Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Study Committee

Chairperson Jason Thompson, Vice Chairperson Dr. Richard Stamps

Members: John Dziurman, James Hannick, Peggy Schodowski, LaVere Webster, Murray

Woolf

5:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, December 10, 2009

MINUTES of a ROCHESTER HILLS REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICTS STUDY

COMMITTEE meeting held at the City Municipal Offices, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Thompson called the meeting to order at 5:40 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Jason Thompson, LaVere Webster, Peggy Schodowski and James Hannick

Present

4 -

Richard Stamps, John Dziurman and Murray Woolf

Absent

3 -

Others Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning Department

Kristine Kidorf, Kidorf Preservation Consulting

Judy Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Thompson stated that Dr. Stamps had left prior notice he could not

attend this meeting and was excused.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Thompson stated for the record that a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

4A.

2009-0498

September 10, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Thompson asked for any comments or corrections regarding the

September 10, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing no comments or

corrections, he called for a motion to approve.

A motion was made by Hannick, seconded by Webster, that the Minutes be

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

Aye

Thompson, Webster, Schodowski and Hannick

4 -

Absent

Stamps, Dziurman and Woolf

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the September 10, 2009 Regular Historic

Districts Study Committee be approved as presented.

4B.

2009-0545

November 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Thompson asked for any comments or corrections regarding the

November 12, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing no comments or

corrections, he called for a motion to approve.

A motion was made by Hannick, seconded by Webster, that the Minutes be

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

Aye

Thompson, Webster, Schodowski and Hannick

4 -

Absent

Stamps, Dziurman and Woolf

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the November 12, 2009 Regular Historic

Districts Study Committee Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Chairperson Thompson asked if there were any announcements or communications.

No announcements or communications were provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

6.

Chairperson Thompson called for any public comments. No public comments were

received.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.

Chairperson Thompson suggested the Committee move Agenda Item 7D (1585 S.

Rochester Road) ahead on the Agenda, due to the fact the City's Preservation

Consultant was in attendance and had to leave at 6:30 PM. The Committee agreed to

consider Agenda Item 7D.

7D.

2009-0411

1585 S. Rochester Road (HDC File #03-003)

- Review Preliminary Report

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had received a copy of the draft

Preliminary Report prepared by the Consultant, along with copies of the applicant

information that was provided to the Committee last month.

Mr. Delacourt provided a brief summary, noting that the applicant made a request to

City Council to delist the property. City Council forwarded the matter to the Study

Committee per the process outlined in the Historical Preservation Ordinance. Ms.

Kidorf had prepared the draft Preliminary Report. He reminded the Committee they

would decide what the recommendation to City Council would be. Ms. Kidorf had

conducted her review and provided her objective opinion.

Ms. Kidorf stated this was not an easy task, noting there was not a lot of historic

information available. She visited the site with an architect and Mr. Delacourt and

looked carefully at the exterior of the building and the details of the property. She did

as much research as possible at the Burton Historical Collection in Detroit, Michigan;

at the Rochester Hills Library; at the Van Hoosen Farm, and at the Oakland County

Register of Deeds, which did reveal some names that helped with additional research

at the Burton collection.

Ms. Kidorf stated if the entire Fairview Farm was still intact and the house still in its

original "Queen Anne" form, she thought there were be no question about the site.

The biggest or most troubling matter was that she could not determine when the house

was altered to its current Colonial Revival state and the entrance changed. Based on

the architectural details and the way the building is assembled, which may have been

over fifty (50) years ago, she did not think it was an outstanding example of

Neoclassical architecture in Rochester Hills, especially with the aluminum and the

changes to the details.

Chairperson Thompson thanked Ms. Kidorf for the well-written, detailed draft report.

He stated he did not realize until how "mish-matched" the property was. In his

opinion, it did not meet the criteria to remain designated. He called for comments

from the Committee.

Ms. Schodowski clarified this property had been failing and needed to be updated.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City's Historic District Commission (HDC) had issued

demolition by neglect notices and although some preliminary restoration was done on

the exterior, the interior was in very bad condition, although that was not something

the Study Committee evaluated. Ms. Schodowski stated she had driven by the home

many times, and thought it would be great if the home was in its original form.

Ms. Kidorf agreed that in driving past the home on Rochester Road, it did look like a

historic home and it looked like the details were just covered in aluminum siding. It

was not until she got closer and looked at the house and some of the oddities of it, that

she realized it was not what it appeared to be.

Ms. Schodowski commented it would be extremely difficult to restore the home to the

form it was originally. Ms. Kidorf did not think it could be taken back to original

look. She commented that if the farm buildings were still intact it would have more

integrity, even with the house in its current form. The loss of the farm buildings

reduced the significance.

Chairperson Thompson pointed out that when the property was originally designated

in 1978, the standards were not as comprehensive as they were now. He asked if

that was going to cause problems in the future, noting the applicant had listed

"defective procedure" as a reason for the delisting request. Although the standards

were different in 1978, they were followed. He asked if every designated property

could cite the same reason for delisting.

Ms. Kidorf stated that currently it only appeared to apply to a couple properties in the

City. She stated it was not a matter of defective procedure. Rather it was a case that

this building was not as historically significant as originally thought. She believed the

original Study Committee relied on a "windshield survey" and did not have the benefit

of the National Register Criteria. She stated she had talked to the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) about the National Register Criteria, and was advised

that just because a property was not eligible for the National Register, that was not a

sufficient reason to de-designate a property.

Mr. Delacourt stated it would have to be demonstrated that there were factual

mistakes in the information relied on for designation in 1978. For instance, if a house

was designated as having been built in the early 1900s, and it turned out to be built in

1975, perhaps the argument could be made that the process itself was defective or the

designation was based on non-factual information. He thought the City was pretty

thorough at the time of the original designations, and had always been over-cautious.

He did not know if the designations had been reviewed by the SHPO back then. Ms.

Kidorf did not think that would have been done.

Chairperson Thompson stated he had not realized until he read the draft report that

the initial 1978 survey included many more potential properties, and that the Township

Board withdrew some of them. He clarified this was not a matter of defective

procedure.

Mr. Delacourt advised the Committee that another similar request had been made,

identifying defective procedure. He explained that request had a different set of merits

and considerations and would be discussed by the Study Committee at the next

meeting.

Chairperson Thompson stated in reading the draft report, it appeared this may have

simply been a mistake. Ms. Kidorf stated when it was designated, the outbuildings

were there. Although the original designation did not cover the outbuildings, they

contributed to the original thought that the property was historic.

Mr. Delacourt asked if the Study Committee members had any issue with the

proposed recommendation contained in the draft preliminary report. He reminded the

Committee this was not a final report and additional information could be generated

before the final report is prepared.

Chairperson Thompson noted a Public Hearing would have to be held. Mr. Delacourt

agreed, and noted the report also had to be submitted to SHPO and the State Historic

Review Board for review and comment. He stated if the Committee accepted the

draft preliminary report, it would be transmitted to the State and a Public Hearing date

set.

Chairperson Thompson called for any questions or comments on the draft preliminary

report.

Mr. Hannick agreed that from a distance, the home looked historic. In reading the

report and reviewing the photographs that had been submitted, it appeared to be the

typical older home that homeowners added on to, or changed other details about the

structure.

Mr. Webster commented it was a very nice looking house from the street, but he had

not seen it up close. He agreed with the draft preliminary report.

Ms. Kidorf thought the house had been remodeled in the 1950s or perhaps the

1940s. She stated the Eddy family must have done the remodeling because they

owed the property from 1936 through the 1990s. She did not find any records about

the Eddy family.

Chairperson Thompson asked if the Committee was comfortable accepting the report.

Mr. Delacourt reminded the Committee that City Council had imposed a time frame

for a response, and if there were no questions about the report, Staff would transmit

the report and set a tentative Public Hearing date for February 11, 2010. He hoped

to have the State's review comments back at that time.

Ms. Schodowski asked if the property was de-designated, if the home would be

demolished. Mr. Delacourt thought that could be the intent. The property owner had

put together a huge packet of information, and this request appeared to be in response

to the demolition by neglect notice. He advised the Committee the house was part of

a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement, which would have to be dealt with

before City Council could take any action. If the property is delisted, that Agreement

would have to be amended, which the property owner was looking into.

Ms. Schodowski asked if the subject property was separate from the Bordine

property to the south. Mr. Delacourt stated it was. He noted that City Council could

weigh factors from both the development side and the preservation side in making

their determination, which was something the Study Committee could not do.

Chairperson Thompson summarized the report would be transmitted and the public

hearing scheduled.

This matter was Discussed

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee would return to Agenda Item 7A (Stiles

School).

7A.

2005-0537

Stiles School (3976 S. Livernois) (HDSC File #05-002)

- Review Revised Preliminary Report/Revised District Map

- Set Public Hearing Date

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had been provided with some maps

depicting a couple proposed boundaries for the district, along with a copy of the

original proposed boundary. He noted a draft Boundary Justification and Conclusion

had also been provided for changing the district to a smaller district.

Mr. Delacourt stated the district was originally proposed to include the entire building,

the entire corner parcel, and a portion of the northern parcel. When that was

presented as a recommendation to City Council for designation, both City Council and

the property owner identified some concern with the size of the district and the need to

designate non-contributing portions. City Council asked the Study Committee to

re-evaluate whether there was a possibility of lessening the size of the district while still

meeting the criteria for an acceptable designated district.

Mr. Delacourt stated that members of the Study Committee met with school officials

at the site, toured the building and did a little additional research. He stated he spoke

with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about manipulating the size of the

district. SHPO indicated that if the Committee felt the smaller district met the merits

on its own, SHPO was willing to consider a modified district. At the last meeting, the

Study Committee requested some smaller district options for additional discussion,

and revised language for the report representing the smaller district. He asked for

discussion from the Committee on which proposed district they preferred.

Chairperson Thompson stated he liked Option B. He referred to Option A and stated

he was not sure why the boundary would include the asphalt parking lot. He thought

Option B satisfied the prior discussion of including the original structure and extending

the district to the corner. He asked if the asphalt parking lot as included because it

was part of the original parcel boundary line.

Mr. Delacourt stated the original thought was to include some additional space in the

event additions to the building are made in the future, whether the additions were

connected to the original building or not. That option was also presented for

discussion.

Ms. Schodowski liked the reduced district as shown on Option B. She was

concerned that the additions that were still included represented different years of

construction. She was surprised the proposed district did not just include the 1929

building.

Mr. Delacourt stated the proposed district was drawn as discussed by the Committee

at the last meeting.

Ms. Schodowski stated she knew there was a little addition when they built the library

and there was another addition at another time when they connected the cafeteria,

representing multiple years of construction in that one portion of the building.

Mr. Delacourt thought the logic was that all that architecture contributed to the district

and the reason why the building met the criteria locally and perhaps the National

Register criteria. Without that, the integrity of the district was lessened.

Ms. Schodowski clarified the proposed district would not include the portion that was

the “youngest” classroom that was tacked on in the back. Mr. Delacourt stated the

proposed options were drawn based on the input provided by the Committee at the

last meeting.

Chairperson Thompson agreed the proposed options followed the discussion from the

last meeting.

Ms. Schodowski stated the Committee had walked through the building. She was

aware of the electrical problems encountered in some of the classrooms where the fire

had occurred, and other construction problems. She thought those issues would

cause problems for the property owner if those portions were designated.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that the designation would not affect the interior, or any

work to the electrical or plumbing systems. The designation would only impact the

outside façade. He did not think the portion where the fire occurred was included in

the proposed smaller district.

Ms. Kidorf recalled that the two small back portions were more integral to the historic

piece than the new additions to the north.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was a clear delineation of the appropriate additions over

time, and the non-contributing additions that were outside the proposed district. That

seemed to be the unanimous opinion at the last Study Committee meeting. Whether

the school would agree or City Council would agree, that seemed to be the clear

delineation point between the contributing and non-contributing.

Chairperson Thompson agreed there was a lengthy discussion at the last meeting, and

that was the conclusion arrived at. He was concerned about chopping buildings in

half, which could present problems in the future.

Ms. Schodowski stated she was looking at the proposed district and the ease with

which the school could expand, noting they had always been short of space. She

thought by not designating the portion of the building that had the fire, and reducing the

parking lot, that would provide some expansion room at the back of the building,

while still preserving the façade.

Ms. Kidorf suggested the Boundary Justification be reworded to eliminate the word

"view shed", because it was commonly accepted that property was not preserved just

to create a view. She suggested the wording be changed to state "will protect the

historic front yard" or "will include the historic front yard".

Mr. Webster commented that was where the original school building stood. He

explained there had been two schools in that location, with the first one being right on

the corner about 1852. Another school was built behind that building, that ended up

being moved down the road and became part of a house. Ms. Schodowski agreed,

noting it was where the subdivision was built. Mr. Webster stated there were a

couple potential houses that might include that former school building.

Mr. Delacourt clarified that proposed district Option B was acceptable to the

Committee. He pointed out that a Public Hearing had been held on this proposed

district, and the matter had gone before City Council. He suggested the revised report

and map be transmitted to SHPO for review and comment, and a second Public

Hearing held to follow the process because this was a significant change to the

recommendation. That would provide an opportunity for the school and others to

comment on the proposed district, and the Committee would know if the State agreed

with the proposed reduced district.

Chairperson Thompson stated he would be more comfortable if the report was

transmitted to SHPO and another Public Hearing held. He preferred the Committee

follow the procedure for this proposed change.

This matter was Discussed

7B.

2008-0663

National Twist Drill (HDSC File #08-002)

- Review Revised Preliminary Report/Revised District Map

Chairperson Thompson stated that a revised proposed district map had been

prepared for the National Twist Drill site, based on the discussion held at the last

meeting about perhaps saving what was most appropriate and representative of the

proposed district, rather than the entire parcel.

Mr. Delacourt stated the initial recommendation in the draft Preliminary Report

included the entire parcel and all the outbuildings. The Preliminary Report has not

been transmitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) nor has the Public

Hearing been held. The Study Committee began to re-evaluate how much the

manufacturing space contributed to the integrity or met the criteria for designation. A

revised map was prepared that only included the visible office portions of the

buildings.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Committee could review the revised map to determine if the

reduced proposed district still met the criteria for designation, or the Committee might

want to have the matter re-evaluated by the Preservation Consultant. It was thought a

reduced proposed district might gain the cooperation of the property owner and City

Council, if the reduced district still met the criteria for designation.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Committee could continue with the recommendation included

in the Preliminary Report; could revise the report to include the reduced proposed

district, or ask the Preservation Consultant to review and re-evaluate the matter.

Chairperson Thompson asked if Ms. Kidorf had seen this Preliminary Report. Ms.

Kidorf stated she had not written that report and had not had an opportunity to review

it. She asked why the proposed boundary did not end at the edge of the building.

Mr. Delacourt stated the façade of the middle building was an office building and had

the same architectural components as the other office buildings. He reminded the

Committee the revised proposed district map was only prepared to begin discussion

among the Committee members. The proposed district included the buildings or

portions of buildings the Committee felt contributed, plus enough area so the Historic

Districts Commission (HDC) would be able to evaluate any additions or anything that

might have an impact on those buildings, should some type of development come

forward in the future.

Ms. Kidorf referred to Mr. Delacourt's conversation with the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) about the Stiles School proposed district. She assumed

the conversation was essentially about the proposed district cutting the building in half.

In that situation, the Stiles School proposed district cutting off an addition made some

sense. In the National Twist Drill situation, she did not think the portions of the

buildings included in the proposed district were necessarily additions. She wondered

how SHPO viewed cutting off buildings.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had not sent specific maps to SHPO, but had asked whether

or not the boundaries could be changed, or whether or not the lines could run through

buildings, and it was SHPO's opinion that as long as the proposed district still met the

criteria and the Committee could justify the boundary, they would be fine with that.

Mr. Delacourt agreed the National Twist proposed district was different because it

proposed cutting off a portion of the original building. Ms. Kidorf asked what portion

represented the original building. Mr. Delacourt believed that was most of it. He

pointed out the portion in the southern parcel to the eastern half of the site to the

breezeway addition that had a different roof, but noted he believed most of the entire

building was built close to the same time. The Committee would have to decide how

they wanted to propose the district. He reminded the Committee the draft proposed

district had not been evaluated by either the State or the City Council.

Chairperson Thompson thought Ms. Kidorf should review the report and the

proposed boundary change. He pointed out there could be some problems in cutting

off portions of the buildings because the balance of the remaining building could not be

torn down with that section left standing. Essentially, the proposed district would

force the property owner to leave the entire building in tact. He noted that the Stiles

School report was being sent back to SHPO and the Committee would receive a

definitive written response and would know if SHPO had a problem with portions of

buildings as historic districts. The Committee could discuss this again once they

received some input from Ms. Kidorf and the SHPO.

Mr. Delacourt thought it was proactive of the Committee to evaluate various

proposed districts. They could then advise City Council what size districts had been

examined and that the Committee had evaluated all options.

Ms. Kidorf stated she would review the matter prior to the Committee's next meeting.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would appreciate Ms. Kidorf's input and evaluation. He

noted he had not discussed this proposed district with SHPO because the Committee

had not really discussed the options or selected their preferred proposed district.

Chairperson Thompson thought that would give the Committee sufficient information

to discuss the matter at the next meeting.

This matter was Discussed

(Depart Ms. Kidorf 6:35 PM)

7C.

2007-0313

2040 S. Livernois (HDSC File #98-012)

- Set Public Hearing Date

Chairperson Thompson stated this property is located on Livernois, south of Hamlin

Road.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Preliminary Report had been completed, and the Committee

did not appear to want to make any changes to the report. He asked if this report

should be transmitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and a Public

Hearing scheduled.

Chairperson Thompson stated he was comfortable with the report, and thought it

should be transmitted to the State and a Public Hearing scheduled.

Mr. Delacourt reminded the Committee that transmitting the report to the State or

scheduling the Public Hearing did not prevent the Committee from doing additional

research. If significant changes were made, the Committee would most likely want to

schedule another Public Hearing. Minor changes can be made after the Public

Hearing is held and a recommendation made to City Council.

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had had an opportunity to review the

report prior to this meeting.

Mr. Delacourt stated that at one time, it was contemplated through SHPO that this

house would be moved back on the site because of the boulevard construction on

Hamlin and the related intersection improvements along Livernois. However, the

intersection improvements were later changed to a round-about configuration, which

lessened the impacts and the house did not have to be moved.

Chairperson Thompson summarized the Preliminary Report would be transmitted to

SHPO and the Public Hearing would be scheduled.

This matter was Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2009-0546

Establish 2010 Meeting Schedule

Chairperson Thompson stated the Committee had received a copy of the proposed

2010 Meeting Schedule, noting the meetings were scheduled for the second Thursday

of the month at 5:30 PM. He asked if the Committee had any concerns with the

proposed schedule. Upon hearing none, he called for a motion to approve and

establish the 2010 meeting schedule.

A motion was made by Webster, seconded by Hannick, that this matter be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Thompson, Webster, Schodowski and Hannick

4 -

Absent

Stamps, Dziurman and Woolf

3 -

RESOLVED that the Rochester Hills Historic Districts Study Committee

establishes the 2010 Regular Meeting Schedule as follows:

The meetings will be held on the second Thursday of each month at the

Rochester Hills Municipal Offices, 1000 Rochester Hills Road, Rochester

Hills, Michigan, and will begin at 5:30 PM Michigan Time.

2010 MEETING DATES

January 14, 2010 July 8, 2010

February 11, 2010 August 12, 2010

March 11, 2010 September 9, 2010

April 8, 2010 October 14, 2010

May 13, 2010 November 11, 2010

June 10, 2010 December 9, 2010

2009-0546

Chairperson Thompson stated that the 2010 Meeting Schedule had been adopted. In

an effort to ensure a quorum is present for the meetings, he requested that the

Committee Members advise Staff if they have a conflict with any of the meeting dates.

Mr. Delacourt stated that would be especially important for the February meeting

because the Public Hearings were being scheduled that evening. Chairperson

Thompson advised the Committee that a special meeting could be scheduled if a

quorum could not be established; however, once the Public Hearing date was

published, the meeting date could not be changed.

8B.

2009-0547

2009 Annual Report

Chairperson Thompson stated that the Annual Report was something new for this

Committee. It was a summary of what the Committee had accomplished over the

past year and would be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

as part of the requirements since the City had received its Certified Local Government

(CLG) status. He suggested the Committee review the report and bring any

suggested changes or additions to the next meeting.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Thompson stated that the next regular meeting was scheduled for

Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM. Chairperson Thompson asked if there was

any other business. No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Thompson adjourned the

meeting at 6:45 PM.

__________________________________

Jason Thompson, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Study Committee

__________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

(Approved as presented at the January 14, 2010 Regular Historic Districts Study Committee Meeting)