noted that while Dr. Busch was in town doing some fieldwork on the potential

districts, she had mentioned it to him. He indicated he had met meet Mrs. Luginski

earlier in the day because she was at City Hall with Pat McKay meeting with the

Mayor. He was not aware there had been any meetings about the road projects or

that the residents group had been formed. He would find out everything he could and

would pass along any formal request the Commission had. He indicated he would find

out what meetings had taken place; where the projects were in the pipeline; whether

Section 106 reviews were going to be conducted; and if not, why, and anything the

City or the Commission could do to assist in these matters. He stated he would

provide a brief update prior to the next meeting, and work with the Chair regarding

any formal agenda items for the next meeting.

Dr. Stamps asked if in the context of the fact the Historic District was maturing and it

was becoming appropriate to develop a master plan, whether the City, County and

MDOT could be asked if they had any plans that the Commission should be aware of

as the master plan is developed. The context could be to indicate that a master plan is

being developed and ask if those agencies had anything to contribute.

Mr. Miller knew the City had been working on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, and

asked if that had been finalized. He noted there had been a lot of talk about Tienken

and the bridge between Rochester Road and Livernois Road. He felt Mrs. Luginski

was right that if Washington Road was paved, it would be used a major traffic

corridor.

Chairperson Hill stated when the road opened up between Dutton and M-24, there

was a big difference, as well as Tienken to Squirrel when the barricade was removed.

She stated the connection to M-24 definitely allowed cross-traffic through the Village.

She thought the Planning Commission had just approved or accepted the Master

Thoroughfare Plan at their last meeting. She commented it was stressed to go back to

the original concept of ring road on Dequindre, but it could take some time for that to

be done.

Chairperson Hill asked if there were any other comments or questions regarding either

the Stoney Creek or Winkler Mill Districts.

Chairperson Hill recapped that a couple letters would be prepared regarding the

situation in the Stoney Creek District; with one letter to the residents to help establish

that connection, and perhaps a work session would be scheduled regarding some of

those issues in the District. Also, an eye would be kept on some of the properties that

had the potential for vandalism and on some other properties that might require further

mothballing.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Hill called for any other business.

Chairperson Hill commented that Dr. Jane Busch was in the area recently working on

studies on the National Twist Drill and 2040 S. Livernois. She asked if the National

Twist Drill property would be looked at as a potential brownfield.

Mr. Delacourt stated the property qualified as a brownfield. Chairperson Hill asked if

that would be included as part of the scenario, noting she had heard that possibly

someone wanted to demolish the building.

Mr. Delacourt explained that as part of a brownfield redevelopment project, a request

is made by an owner of the property or someone who wanted to redevelop the

property. He was sure it qualified as a brownfield, which would make tax increment

financing (TIF) available if the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority and City Council

wanted to approve TIF reimbursement. He clarified whether or not the property

would be looked at as a brownfield would depend on whether the current owner or

any future owner made that request.

Chairperson Hill asked if the study was being conducted because there was the

potential for demolition. Mr. Delacourt stated the property had been half for sale and

half not for sale for as long as he had worked for the City, as had the rumors about

demolition. He commented he used to receive numerous telephone inquiries about the

site, but had not received as many recently. He stated that portions of the site, from a

use standpoint, were functionally obsolete. The property had been looked at for many

different types of development over the years, but no plans had been officially

submitted. Many times the plans were dropped because they did not conform with

either the zoning or the master plan; some were fearful of the potential historic

designation, and some were fearful of the potential for environmental contamination.

He noted some developers had picked up the site on options; started due diligence,

but never completed their plans.

(Depart Member Cozzolino: 9:52 PM)

Chairperson Hill asked if there were multiple owners of the National Twist Drill site.

Mr. Delacourt responded there were two owners and explained there was a

seven-acre, long, narrow parcel on the corner and thirty-three acres to the north,

which included a portion of the building with the rest of the parcel being vacant.

Chairperson Hill commented it was a gorgeous art deco building, and stated she had

heard that the interior had a lot of art deco remaining from its time period. She

thought it had potential for some alternative living, such as was occurring in the City of

Detroit, despite the bad economy.

Mr. Delacourt stated he expected Preliminary Reports on both properties to be

received shortly, which would be reviewed by the Historic Districts Study Committee,

followed by Public Hearings.

Chairperson Hill asked when the Historic Preservation Ordinance Amendments would

go before City Council. Mr. Delacourt stated the Amendments were being scheduled

for the December 8, 2008 City Council meeting. He explained a presenter from the

Michigan Historic Preservation Network (MHPN) would be at the meeting to discuss

the Certified Local Government Program. He stated that representatives from the

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were unable to attend the meeting, but

recommended someone from the MPHN.

Mr. Delacourt stated there were two Ordinance Amendments going forward, one that

related to the CLG and one that formally delisted the 56187 Dequindre property.

Chairperson Hill suggested the Commissioners be notified of the meeting date, and

encouraged the Commissioners to attend the Council meeting. Particularly since it

was the Commission's Ordinance, and was something they wanted. If the

Commission did not attend, it would give the appearance the Commission did not care

very much about the Amendments.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not anticipate the Commission would hold a meeting in

December unless a request for approval came forward. She noted the next

Commission meeting would most likely be the January 2009 meeting.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would provide some interim email information if any updates

are received on any of the properties discussed at this meeting.

Chairperson Hill called for any other business. She thought this meeting had been

beneficial to the Commissioners to keep everyone apprised of what was happening

with the Districts.

(Enter Member Cozzolino: 9:56 PM)

Chairperson Hill commented that the Districts were a great asset for the Community

and she thought residents liked to have that diversity. From a cultural tourism aspect,

she felt this region had much to offer.

Chairperson Hill called for any other business. No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Hill adjourned the meeting at

10:05 PM.

_____________________________

Melinda Hill, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

______________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

(Approved as amended at the January 8, 2009 Regular Historic Districts Commission Meeting.)