Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Brian R‎. ‎Dunphy‎, ‎Vice Chairperson Jason Thompson‎

Members‎: ‎Steven Branstner‎, ‎Dr‎. ‎Jay Eastman‎, ‎Micheal Kilpatrick‎, ‎Dr‎. ‎Richard Stamps‎, ‎

Sue Thomasson‎, ‎Charles Tischer‎, ‎Nicholas Winters‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, February 9, 2012

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Brian Dunphy called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Steven Branstner‎, ‎Brian Dunphy‎, ‎Dr‎. ‎Jay Eastman‎, ‎Richard Stamps‎, ‎Jason ‎

Thompson‎, ‎Charles Tischer‎, ‎Sue Thomasson and Nicholas Winters‎

Present

8 -

Micheal Kilpatrick

Absent

1 -

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎James Breuckman‎, ‎Manager of Planning‎

Kristine Kidorf‎, ‎Kidorf Consulting‎

Maureen Gentry‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2012-0043

January ‎12‎, ‎2012 ‎Regular Meeting Minutes‎

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

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

Aye

Branstner‎, ‎Dunphy‎, ‎Eastman‎, ‎Stamps‎, ‎Thompson‎, ‎Tischer‎, ‎Thomasson ‎

and Winters‎

8 -

Absent

Kilpatrick

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

1‎.‎ Parliamentary Procedure Workshop‎, ‎March ‎5‎, ‎2012‎

2‎.‎ Memo from James Breuckman‎, ‎dated February ‎1‎, ‎2012‎ re‎: ‎1841‎ ‎

Crooks Rd‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy referred to the above memo‎, ‎and outlined that it was ‎

a timeline on what had happened with the property at ‎1841 ‎Crooks Rd‎, ‎

also known as O’Neill Pottery or the Dunn House‎. ‎There were a series of ‎

events since June ‎2006‎, ‎and the last contact with the owner was in April ‎

2011‎, ‎when he indicated that he did intend to proceed‎, ‎but was having ‎

some difficulty doing so‎. ‎City Council had not authorized the City ‎

Attorney to proceed to court or for Staff to do anything to remedy the ‎

issues present on site‎. ‎The Building Department had taken no action‎, ‎

and the City was currently in a holding pattern until directed‎. ‎He assumed ‎

that action needed to come from some place other than the HDC‎, ‎and he ‎

asked Mr‎. ‎Breuckman to give an idea of where things were‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman stated that ultimately‎, ‎it would be up to Council to provide ‎

direction to either the City Attorney or the Building Department to take ‎

action‎. ‎He thought it would be appropriate for the HDC to provide ‎

guidance or a request to Council‎, ‎and Staff would pass that along‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy wondered if it would be helpful for the HDC to put ‎

forth some kind of Resolution‎, ‎asking Council to proceed and take action ‎

on the property owner‎. ‎He questioned whether it should be done under ‎

Any Other Business‎, ‎and asked if anyone was interested in putting forth a ‎

motion‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps proposed that they waited until spring so that hopefully‎, ‎the ‎

owner’s business would turn around‎, ‎and he would have resources to ‎

move on that‎. ‎He thought they should wait only a month or two‎, ‎and then ‎

they could revisit the issue‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy said that sounded fair‎, ‎

and he asked if anyone had any other comments‎. ‎Hearing none‎, ‎he ‎

thanked Mr‎. ‎Breuckman‎, ‎and said they would give the property owner a bit ‎

more time to see what happened‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any further announcements or ‎

communications‎, ‎and no other communications were brought forward‎.‎

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairperson Dunphy announced that he had not received any requests to ‎

speak about non‎-‎agenda items‎. ‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2012-0017

1855‎/‎1899 ‎Washington Road ‎(‎HDC File ‎#‎12‎-‎001‎)‎

Applicant‎: ‎CP Ventures LP‎/‎Christopher Cousino‎

Sidwell‎: ‎15‎-‎01‎-‎227‎-‎015‎, ‎034 ‎& ‎035‎

District‎: ‎Winkler Mill Pond‎

Request‎: ‎Certificate of Appropriateness‎

- ‎New Construction‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report dated February ‎2‎, ‎2012‎, ‎prepared by Kristine ‎

Kidorf of Kidorf Consulting and associated plans were placed on file and ‎

by reference became part of the record thereof‎).‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked if the Chair still read the paragraph about the HDC ‎

being in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy agreed that they used to do that‎, ‎but he commented ‎

that he had not seen it on the Agenda‎, ‎and he did not know the wording ‎

offhand‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked if the HDC was still under those guidelines‎, ‎

which Chairperson Dunphy confirmed‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf read through the Staff Report for ‎1855 ‎and ‎1899 ‎Washington ‎

Road‎, ‎which was in the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District‎. ‎The site was ‎

located on the west side of Washington Road‎, ‎near the north end of the ‎

Winkler Mill Pond‎. ‎The owner had combined three parcels that were ‎

presently vacant‎. ‎The HDC approved demolition of a non‎-‎contributing ‎

house at ‎1899 ‎Washington in ‎2005‎. ‎The City issued a demolition permit ‎

without HDC review or approval for the house at ‎1855 ‎Washington in ‎

2005‎. ‎The ‎2002 ‎survey sheet for ‎1955 ‎Washington listed the house as ‎

being constructed in ‎1945‎, ‎with more information needed to determine ‎

whether the property was contributing at that time‎. ‎There was also a ‎

request about ‎1965 ‎Washington and the changes there‎. ‎Demolition of ‎

that non‎-‎contributing house and new construction was approved by the ‎

HDC in ‎2003‎, ‎and she passed out copies of the Minutes from that ‎

meeting‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf continued that the district in the subject area contained mostly ‎

non‎-‎contributing properties‎, ‎except for those directly across the Mill Pond‎. ‎

The applicant was proposing to construct a sprawling‎, ‎11‎,‎385 ‎square‎-‎foot ‎

house with an attached ‎2‎,‎900 ‎square‎-‎foot garage‎. ‎She gave a little ‎

history of the district‎: ‎The district was developed around the Winkler Mill‎, ‎

which was a grist mill that burned in ‎1985‎, ‎and a wool carding mill owned ‎

by Levi Cole‎, ‎who also owned a majority of the property in the ‎19‎th ‎

century‎. ‎In the ‎1920‎’s‎, ‎the first suburban and summer homes appeared ‎

in the area‎. ‎Most of the residential development around the Mill Pond ‎

took place after World War II‎, ‎particularly beginning in the ‎1970‎’s‎. ‎The ‎

district had ‎16 ‎contributing resources and ‎43 ‎non‎-‎contributing resources‎. ‎

The most significant properties in the district included the Greek ‎

Revival‎-‎style Levi Cole house‎, ‎the house at ‎1740 ‎Washington‎, ‎the ‎

Colonial Revival‎-‎style Von Isser House built in ‎1918‎, ‎the Mill House built ‎

on Winkler Mill Rd‎.‎, ‎and the Mill Pond and Mill Dams‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf advised that the house had a footprint that spanned across the ‎

width of the property‎, ‎from the edge of the ‎15‎-‎foot setback on the north to ‎

within ‎60 ‎feet of the south property line‎. ‎A driveway on the north edge of ‎

the property will run from the street to motor and service courts in front of ‎

the house to access four sets of garage doors‎. ‎A stone wall is proposed ‎

in front of the motor and service courts‎, ‎which will turn into a ‎14‎-‎foot high ‎

retaining wall that would be a large scale‎, ‎planted outcropping‎. ‎She noted ‎

that a gravel driveway was proposed for the south edge of the property to ‎

access a gravel service court and a four‎-‎car‎, ‎lower garage at the rear of ‎

the house‎. ‎An in‎-‎ground pool and spa with a cabana were proposed for ‎

the rear of the property‎. ‎The cabana had not been fully designed‎, ‎and ‎

approval for the building meant it would have to come back to the HDC at ‎

a later date‎. ‎The front elevation ranged from one‎-‎and‎-‎a‎-‎half stories to ‎

two‎-‎and‎-‎a‎-‎half stories high with a complex roofline‎, ‎featuring gables‎, ‎

eyebrow dormers and round towers with conical roofs‎. ‎The central ‎

entrance projected forward from the house and was marked by a gable ‎

front with a heavy timber trim and a two‎-‎story tall window‎. ‎A porch with a ‎

curved roof supported by massive stone piers projected from the ‎

entrance‎. ‎There will be French front doors‎. ‎There was a round turret with a ‎

conical roof proposed for the north half of the house‎, ‎and the attached ‎

four‎-‎car garage in the south half had a gable roof with heavy timber trim ‎

and two shed roof dormers‎. ‎The roof would overhang a section of the ‎

garage‎, ‎creating recessed garage doors‎. ‎Coppered shed roof dormers ‎

were proposed for the roof on the north half of the house‎. ‎The rear of the ‎

house was proposed to have a walkout basement‎, ‎creating a ‎

three‎-‎and‎-‎a‎-‎half story elevation facing the pond‎. ‎A multi‎-‎sided‎, ‎

screened‎-‎in porch above the terrace projected from the rear and had a ‎

conical roof‎. ‎Two stone chimneys rose from the center of the house‎. ‎Two ‎

porches with railings would be located on the rear elevation‎. ‎An exposed ‎

aggregate grand terrace was proposed to run the length of the house‎. ‎On ‎

the south end‎, ‎it would connect by steps to the pool terrace and spa‎. ‎A ‎

second large planted rock outcropping was proposed for the north end of ‎

the house where there was a steep slope‎. ‎The proposed house had a ‎

larger footprint than any other contributing or non‎-‎contributing property in ‎

the district‎. ‎The footprint sizes of contributing properties in the district ‎

ranged from about ‎1‎,‎200 ‎to ‎3‎,‎200 ‎square feet‎. ‎The size of the ‎

non‎-‎contributing properties’ footprints ranged from ‎1‎,‎000 ‎to ‎8‎,‎560 ‎square ‎

feet‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf pointed out that there had been a memo prepared by Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman that compared the house at ‎1965 ‎Washington‎, ‎which was ‎

currently the largest non‎-‎contributing house in the district‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf related that the subject house was proposed for the highest ‎

point of the property and would be taller than the surrounding houses‎. ‎

The surrounding non‎-‎contributing houses were one to two stories tall‎, ‎and ‎

did not sit on the highest point of their sites‎. ‎Those attributes allowed the ‎

historic houses in the district to remain the prominent features when ‎

viewed from the street‎. ‎The proposed landscaping‎, ‎including the two ‎

large outcroppings and extensive terraces in the rear would create ‎

landscape features that were not typical for this historically rural district‎. ‎

The landscaping proposed was intended to create a mountainous‎, ‎rustic ‎

feel to compliment the rustic style of the house‎. ‎The nature of the historic ‎

district was rolling terrain‎, ‎originally open for farming with newer tree ‎

growth‎. ‎Large rock outcroppings‎, ‎boulders and extensive terraces were ‎

not characteristic for the district‎. ‎It was Ms‎. ‎Kidorf’s opinion that the ‎

combination of the large footprint and height of the proposed house would ‎

create a massing and scale that was not compatible with the surrounding ‎

district‎. ‎It was also her opinion that the landscaping would create a setting ‎

that would not be compatible with the historic rolling terrain of the district‎. ‎

The proposed work would not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards ‎- ‎

Standards No‎. ‎9 ‎and ‎10 ‎which dictated that new construction should be ‎

compatible in massing‎, ‎size‎, ‎scale and materials with the historic district‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy called on the applicant representing the owner‎.‎

Present for the applicant was Chris Cousino‎, ‎DEI Properties‎, ‎12955 23 ‎

Mile Rd‎.‎, ‎Shelby Twp‎.‎, ‎MI ‎48315‎, ‎Paul Samartino‎, ‎Martini‎-‎Samartino ‎

Design Group‎, ‎920 ‎East Long Lake Rd‎.‎, ‎Troy‎, ‎MI ‎48083‎, ‎architect‎, ‎Jeff ‎

Henning‎, ‎Landscape Architect‎, ‎and Chris Peyerk‎, ‎CP Ventures Ltd‎. ‎

partnership‎, ‎12955 23 ‎Mile Rd‎.‎, ‎Shelby Township‎, ‎MI ‎48315‎, ‎owner of the ‎

property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cousino recalled that they had a productive meeting in ‎

January‎. ‎The matter was tabled to allow them additional time to provide ‎

supplemental information‎, ‎particularly a landscape plan to give the ‎

members a perspective of how the property would be perceived‎, ‎not only ‎

from the road‎, ‎but also from across the lake‎. ‎That information was ‎

provided in the packet‎. ‎They also had a ‎3‎-‎D model rendering to show‎. ‎

He acknowledged that they had a chance to review Ms‎. ‎Kidorf’s Staff ‎

Report‎. ‎They did not disagree with many of the comments‎, ‎and they ‎

revised the landscape plan accordingly‎. ‎He said he wished to comment ‎

on the location of the house and the elevation‎. ‎The intent of the house ‎

was to minimize its visual aspect from the roadway and the lake‎. ‎By ‎

placing it where they did‎, ‎which was four feet below the peak of the ‎

property‎, ‎it allowed them to minimize the amount of earthwork to be done ‎

on the project‎. ‎By minimizing the amount of earthwork‎, ‎they would be ‎

maximizing the amount of trees that could be saved‎. ‎If they moved it any ‎

further back‎, ‎they would actually have to cut more of the grade‎, ‎requiring ‎

more tree removals‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cousino advised that the property was one of ‎

the highest in elevation within the district‎. ‎They had to deal with contours ‎

and by locating it where they did‎, ‎they felt they could capture the existing‎, ‎

surrounding areas while maintaining the existing feel of the property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Cousino advised that they had eliminated the pool house‎, ‎the stone ‎

terrace and the cabana as part of the review‎, ‎and said that they would be ‎

handled at a separate meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Henning referred to the drawing on the screen‎, ‎which corresponded to ‎

the drawings in the packet‎. ‎He was talking with someone online ‎(‎Scott‎) ‎

who was operating the model remotely‎. ‎They could show scenes from ‎

moving down the pond and where someone could see the proposed ‎

house the most‎. ‎He asked Scott to move down to the west side of the ‎

pond‎, ‎noting that the model was built to scale‎. ‎There were two oak trees ‎

right on the bank‎, ‎which were quite substantial‎, ‎and they wanted to keep ‎

them for screening‎. ‎He showed how it would look to someone floating ‎

east on a kayak‎. ‎He moved to the center view of the house‎, ‎and said ‎

there was a grove of oaks to the left which would remain‎. ‎The picture ‎

showed the furthest view from the east where the property ended‎. ‎The ‎

house would look very nestled in the trees to someone in the water‎. ‎He ‎

showed a picture from the road and the gravel drive on the east side‎. ‎He ‎

mentioned there had been some concerns‎. ‎As someone drove in‎, ‎they ‎

would see a spruce grove to be planted on the left‎, ‎and they planned to ‎

supplement the trees on the right‎. ‎No one could even see the house from ‎

the road because of the crest in the driveway and the trees planted in the ‎

grove‎. ‎There were existing trees all along the road‎, ‎ending up at the ‎

gravel drive at the east corner‎. ‎There was a row of spruce all the way ‎

down the side of the driveway‎, ‎and as mentioned‎, ‎they would plant ‎

additional spruce to the right‎. ‎He indicated that there would be no views ‎

of the house from Washington‎. ‎He said that the outcroppings had been ‎

removed‎, ‎and they would do soil‎, ‎ground covers and plantings to screen ‎

and soften the vertical structures‎. ‎The pool and the exposed aggregate ‎

had been removed also‎. ‎They still had the lawn steps to the water‎. ‎He ‎

felt that the horizontal lines would help soften the architecture‎. ‎He ‎

believed that they had accommodated all of the concerns in the Report‎, ‎

and he said he would answer any questions regarding the landscaping‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps thanked the applicants for putting the energy and effort into ‎

the plans‎. ‎He could see the attempt to soften the features of the building ‎

and to try to basically hide the building‎. ‎He thought they had done a ‎

good job of showing it‎. ‎Since they met a month ago‎, ‎he had thought ‎

about the request very thoroughly‎. ‎He was pleased the owner was ‎

present‎. ‎He asked the owner if he knew he was moving into an historic ‎

district when he purchased the properties‎. ‎The owner replied that he did ‎

not‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps had wondered if the owner thought about how he could ‎

contribute to the sense of history for this unique neighborhood‎, ‎and the ‎

answer was obviously no‎, ‎since he did not know it was an historic district‎. ‎

He liked what they had done with the landscaping‎, ‎but as he looked at the ‎

structure proposed‎, ‎he saw a fantastic‎, ‎Colorado‎-‎beautiful home that ‎

would look great on some Michigan lake that was not in a historic district‎. ‎

In the past‎, ‎there was a discussion about delisting the homes in the ‎

Winkler Mill District‎, ‎and at that time‎, ‎he could have gone either way‎. ‎

However‎, ‎since that time‎, ‎there was a massive community discussion on ‎

the widening of Tienken Rd‎. ‎During those public meetings‎, ‎the ‎

homeowners came out‎, ‎and he came to better understand the ideas and ‎

feelings about the Winkler Mill Historic District‎. ‎The people did not want ‎

to have any of the homes delisted‎. ‎They appreciated the fact that they ‎

lived in a historic district‎. ‎He saw the passion they had‎, ‎even though they ‎

were living in non‎-‎contributing structures‎, ‎for living in a historic district‎, ‎

and they were anxious to do whatever they could to preserve that unique‎, ‎

small‎, ‎19‎th century village jewel they happened to have in Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎As he thought about new construction‎, ‎and he reiterated that it was ‎

a gorgeous‎-‎looking home‎, ‎he had questions about the impact the project ‎

would have on Washington Rd‎. ‎He knew there had been comparisons ‎

drawn between ‎1965 ‎Washington Rd‎.‎, ‎which was another large structure‎, ‎

but he thought that was an uncontrolled growth that was probably not ‎

adequately approached or approved‎. ‎To use that home and say it was ‎

big‎, ‎so someone should be able to build an equally large one‎, ‎was ‎

something he struggled with‎. ‎He recalled the phrase‎, ‎“If you’re fooled ‎

once‎, ‎shame on them‎, ‎if you’re fooled twice‎, ‎shame on me‎.‎” He saw a ‎

beautiful home that could be surrounded with a landscape plan which ‎

would basically hide it‎, ‎but he had strong reservations about the size and ‎

mass of the structure‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy opened the Public Comments at ‎7‎:‎32 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Melinda Hill‎, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48306‎.‎ ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill said ‎

that she understood the applicant’s desire to build a home in this very ‎

unique residential neighborhood‎. ‎However‎, ‎because the property was ‎

within a designated‎, ‎contiguous historic district‎, ‎there were parameters ‎

that guided infill construction‎, ‎in order to protect the integrity and ‎

coherence of the district‎. ‎The Historic District Commission was ‎

empowered and obligated by the City’s Preservation Ordinance to ‎

safeguard the heritage of the City and protect the designated historic ‎

districts‎. ‎Since ‎1978‎, ‎the Winkler Mill Pond had been one of the City’s ‎

two designated‎, ‎contiguous historic districts‎. ‎In ‎2010‎, ‎the Mayor ‎

commissioned a special report pertaining to the preservation of the ‎

Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill Pond districts‎. ‎Last year‎, ‎both the Mayor ‎

and Council supported the residents’ requests to protect and preserve the ‎

integrity of the area by denying the widening and paving of Washington ‎

Road‎. ‎As they reviewed the proposed infill project‎, ‎the members had to ‎

think critically about the future of the district‎. ‎The district was the ‎

resource‎. ‎The individual parts were significant as a collective whole‎. ‎In ‎

other words‎, ‎contiguous districts were significant as a collective whole‎, ‎

and should be protected in their entirety‎. ‎It should be the primary‎, ‎

overarching principal in reviewing an infill project‎. ‎She did not feel that ‎

the project at ‎1965 ‎Washington‎, ‎which was approved in ‎2003‎, ‎should be ‎

their guide‎. ‎It had been nine years‎, ‎and that review held little relevance‎. ‎

It was the HDC’s understanding of the character and significance of the ‎

district that should predicate the design review for the project‎. ‎New ‎

construction should respond to and protect the integrity of the overall ‎

historic district in much the same way that an addition to an individual ‎

historic building did‎. ‎Infill buildings should relate to and strengthen the ‎

core characteristics of the district and compliment and support‎. ‎New ‎

construction should build upon the story of the district through its design ‎

and landscape‎. ‎Winkler Mill Pond had a discernible rhythm in massing‎, ‎

scale and siting‎. ‎The home should not deviate in detracting from that ‎

manner with its elements‎, ‎but appear as complimentary‎. ‎Its massing‎, ‎

siting‎, ‎height and floor area ratio should correspond to the contributing ‎

buildings within the district‎. ‎It should support the viability of the adjacent ‎

historic buildings‎. ‎While infill construction should be identified as being ‎

of its period of construction‎, ‎it should not be so differentiated that it ‎

detracted from or visually competed with its historic neighbors‎. ‎Within ‎

contiguous historic districts‎, ‎compatibility was more important than ‎

differentiation‎. ‎Infill design elements patterning texture and materials ‎

should reflect the aesthetics and the history themes of the district‎. ‎What ‎

made buildings from different eras and styles compatible was that they ‎

shared the same underlying principals of space‎, ‎structure‎, ‎elements‎, ‎

composition‎, ‎proportion‎, ‎ornament and character‎. ‎The project should ‎

contribute to that established narrative of the district‎; ‎it should never skew ‎

excessive attention to itself to the detriment of the district‎. ‎In her view‎, ‎the ‎

fundamental interest of preservation could only be served if compatibility ‎

was given greater weight‎, ‎since it alone allowed the City to sustain the ‎

historic character‎. ‎In Standard ‎9‎, ‎it was clear that the guidelines ‎

emphasized that new construction should be compatible with and ‎

harmonize with the size‎, ‎scale‎, ‎color‎, ‎material‎, ‎rhythm and character of ‎

the district‎. ‎The proposed home clearly did not follow any of the ‎

aforementioned principals for good infill design and compatibility‎. ‎She ‎

asked the members to please deny the present proposal‎, ‎in order to ‎

protect and preserve the integrity of the Winkler Mill Pond Historic ‎

District‎. ‎The Grand Hotel was never a part of Winkler Mill Pond‎, ‎and she ‎

stressed that they should not put it there now‎. ‎She stated that the future of ‎

the district and its integrity was in the HDC’s hands‎, ‎and she asked them ‎

to please do the right thing‎. ‎

Paul Miller‎, ‎1021 ‎Harding Ave‎.‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48307‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller ‎

observed that the subject site was clearly within the district boundaries‎, ‎

and it fell under the purview of the HDC as well as the Secretary of Interior ‎

Standards‎. ‎To him‎, ‎it was not a question of whether the proposal met the ‎

standards‎. ‎He understood the desire to minimize or hide the home‎, ‎but it ‎

was not part of the standards ‎- ‎it would not matter if it were underground‎. ‎It ‎

did not meet the standards‎, ‎and it had been pointed out that it was not just ‎

style or design or materials‎, ‎it was also mass‎, ‎scale and scope and ‎

compatibility with the other structures‎. ‎He thought that while it was a ‎

beautiful house‎, ‎it was the wrong location for it because of the historic ‎

district‎. ‎He was more than a little frustrated about people being able to ‎

buy property within an historic district that never knew it was located in one ‎

until after they purchased something‎. ‎He thought that‎, ‎much like there ‎

was a legal requirement for homeowners and real estate agents to ‎

disclose appropriate and applicable items that were within an historic ‎

district or contained a structure such as the ones on Crooks or Rochester ‎

Rd‎.‎, ‎that it should be up front‎. ‎There would then be no question about ‎

whether or not someone had done the right thing or that they had to ‎

maintain a property‎, ‎which was required under the Secretary of Interior ‎

Standards‎. ‎He reiterated that he did not feel the proposal fell within the ‎

guidelines‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps thought that Mr‎. ‎Miller raised a key issue‎. ‎If someone ‎

purchased the property from a real estate agent and was not told it was in ‎

an historic district‎, ‎and he had a grand plan and dream to fulfill‎, ‎Dr‎. ‎

Stamps felt that person had recourse‎. ‎The applicant had put a lot of time ‎

and energy into a wonderful plan‎, ‎with landscaping and architectural ‎

drawings‎, ‎and he thought the person who sold the property did not do a ‎

good deed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Peyerk said that he bought the properties from individual property ‎

owners‎, ‎and there was no real estate agent involved‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps ‎

suggested that he should have read the sign‎, ‎“Entering An Historic ‎

District‎,‎” and that he should have been a little more aware‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps ‎

commented that he wished the house could be picked up and moved to ‎

another beautiful lake on a paved road‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy noted that the Staff Report had been based on the ‎

plans originally presented and not the newer version submitted‎, ‎and he ‎

wanted to hear from the Commissioners as to what extent‎, ‎if any‎, ‎that ‎

would alter the analysis in the Report‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf responded that the changes presented at the meeting ‎

primarily regarded landscaping‎, ‎and it helped‎. ‎They wanted to eliminate ‎

the two large outcroppings‎, ‎and that would help so the setting was less ‎

uncharacteristic of the district‎. ‎They were also eliminating the pool and ‎

cabana‎, ‎although she was not certain whether they would come back in ‎

the future‎. ‎She thought those were quite large for the district‎, ‎and ‎

suggested that they might come back with a smaller scale‎. ‎The ‎

applicants were not proposing any changes to the house‎, ‎so the massing ‎

and scale appeared to remain the same‎, ‎and her comments on the ‎

house would remain the same ‎- ‎it was too large for the district‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any other questions or ‎

comments‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Branstner agreed with Ms‎. ‎Kidorf’s Report‎. ‎The project did not meet ‎

Criteria ‎9 ‎and ‎10 ‎of the Secretary of Interior Standards‎. ‎The massing was ‎

way out of character for the district‎, ‎and he did not think it was appropriate‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Samartino said that he walked up and down Washington Road and ‎

took photos of all the homes in each direction of the proposed‎. ‎There ‎

were a few contributing homes‎, ‎but for the rest‎, ‎it was difficult to know they ‎

were in an historic district‎. ‎They were everyday U‎.‎S‎.‎A‎.‎, ‎with a couple of ‎

1980‎’s contemporaries‎, ‎some built in the ‎1990‎’s‎, ‎some built in the ‎1960‎’s‎, ‎

and he did not see the rhythm of those non‎-‎contributing homes that could ‎

set a precedence for something new going in‎. ‎He referred to ‎1965 ‎

Washington‎, ‎and it was said that could not be used to compare‎, ‎but he felt ‎

they could use it because it was approved by the HDC‎. ‎He remarked that ‎

there was no historical anything to that home‎. ‎As the designer of the ‎

proposed home‎, ‎he could see both sides of the story‎, ‎but he failed to see ‎

the hard line that it would not fit‎. ‎The home right next door had stone from ‎

another state‎, ‎and it could be deciphered as a mountainous home‎, ‎just ‎

smaller‎. ‎He asked if it would be o‎.‎k‎. ‎if the subject home were smaller‎. ‎He ‎

had read Criteria ‎9 ‎and ‎10‎, ‎and thought they were very vague‎. ‎It was ‎

challenging to design a home based on those sentences‎. ‎He failed to ‎

see how ‎80‎% ‎of the homes on the street could set any historical ‎

precedent‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Branstner responded that he did not think it was vague to say that it ‎

had to be compatible in size‎, ‎scale and proportion‎. ‎Even ‎1965 ‎

Washington was several thousand square feet less‎, ‎and it also sat down ‎

on the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Samartino said that the subject house would sit on the ‎

natural grade‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Branstner said that ‎1965 ‎Washington sat down on the ‎

site‎, ‎and it was basically a one‎-‎story house‎. ‎The subject house was on ‎

top of the hill‎, ‎and it was a two‎-‎story house with a very steep roof‎, ‎so they ‎

were not comparable‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Samartino said that if he looked at footprint‎, ‎then he felt they were ‎

comparable‎. ‎1965 ‎Washington covered ‎18‎% ‎of its site‎; ‎the proposal ‎

covered ‎6‎% ‎of its site‎. ‎Footprint‎-‎wise‎, ‎1965 ‎was ‎8‎,‎000 ‎square feet‎, ‎and ‎

the proposed house was ‎11‎,‎000 ‎square feet‎. ‎They were both large ‎

homes‎. ‎1965 ‎was ‎100 ‎feet from the road‎; ‎the proposed house would be ‎

205 ‎feet from the road‎. ‎He stated that it was a different animal‎, ‎and they ‎

set a precedent when ‎1965 ‎Washington was built‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy said that as Chair‎, ‎he had resisted interjecting too ‎

much into the conversation‎, ‎but part of the issue was that any one of the ‎

concerns people had with the proposal might not be a deal breaker‎. ‎

Taken together‎, ‎however‎, ‎he felt it became more of an issue‎. ‎The ‎

variance in the architectural style on a smaller structure might be o‎.‎k‎. ‎

More compatible architectural style on a larger structure might also be ‎

o‎.‎k‎. ‎When things were combined and taken as a whole‎, ‎the project raised ‎

concerns‎, ‎and that was what the Commissioners were stating‎. ‎He invited ‎

any additional discussion from the Commissioners‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Thomasson commented that it was wonderful that Mr‎. ‎Peyerk wanted ‎

to invest in Rochester Hills‎. ‎The City would love to have him‎. ‎

Unfortunately‎, ‎there were standards they had to look at‎. ‎Her concern was ‎

the size and the mass‎. ‎11‎,‎000 ‎square feet‎, ‎even on three lots‎, ‎was a very‎, ‎

very large house for the district‎. ‎If the architectural style fit in more‎, ‎it ‎

might help‎. ‎She said that she really appreciated the things they had ‎

done with the landscaping plan‎, ‎and they had made a great effort to meet ‎

some of Ms‎. ‎Kidorf’s recommendations‎, ‎and she hoped they could ‎

continue to work and reach a plan that would work for everyone‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Eastman considered staying out of the discussion‎, ‎since he was a ‎

neighbor‎. ‎He walked the property‎, ‎and noticed that the road could not be ‎

seen from the site‎, ‎and that was before anything was planted‎. ‎It was really ‎

a very beautiful homesite‎. ‎He asked the Commissioners who had ‎

commented what they felt was acceptable‎. ‎Square‎-‎footage requirements ‎

and lot coverage were not listed in Criteria ‎9 ‎and ‎10‎. ‎He noted that there ‎

was a very wide range up and down Washington Rd‎. ‎On the other side of ‎

the site‎, ‎speaking of those that were unhappy about things that had ‎

happened in the past‎, ‎he recalled the McMansion subdivision that went ‎

for about ‎500‎-‎600 ‎houses‎, ‎which was completely distracting to someone ‎

who owned an historic home in that area‎. ‎There were a lot of houses built ‎

that were smaller‎, ‎and they were acceptable because of that‎. ‎He was not ‎

sure if a smaller house was possible‎, ‎but the Commissioners were‎, ‎for the ‎

most part‎, ‎very unhappy with the home as proposed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Samartino asked if they would know the limits of how big they could ‎

build and how they would find that out‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Eastman suggested that the ‎

Commissioners that had been concerned might respond‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy said that he did not believe they had a cookbook for ‎

it‎, ‎and that was why such matters came before the Commission‎. ‎Some ‎

were subjective‎, ‎and that was why citizens were appointed to use their best ‎

judgment on what met the criteria and what did not‎. ‎He was not sure what ‎

answer could be found‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Samartino asked if there was an opportunity ‎

in between the submittal meetings to meet with the Commissioners‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy said that because the meetings were public‎, ‎they ‎

could not do that‎. ‎Everything they did had to be in a public forum‎. ‎He ‎

knew the applicants could have contact with Staff‎, ‎and Mr‎. ‎Breuckman ‎

had served as a great resource‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps remarked that it was unfortunate the owner did not know it was ‎

in an historic district‎. ‎They all would have had discussions before they ‎

came up with the plans and before the investment went into all the ‎

wonderful work they had done‎. ‎The owner would have learned that he ‎

needed to go smaller or do something differently‎. ‎He thought the owner ‎

had to go before the Planning Commission‎, ‎but Mr‎. ‎Breuckman clarified ‎

that the home met all the zoning requirements‎, ‎and it was just subject to ‎

the HDC’s approval to get building permits‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy said ‎

that it was his understanding that it would only go before another body if a ‎

Variance was required‎, ‎which was not the case‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps said it was too ‎

bad that they did not have a discussion a year ago‎, ‎and he felt badly ‎

about that‎. ‎There should have been a notation on the deed about being ‎

in an historic district so that when he bought it‎, ‎he would have known there ‎

were guidelines to follow‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cousino wanted to follow up on the issue of mass‎, ‎sizing and scale of ‎

the project‎. ‎If they looked at all the homes along Washington Rd‎.‎, ‎the ‎

average lot coverage was ‎7‎.‎2‎%‎, ‎and theirs was ‎7‎%. ‎It was not just a ‎

matter of comparing it to one property that might or might not have fallen ‎

through the cracks as far as approval‎. ‎If the HDC was referring to the ‎

Secretary of Interior Standards‎, ‎which was not clear as to the specific ‎

amount of square footage‎, ‎they had to determine if it was compatible‎, ‎and ‎

to him‎, ‎it was a compatible proposal‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps thought he had missed the point‎, ‎because it was not a ‎

percentage of the total piece of land‎, ‎it was how big the structure was‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Cousino asked about the size of the structure‎, ‎noting that there was ‎

nothing defined in the Interior Standards that stated “a house of such size ‎

was no longer considered historic‎.‎” They had to go off of something that ‎

was referenced‎, ‎and he felt that would be adjacent properties within the ‎

district‎. ‎If there was nothing stated specifically within a guideline‎, ‎he ‎

wondered what else they had to refer‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps said they should take ‎

the square footage of all the other houses‎, ‎not the proportion to the lot‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cousino indicated that there was not a specific guideline to refer to‎, ‎

and he asked what else they would use for compatibility within the ‎

neighborhood as far as the mass‎, ‎scale and sizing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Peyerk brought up the fact that there were three parcels assembled‎, ‎

and that three houses could be put on them‎. ‎On the smaller parcel‎, ‎not ‎

that large of a house could be put up‎, ‎but the others could each have ‎

6‎-‎8‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot homes‎. ‎If they came forward with those plans‎, ‎it ‎

sounded to him that it would be acceptable‎. ‎He believed that the impact ‎

of those three houses would be more negative than his project‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps referred to the document that showed parcel and building ‎

areas of the Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill Historic Districts‎. ‎There were ‎

parcel numbers‎, ‎addresses‎, ‎parcel areas and building footprint areas‎. ‎

He asked if the footprint was the square‎-‎footage of the houses‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman agreed‎, ‎and added that it was reported by the City’s GIS ‎

system‎. ‎There were two caveats to the list‎. ‎All of the parcels along the ‎

Mill Pond went into the pond and met at the middle of the pond‎. ‎It was a ‎

little difficult because the parcel included part of the pond‎, ‎but in practical ‎

impact‎, ‎it was only the upland area‎. ‎Some of the building footprints were ‎

incorrect‎, ‎because they were based on buildings that had been ‎

demolished‎. ‎1965 ‎Washington was an example‎, ‎because that was ‎

demolished since they had updated the building footprint file‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps ‎

asked if the footprint of the first building was ‎2‎,‎504 ‎square feet‎, ‎which Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman confirmed‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps read down the list ‎- ‎the next one was ‎

2‎,‎982 ‎and the next was ‎3‎,‎974‎. ‎The list showed homes of similar sizes‎, ‎

and the applicant was stating that ‎11‎,‎000 ‎was compatible‎, ‎yet the largest ‎

on the list was ‎5‎,‎551‎. ‎He asked how they thought that scale was not far ‎

beyond the rest‎. ‎That was his concern‎; ‎the district average was ‎2‎,‎530 ‎

square feet‎. ‎Even if there was one ‎(‎1965 ‎Washington‎) ‎off the edge‎, ‎the ‎

average was nowhere in the area of what they were proposing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Winters asked if the building footprint area was different than the ‎

amount of livable square footage‎. ‎He asked if it was how the structure sat ‎

on the land‎, ‎which Mr‎. ‎Breuckman confirmed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that ‎

was the footprint‎. ‎If there was a ranch house‎, ‎that would be the square ‎

footage‎; ‎if it were a two‎-‎story house‎, ‎the square footage would be larger‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Winters asked if the ‎11‎,‎000 ‎that was referenced was the total square ‎

footage or if it was the footprint‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said it was the footprint‎, ‎

noting that it was an approximation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson asked if the numbers Dr‎. ‎Stamps referenced were for ‎

single parcels‎, ‎which was confirmed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Thompson clarified that they ‎

were not three parcels as the applicant submitted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said ‎

they would have to be compared with the table in the packet from January ‎

30‎, ‎which would be the combined parcel‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Thompson said that if they ‎

took the average‎, ‎excluding ‎1965 ‎Washington‎, ‎and multiplied it by three‎, ‎

it would be different‎. ‎He was not sure the comparisons were quite ‎

accurate‎, ‎but he understood what Dr‎. ‎Stamps was saying‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy said that he was personally a little nervous about ‎

trying to do formulas because he did not want to send anyone down the ‎

wrong road‎. ‎They had certainly heard concerns about the overall size of ‎

the structure compared with others in the district‎. ‎Hearing no further ‎

comments from the HDC‎, ‎he called for a motion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Samartino referred to the last paragraph which said that if denying‎, ‎

the footprint or floor area of the house may not need to be reduced ‎

provided that the house was more sensitively located and concealed on ‎

the site‎. ‎He asked for an explanation and if that could be an approach ‎

they could try to take‎. ‎It said‎, ‎“may not need to be reduced‎,‎” but the ‎

Commission was telling them the home was too large and that they ‎

needed to reduce it to move forward‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that Staff did not have a crystal ball and did not know ‎

what discussions would transpire‎. ‎He was not sure if there was a ‎

possibility of moving the house on the site‎. ‎Staff was just trying to ‎

anticipate some potential options‎, ‎and he was not sure if that was ‎

something they should explore‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy clarified that there ‎

was a Staff recommendation‎, ‎and the Commission members could put ‎

forth any findings or conditions‎. ‎Just because Staff wrote something‎, ‎it ‎

did not mean the motion would end up reading that way‎. ‎It was entirely ‎

the prerogative of the Commission and its members to decide the ‎

findings in a motion‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps appeared ready to make a motion‎, ‎but he said it was the kind ‎

of thing he really did not want to do‎, ‎and he had been thinking about it for ‎

a month‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Stamps‎, ‎seconded by Branstner‎, ‎in the matter of File No‎. ‎

HDC ‎12‎-‎001‎, ‎the Historic Districts Commission ‎DENIES‎ the request for a ‎

Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new house at ‎1855 ‎

and ‎1899 ‎Washington Road in the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District‎, ‎

Parcel Identification Numbers ‎15‎-‎01‎-‎227‎-‎015 ‎& ‎15‎-‎01‎-‎227‎-‎034 ‎& ‎

15‎-‎01‎-‎227‎-‎035‎, ‎with the following Findings‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed house is in the Winkler Mill Pond Historic District ‎

and is not compatible in massing‎, ‎size‎, ‎and scale with the district‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed landscape alterations‎, ‎in particular the large scale ‎

planted outcroppings‎, ‎large terraces‎, ‎pool and steps are not ‎

compatible with the setting of the rolling terrain nature of the ‎

district‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed house construction is not in keeping with the ‎

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and ‎

Guidelines‎, ‎in particular standard number ‎9‎ as follows‎:‎

9‎. ‎New additions‎, ‎exterior alterations‎, ‎or related new construction ‎

will not destroy historic materials‎, ‎features‎, ‎and spatial ‎

relationships that characterize the property‎. ‎The new work shall be ‎

differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic ‎

materials features‎, ‎size‎, ‎scale and proportion and massing to ‎

protect the integrity of the property and its environment‎.‎

4‎.‎ The application can be corrected by proposing a house with a ‎

more modest massing that does not sit in a prominently visible ‎

location on the site and that has less extensive landscape ‎

alteration to the site‎, ‎including elimination of the planted ‎

outcroppings‎, ‎reduction of terrace and pool size‎, ‎and elimination of ‎

the stone steps at the rear of the property‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there was discussion on the motion‎. ‎He ‎

noted that there were a couple of things in the original language related to ‎

the landscaping‎, ‎and pool‎, ‎etc‎.‎, ‎which might have been ameliorated ‎

somewhat in the revised plan they received for the meeting‎. ‎He asked if ‎

they should go with the language that was originally written in the motion ‎

or if there was some additional tweaking needed to bring it in line‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Eastman thought that what was proposed were the landscape ‎

alterations ‎- ‎getting rid of the outcroppings and the terraces and pool ‎- ‎

and he thought that brought it within the sentence and that it was now ‎

compatible‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy asked if they were talking about ‎

Findings two and four‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps thought that number two could be ‎

approved and changed to “is” rather than “is not” if they made the ‎

changes proposed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Branstner said that if they came back with an altered building design‎, ‎

they wanted to make sure the same guidelines agreed to for the ‎

landscaping carries over‎. ‎The current landscape plan might not apply to ‎

a new building design‎. ‎It was determined to leave the wording‎.‎

A motion was made by Stamps‎, ‎seconded by Branstner‎, ‎that this matter be ‎

Denied‎. ‎The motion carried by the following voate‎:‎

Aye

Branstner, Dunphy, Stamps, Thompson, Tischer, Thomasson and Winters

7 -

Nay

Eastman

1 -

Absent

Kilpatrick

1 -

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that the motion had passed‎. ‎

He said that if the applicant wished to come back with another proposal‎, ‎

the HDC would be happy to entertain it‎. ‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Earl Borden Awards‎

Chairperson Dunphy indicated that they needed to make some decisions ‎

in regard to the Earl Borden Awards‎. ‎They would start to entertain ‎

nominees for the awards‎, ‎and it would be helpful if there were volunteers ‎

to help Staff with the awards process‎. ‎They ordinarily presented the ‎

awards during Michigan Preservation Month in May‎, ‎and they would need ‎

to have a decision made at the March or April meeting‎. ‎If there were any ‎

nominees for Preservation Leadership or the Historic Preservation Award‎, ‎

they could get it into the pipeline‎. ‎If there were not‎, ‎they would have to ‎

make it a priority at the March meeting‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Thomasson asked if it was possible to view the criteria‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Dunphy said that they ordinarily had information provided by Staff‎. ‎In the ‎

past‎, ‎they also shared the list of former winners‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson said that he did not have any nominations‎, ‎but he worked ‎

with Ms‎. ‎DiSipio of Planning last year to put everything together‎. ‎He ‎

volunteered to step forward since Ms‎. ‎Franey was no longer on the HDC‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps said that traditionally‎, ‎they had tried to recognize an ‎

individual or group of individuals for leadership‎, ‎but they had also looked ‎

at properties‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy said that was exactly what it was ‎

intended to recognize‎. ‎As stated in the guidelines‎, ‎they were under no ‎

obligation to give an award if they did not feel there was anyone who ‎

qualified in either category‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked if there was a timeframe‎. ‎

He knew of two structures that had been significantly worked on‎, ‎and he ‎

was not sure they were totally finished‎. ‎He said that Oakland University ‎

had invested over ‎$‎100‎,‎000‎.‎00 ‎in the gatehouse on the corner of Avon ‎

and Adams Rd‎. ‎It was built about the same time as Meadowbrook Hall ‎

and was only used for a short period of time ‎- ‎perhaps three years as the ‎

main entrance‎. ‎He indicated that architecturally‎, ‎it was a delightful ‎

structure‎. ‎Like Meadowbrook Hall‎, ‎it had struggled with inadequate ‎

maintenance‎, ‎and a year ago‎, ‎they recognized that the roof and ‎

stonework were in trouble‎, ‎and the Michigan basement was collapsing‎, ‎so ‎

they made an investment and fixed those things‎. ‎The interior had not ‎

been finished‎, ‎but they made a significant effort to stabilize the structure‎. ‎

They were currently looking for an appropriate adaptive use for the ‎

structure‎. ‎It was only ‎900 ‎square feet‎, ‎with two bedrooms‎, ‎a little kitchen‎, ‎a ‎

Michigan basement with a broken heater and boiler‎, ‎and leaded glass ‎

windows‎. ‎If anyone had a suggestion about how they could use it‎, ‎the ‎

President was looking for proposals‎. ‎It was State property‎, ‎and Oakland ‎

University did not have to do any repairs‎. ‎If the HDC wanted them to ‎

continue to be sensitive to historic preservation‎, ‎he thought that perhaps ‎

a little pat on the back and recognition for good work done would be a ‎

great idea‎. ‎They had also invested a significant amount of money into ‎

the John Dodge Farmhouse‎. ‎There were two barns at the entrance of the ‎

Meadowbrook Festival that were in terrible disrepair‎. ‎They needed paint‎, ‎

roofs‎, ‎etc‎. ‎He thought they could put them on a list to say thank you if the ‎

HDC thought it was appropriate‎. ‎He recalled that in the past‎, ‎the award ‎

was given to the greenhouse there‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy said that was a very worthy suggestion‎, ‎and one ‎

they certainly could consider‎. ‎He said that interestingly‎, ‎there were two ‎

requests for public comment regarding the award‎.‎

Paul Miller‎, ‎1021 ‎Harding Ave‎.‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48307‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Miller ‎

said that in answer to Ms‎. ‎Thomasson’s question‎, ‎the nominees must be ‎

either outstanding or substantial in nature‎, ‎especially for the award for ‎

Leadership‎. ‎In the past‎, ‎they looked at outstanding as a criterion ‎- ‎above ‎

and beyond the normal course of events‎. ‎He recommended that the ‎

members got in touch with their City Council liaison to find out when the ‎

award could be presented in the Auditorium‎, ‎so it could be shown on ‎

television‎. ‎In the past they always did that‎, ‎and it had only been in the last ‎

few years that it had been moved to another location‎. ‎If they had ‎

recipients to award‎, ‎he would not make it a big deal until they found out it ‎

could be at a Council meeting‎. ‎The last one he participated in went to the ‎

Friends of Tienken Road‎. ‎They had to hold it at the Dairy Barn with no ‎

community television access‎. ‎That very same timeframe when they ‎

would have normally done it at City Hall‎, ‎they spent about ‎45 ‎minutes to ‎

an hour praising the Mayor because of the Rochester Hills Advisory ‎

Committee for Washington Road and Stoney Creek Village‎. ‎It was a ‎

Rochester Hills award‎, ‎and it had to go to a person or building within ‎

Rochester Hills‎, ‎and he felt it should be shown on television‎. ‎He was ‎

encouraging them to try to get a date when it could be done during a ‎

Council meeting‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy advised that for the last two years‎, ‎the HDC had ‎

requested that the presentations be made at a Council meeting‎, ‎but it was ‎

up to Council to decide whether that met with their approval‎. ‎

Melinda Hill‎, ‎1481 ‎Mill Race‎, ‎Rochester Hills‎, ‎MI ‎48306‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill said ‎

that since there were at least four new Commissioners that had never ‎

gone through a workshop or training‎, ‎she thought it would be very helpful‎. ‎

They would only be faced with more and more difficult challenges with ‎

properties that people wanted to demolish and build something new and ‎

totally eliminate districts‎. ‎She could not recommend more highly that ‎

they held a workshop for everyone‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson said he was glad Ms‎. ‎Hill brought that up‎, ‎because at the ‎

next Study Committee Meeting‎, ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf was going to hold a training ‎

session for the members‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf added that they would hold the ‎

training March ‎8‎, ‎2012 ‎from ‎5‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎7‎:‎00 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, ‎and both boards were ‎

invited‎. ‎The new members were strongly encouraged to come‎. ‎She ‎

asked Mr‎. ‎Tischer if that would work‎, ‎and he said he was expecting his ‎

second child around that time‎, ‎so he was not sure‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf asked if ‎

they wanted to re‎-‎schedule‎. ‎Chairperson Dunphy thought that it should ‎

be done before both boards‎, ‎and he would like to do it sooner rather than ‎

later‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tischer said that he really wanted to be part of the training‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Thompson also noted the memo for the Parliamentary training on March ‎

5‎, ‎and said he thought that would be helpful for all the members‎.‎

Regarding the first item on the Agenda‎, ‎Mr‎. ‎Thompson said that Dr‎. ‎

Stamps had raised the issue of disclosure‎, ‎and he said he did not know ‎

what more they could do to inform a property owner that they were buying ‎

something in an historic district‎. ‎It was frustrating to him‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Dunphy agreed‎, ‎and said it was a sore point for him‎. ‎They had been ‎

working with various real estate people and others over the years‎, ‎but it ‎

seemed that every time there was an issue that became contentious ‎

because it seemed to be out of character for the district‎, ‎the property ‎

owner said he was not aware it was in an historic district when he bought it‎. ‎

That was very much a concern‎, ‎and he said he would welcome any ‎

recommendations from Staff as to the best way to continue to get the word ‎

out‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps asked if there was adequate signage at both entrances on ‎

Washington Road‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill said it was huge‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Stamps felt that signage ‎

was important‎, ‎but they needed to do more‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Thomasson observed ‎

that the applicant might have known it was in the historic district‎, ‎but did ‎

not have any idea what that meant as far as requirements‎. ‎Since it was an ‎

individual sale‎, ‎it might not have been disclosed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Thompson said that it was his recollection that something would be ‎

set up so when a property transferred‎, ‎some sort of information packet ‎

would be sent out to the new homeowners‎. ‎He was not sure that ‎

happened‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Thomasson thought that would be too late‎. ‎By the time it ‎

transferred‎, ‎someone had already purchased the property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Thompson wondered how they could intercept it beforehand‎, ‎although he ‎

was not sure they could‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Winters said he would have to check into the State law‎, ‎but he thought ‎

that‎, ‎as a real estate attorney‎, ‎the ideal fix would be to have some type of ‎

legislation at the State level‎. ‎He did not know if it could be limited to a ‎

Council Ordinance if it did not happen at the State level‎. ‎The Ordinance ‎

could state that for any existing property that was already in or newly ‎

placed in an historic district or for a property that was delisted‎, ‎the ‎

municipality had the right to pass a Resolution and record that against ‎

the property‎. ‎Any time someone purchased a property and they had title ‎

work pulled‎, ‎it would show up as a recorded document‎, ‎and the title would ‎

show that as an exception‎. ‎It could be simple language‎, ‎letting the ‎

property owner know there might be requirements to be satisfied‎. ‎Unless ‎

there was a public record in the Register of Deeds office‎, ‎or something on ‎

record with the City Assessor when someone checked the tax status‎, ‎they ‎

should put out a public notice so that anyone purchasing a property and ‎

getting title insurance would have notice before they closed the ‎

transaction‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kidorf explained that in accordance with State law and the local ‎

Ordinance‎, ‎districts as they were designated were to be recorded with the ‎

Register of Deeds‎. ‎She was not clear whether every parcel had a flag‎, ‎but ‎

the City Clerk did record the district map with the Oakland County ‎

Register of Deeds‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Winters offered to look into it further‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Stamps suggested researching other cities to see if someone had ‎

invented the wheel already‎, ‎noting the difficult time the HDC had debating ‎

the issue before them‎.‎

Chairperson Dunphy asked where they should go from here and whether ‎

the ball was in Staff’s hands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said they would look into it ‎

and bring something back‎. ‎He thought they needed more text about ‎

personal responsibility‎, ‎but he reminded that the case before them was ‎

not a normal case‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Thomasson appreciated that Mr‎. ‎Miller would like the award given in ‎

front of City Council‎, ‎although she thought it had been very nice at the ‎

Museum‎. ‎She had a personal preference for it‎, ‎and thought it was a nice ‎

place to give someone an award and have a reception‎. ‎She was offering ‎

that building or the newly renovated Stoney Creek Schoolhouse‎, ‎if it did ‎

not work out at a Council meeting‎. ‎

Chairperson Dunphy said they would make the request of Council‎, ‎as ‎

they did each year‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Thompson suggested that if Council did not ‎

agree to it‎, ‎that perhaps they could send someone out to record it to air on ‎

the City’s station‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kidorf noted that in another community‎, ‎they made ‎

a very brief presentation at Council and did not actually present the ‎

awards there‎. ‎It was just a five or ten minute item‎. ‎For a lot of Councils‎, ‎

that was their budget time‎, ‎and it made it hard to fit in extra things‎. ‎

Afterwards‎, ‎there was a separate ceremony and reception in an historic ‎

building‎. ‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business‎, ‎noting that the next ‎

meeting was scheduled for March ‎8‎, ‎2012‎. ‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the HDC‎, ‎and upon motion ‎

by Dr‎. ‎Stamps‎, ‎seconded by Mr‎. ‎Tischer‎, ‎Chairperson Dunphy adjourned ‎

the Regular Meeting at ‎8‎:‎33 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

_____________________________‎

Brian R‎. ‎Dunphy‎, ‎Chairperson‎

City of Rochester Hills‎

Historic Districts Commission‎

_____________________________‎

Maureen Gentry‎, ‎Recording Secretary‎