Rochester Hills Legistar System

Chairperson Kilpatrick noted this Agenda Item would be a discussion regarding

6250 Winkler Mill Road, and asked the applicants to come forward and

introduce themselves.

Mr. David Cockey, and Mrs. Katherine Cockey, 6250 Winkler Mill Road, were

present and provided the Commissioners with copies of handouts and

photographs of the stable structure located on their property. Copies of the

handouts and photographs were placed on file and become a part hereof.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Mr. and Mrs. Cockey resided in the Winkler Mill Pond

Historic District, and had recently contacted the Planning Department regarding

proposed repairs to an outbuilding located on their property. He explained Mr.

Cockey had requested an opportunity to discuss the proposed repair work with

the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) prior to submitting a formal plan for

approval.

Mr. Cockey stated they had purchased their property approximately eight years

ago. He noted the property had a log home on it, which was built in 1985 using

logs from a structure in Canada. He explained there was a small shed on the

property that was basically built from left over logs, along with another structure

that was a historic resource. He noted the historic resource was detailed on the

survey sheet prepared by Dr. Jane Busch, the consultant hired by the City to

survey historic properties, as being constructed in the "early 1900's".

Mr. Cockey stated the historic resource was located near the front property line

and was considered a legally non-conforming structure. He indicated the

building was originally used as a stable, and more recently had been used for

storage. He stated they estimated the building was constructed sometime

between 1920 and 1955. He explained the hardware was store bought hardware,

and the lumber was dimensional lumber, although the lumber was 1/8th bigger

in each direction. He indicated he was unaware of when the standard size of

lumber had changed.

Mr. Cockey explained the structure was 18' x 30', and the foundation had poured

concrete footings, which he believed to be 3 feet deep, with the top of the

footings at grade level. He reported the footings were straight and in good

condition, although the sill was badly rotted, and the lower end studs were rotted

from contact with the ground. He indicated the exterior walls were similar to the

WP-106 pattern, and part of the siding was rotted because it extended over the

footing and was in contact with the ground, and other parts of the siding were

cracked or missing.

Mr. Cockey stated the roof was cedar shake, which was put on sometime after

1985, and was installed over 3-tab asphalt shingles. He noted the cedar shake

was put on without ventilation, which had caused it to fail. He explained the

roof sheathing and rafters had rotted, and he currently had a tarp over the roof.

Mr. Cockey referred to a 1985 or 1986 photograph of the stable, which depicted

how the building previously looked, and then referred to a more current

photograph depicting the building with the tarp over the roof.

Mr. Cockey discussed the "Dutch" doors on the south end of the building, which

were installed after 1985, replacing a narrow pedestrian door. The doors were

constructed of plywood, and the plywood was delaminating. He noted the frame

was rotted and had been repaired with bondo prior to his purchasing the

property.

Mr. Cockey stated there were six single sash, 3' x 3' divided light windows on

the stable building. He noted the sash was missing from the two windows on the

east side of the structure, and all windows had been painted white.

Mr. Cockey stated they would like to make some modifications to the structure

in order to help preserve the structure while making it more useful.

Mr. Cockey indicated one inherent problem was the height of the footings and

the fact they were below ground level, causing the wood to be in contact with the

ground. He proposed to raise the level of the footings with block, covering the

blocks with cement parging creating an appearance similar to poured concrete.

He felt the look would be unobtrusive, and would get the wood above the ground

eliminating the rotting problem.

Mr. Cockey stated he was struggling with the siding because the WP-106 pattern

wood siding was not identical to the siding currently on the structure. He did not

feel it would be feasible to mix the siding, and indicated he would attempt to

remove the best boards and use them on one wall. He indicated the entire

structure would be painted the same color.

Mr. Cockey stated he would repair the roof, noting the rafters and the sheathing

needed to be replaced. He indicated he would not use plywood, but would use

plank sheathing to retain the appearance. He stated he would re-roof the entire

structure using black 3-tab asphalt shingles.

Mr. Cockey stated he would like to replace the double doors on the west side of

the structure with a single pedestrian door. He indicated that for storage

purposes he would like to replace the Dutch door with large double doors, which

would allow him to store his sailboat inside and perform minor repair work on it.

Mr. Cockey stated he would like to replace the existing windows with Marvin

wood awning windows, of true divided light construction, that would be painted

white, and which would be similar to what was currently there. He indicated he

would like to add two windows to the west wall and to add one window to the

south side to allow for increased light inside.

Mr. Cockey stated that in order to prevent future problems with the roof, he

would like to add rectangular, louvered vents to the attic. Dr. Stamps asked if

the louvers would be visible from the exterior. Mr. Cockey explained they

would be wood louvers, with the rectangular louver being the simplest to add.

Mr. Dziurman stated there was no question it made sense to lift the foundation,

and asked how the building would be brought back down. Mr. Cockey

explained that he would not lift the building as the footings were 8" wide, and

he would build a new permanent stud wall on the inside, which would carry the

weight and support the roof. He stated he would put in a new sill and replace the

existing studs. He noted this procedure would be slightly more expensive than

replicating the structure elsewhere on his property.

Mr. Dziurman inquired about the applicant's plan to replace or revise the doors.

Mr. Cockey referred to the photograph on page 4 of his handout, which depicted

the double doors that were added in 1988. He referred to page 3 of his handout,

and explained he wanted to replace the single door depicted in that photograph.

He also referred to the photograph on page 5, which depicted the Dutch doors.

He indicated he wanted to replace the Dutch doors with a double door that

would be 8-1/2 feet tall, and would come just below the basketball net shown in

the photograph. He noted the basketball net would be taken down.

Mr. Dziurman stated that the double doors would be something new on the

building. Mr. Cockey agreed it was a significant change, but pointed out that

side of the building could not be seen during the summer months. He noted the

west facade would stay the same with the same windows in the same position.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the windows would be operable. Mr. Cockey replied

they would.

Mr. Dziurman asked why the applicant wanted to add vents to the structure. Mr.

Cockey stated he wanted to put in a ceiling and did not want to have unvented

attic space. Mr. Dziurman suggested the use of soffit vents. Mr. Cockey noted

that the current construction did not lend itself to the use of soffit vents. Mr.

Dziurman agreed it did not make sense to use the soffit vents. He congratulated

the applicant on the effort he put into his presentation before the Commission.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked the applicants if they planned to begin the

rehabilitation work during the summer. Mr. Cockey stated he intended to have a

builder prepare plans. He noted he had some questions about the legally

non-conforming status of the structure and the City's 75% rule; however, it was

determined that preservation took precedence. Mr. Dziurman pointed out the

structure was historic in nature, and consideration had to be given to that fact.

Ms. Sieffert asked about the floor in the structure. Mr. Cockey responded it was

a poured concrete floor. Ms. Sieffert asked if there would be a problem with the

edges of the building having have a gap, which would allow creatures to get

inside. Mr. Cockey explained he was shoring up the foundation, which would

help that situation.

Mr. Dziurman suggested the applicant install a footing drain such as a French

drain to take water away from the building. Mr. Cockey indicated he had

researched that option and had determined there was not enough pitch to use that

type of drain.

Chairperson Kilpatrick called for any other discussion. Upon hearing none, he

suggested the applicants prepare and submit a formal plan for approval.

Members discussed the fact that the applicant had already submitted quite a bit

of information. Mr. Delacourt stated the applicant could provide the Planning

Department with a set of formal plans. He noted the Commission could prepare

a motion approving a Certificate of Appropriateness which included a condition

that the applicant submit a set of plans for the record prepared in accordance

with Ordinance requirements.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked the Commissioners if they felt they could approve

a Certificate of Appropriateness based on what had been submitted and

discussed. The Commissioners agreed they would like to proceed with a motion

to approve a Certificate of Approval.

Chairperson Kilpatrick then called for a motion to approve a Certificate of

Appropriateness. The Commissioners requested a recess to prepare a motion.

(Recess: 8:00 PM to 8:08 PM)

Chairperson Kilpatrick called the meeting back to order at 8:08 PM. He called

for a motion regarding a Certificate of Approval. Mr. Dunphy proposed the

following motion:

MOTION by Dunphy, in the matter of File No. HDC 98-015, regarding the

request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the renovation of the stable

structure located at 6250 Winkler Mill Road, that the Historic Districts

Commission APPROVES a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following

Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The proposed work is in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's

Standards for rehabilitation.

Conditions:

1. All work is to be done in accordance with the submitted materials.

2. The applicant shall submit plans in keeping with the identified work prior to

the issuance of a building permit.

Mr. Dziurman stated he would second the proposed motion, and suggested the

materials be spelled out in the conditions. Mr. Delacourt stated the written

materials submitted by the applicant would be attached to the Certificate of

Appropriateness.

Mr. Dziurman suggested that the conditions include the following wording: "a

two-page description of the existing condition and the proposed renovations in

detail." He noted the applicant had supplied photographs and other descriptive

materials, which had provided sufficient information for the Commission to

make a decision at this meeting. He noted it was not the normal process for the

Commission to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a discussion item;

however, the applicant has provided everything the Commission would ask to

see.

Mr. Dunphy proposed that Condition #1 be reworded to read:

"1. All work is to be done in accordance with the submitted materials,

including a page of existing conditions and a page of proposed

renovations."

Mr. Dziurman clarified that the red barn color would remain the same and the

shingle color would be similar to what had been listed in the applicant's report.

Mr. Cockey stated he had indicated he would use black asphalt shingles, the

siding would be painted red, and the window trim would be painted white.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked if the motion maker and seconder agreed with the

amended motion. Both Mr. Dunphy and Mr. Dziurman indicated they agreed

with the amendment.

Chairperson Kilpatrick called for any discussion on the proposed motion on the

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

Complete Motion as Voted:

Chairperson Kilpatrick noted that Mr. Jim McCauley had requested an

opportunity to discuss the Stiles School located at 3976 S. Livernois Road, a

property on the City's Potential List for designation. The Commissioners agreed

to add a discussion about the Stiles School to the Agenda. Chairperson

Kilpatrick then asked Mr. McCauley to come forward and provide his name and

address for the record.

Mr. Jim McCauley, 705 Westview Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,

introduced himself. He stated the reason he had attended the meeting was

because he was affiliated with a school that was currently renting space in the

Stiles School Building, which is located at the corner of Livernois Road and

South Boulevard. He stated he did not have anything specific to address, but

wanted to make the Commission aware of the fact that the school building was

being sold, and that it was currently owned by the Avondale School District. He

indicated he thought the building might have some historic significance.

Mr. McCauley stated the Stiles Building was named for a dairy farmer who

donated the land in 1890 to build a school for the children in Avon Township.

He indicated the Oakland County Maps from 1892 depicted the building marked

as a school. He explained the structure was moved in the mid 1920's and

reconstructed. He stated the 1927 school building was located at the corner, and

subsequently additions were added to the building in the 1950's and 1960's.

Mr. Dziurman noted the building was on the City's Potential List for designation

and the Commissioners were familiar with the site.

Mr. McCauley stated the Avondale School District used the school building until

about 1998, at which time the school district completed construction on another

school building and moved out. He indicated the Oakland-Steiner Schools

moved in at that time and had been there continuously since.

Mr. McCauley stated the building was put up for a closed bid auction process

and there were several bidders, although the Oakland-Steiner Schools was the

only group that intended to use the building as a school. He indicated the other

bidders were considering a combined residential and commercial use. He noted

the school was located on approximately seven (7) acres, and was currently

zoned R-4 (One Family Residential).

Mr. McCauley pointed out there were some interesting features in the building.

He stated in the 1920's, a painter was hired to paint the kindergarten, some of

which remained. He indicated there was a fireplace in the building, which was

not a common feature in a school. He stated the building contained tile from the

Detroit Pottery Works, although there was a question as to whether it was

Pewabic Tile or not. He stated the building had been fairly well maintained and

that not many features had been modified. He indicated that at one time some

French doors were removed to split a room, and noted it was still a beautiful

building.

Mr. McCauley stated someone had told them they believed the building had a

deed restriction to be used as a school, although that had not been confirmed.

He indicated his organization's interest was to purchase the building to use as a

school. He was not aware of what the other bidders had in mind for the

property.

Ms. Sieffert asked why the school was only on the potential list. Mr. Delacourt

stated the Historic Districts Study Committee had discussed the school property

at their meeting on May 12, 2005. He explained the site was one of thirty-three

that were on the City's Potential Historic District List. He noted one of the

reasons the site was still on the potential list was the fact that it was owned by

the school district. He stated as long as a property is owned by a school district

or a state agency, even if it were designated, those entities were not obligated to

any of the Historic Districts' Ordinances or Rules.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Study Committee had discussed the fact that if the

property changed hands and was designated, then the Historic Districts

Ordinance would apply.

Mr. Delacourt explained the designation process was a strict process, and

properties that were designated were under the purview of the Historic Districts

Commission. He stated he had met with the School Board and some of the

potential developers regarding what the process would be if the property

changed hands,. He noted if someone came to the City and requested a

demolition permit for the building, the City had a process in place whereby the

Study Committee would automatically make a recommendation to City Council

to delay that action to give the Committee time to study the property.

Mr. Delacourt noted Mr. McCauley had mentioned deed restrictions, and stated

deed restrictions were not something the City could enforce, but was a matter to

be handled through the title work.

Mr. Delacourt stated the building was listed for sale and the school district had

been taking bids on the site. He explained if a potential purchaser wanted to

change the status of the property, an automatic request would be made to City

Council to allow the Study Committee to study the property and make a

recommendation to the City Council regarding its designation.

Dr. Stamps asked about Mr. McCauley's relationship with the current school.

Mr. McCauley explained he was on the Board and part of the committee trying

to purchase the building.

Dr. Stamps noted Mr. McCauley recognized that the building did have historic

significance and appreciated the fine features of the building.

Mr. Delacourt asked, if the Oakland-Steiner School was the winning bidder on

the site, whether the school would be interested in requesting historic

designation of the site as a historic district. Mr. McCauley stated they had

considered that and asked if there were advantages to pursuing the designation.

He noted the school was currently renting the property and could not make such

a request at this time.

Mr. Dziurman asked if a non-profit organization would own the building. Mr.

McCauley stated the Oakland-Steiner School was a non-profit school.

Dr. Stamps asked Mr. McCauley to give the Board some background about the

school. He noted a former student of his gave him a rave review about the

school, its philosophy and how many were located in the State of Michigan.

Mr. McCauley stated there were two (2) other three (3) Oakland-Steiner

Schools in the State of Michigan: one in the City of Detroit, one in Ann Arbor,

and there were a few associated Waldorf Schools. He explained the school

started originally in Germany after World War I, and there were a number of the

schools around the world. He stated the schools were non-denominational, and

the school located in the City had grades pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.

He stated some of the schools do go through high school, such as the Ann Arbor

Waldorf School.

Mr. McCauley explained a unique feature of the school was that the students had

one main teacher that stayed with the class through all eight years, so the

teachers get to know the students very well. He noted there were special subject

teachers; however, the main class teacher stayed with the students for eight

years.

Dr. Stamps stated one of his former students, who was a golden-key honor

student, commented that a Steiner School was an asset to the community. He

indicated he would favorably consider assisting an asset to the community in

acquiring the facility as they appreciated the building and would continue to

preserve and maintain the resource.

Ms. Sieffert asked Mr. McCauley if he was aware of the tax benefits available to

designated historic resources. Mr. Dziurman noted the Steiner School was a

non-profit organization and would not receive any tax benefits. Mr. Delacourt

stated the main financial benefit would be tax credits from the State for

renovation work. He noted he was not sure about the tax status of a non-profit

organization.

Mr. Dziurman noted the school could structure itself differently, which would

then make it eligible for tax credits. He stated the school could pursue those

options if it was successful in its bid.

Mr. Dziurman stated the Study Committee had, in fact, discussed the school

property during its meeting just prior to the HDC meeting. He stated the Study

Committee was in the process of drafting a letter in support of the Steiner

School's position.

Mr. Delacourt asked when the School Board would be considering the bids

publicly. Mr. McCauley stated the School Board had opened the bids and held a

preliminary discussion at their prior meeting. He indicated the matter would be

a discussion item again at the Monday, May 16, 2005 meeting.

Dr. Stamps stated the Study Committee would do its best to get a letter of

support to the School District. Mr. Dziurman stated the reason the Study

Committee felt it could support the Steiner Schools was the fact they were the

only bidder that would preserve the current use of the building. He indicated the

Study Committee felt the school's operation would be a benefit to the

community, and at the same time would be a benefit to the HDC Committee,

who is was charged with preserving historic properties in the City. He explained

the Study Committee felt it was proper for them to encourage the school board to

seriously consider the Steiner School's bid.

Mr. Dziurman stated the Study Committee had also discussed the legal issue of

whether the property would revert back to the original owner if it were not used

as a school. He noted that was a usual part of a deed restriction, however, he

was not aware of whether the school district had researched the issue. He

indicated he had been involved with a courthouse in Leelanau County that

contained a stipulation that if the facility was not used as a courthouse, the

facility reverted back to the local community.

Chairperson Kilpatrick stated he would be surprised if the land was not

restricted, noting oftentimes there were restrictions when individuals donated

land.

Mr. Thompson clarified that the Avondale School District currently owned the

property. Mr. McCauley stated that was correct. Mr. Thompson asked if the

school district was still in the process of reviewing the bids. Mr. McCauley

indicated they were.

Mr. Thompson asked for clarification on the change of ownership of the property

and the automatic trigger that would result. Mr. Delacourt clarified it was not

the change of ownership, but rather any request to make a significant change to

the building, such as the request for a demolition permit. He explained in that

situation, the normal course of action would be that the Study Committee would

request the City Council to grant review rights over the property for up to a year

to allow the Study Committee to review it and make a recommendation to City

Council on whether it should be designated. He noted that City Council would

ultimately decide if the property was designated or not. He stated the City

Council could put review rights on a property that was on the potential list for up

to one year. He explained while the review rights are granted, the property

becomes a de facto historic district subject to the HDC Ordinance until a

decision is made on the designation, but only for a period of up to one year.

Mr. Dunphy noted that the granting of review rights was not an automatic

response by City Council. Mr. Delacourt stated that was correct and City

Council could choose not to grant review rights, in which case, if a permit had

been requested, the City was obligated to fill the permit.

Mr. Dunphy noted that City Council could also grant a different time frame for

the review. Mr. Delacourt agreed the review rights could be granted up to one

year, but City Council could grant review rights for thirty days for the Study

Committee to present its initial findings, and then extend the review rights.

Mr. Dziurman explained the reason the Study Committee took action in this

matter was because they were responsible to City Council to handle potential

historic sites. He was not sure if the HDC could make a similar resolution or

not.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked if a request for a study could be initiated by

anyone. Mr. Delacourt stated the Ordinance had not been changed, noting there

had been some confusion on the wording.

Mr. Dunphy recalled that some Council Members had interpreted the Ordinance

to mean that any citizen could request a study be done on a potentially

designated property, but ultimately it was City Council that had to request the

study by the Study Committee.

Mr. Dziurman noted that was probably correct, and explained the reason it came

up at the Study Committee meeting was because of the potential sale of the

building and the fact the site was on the City's Potential List for designation. He

stated the Study Committee might want to review the site more seriously

because there could be an issue when the building is sold, if there was a request

for demolition. He noted the Study Committee wanted to be more proactive in

support of the Steiner School's use of the facility because it was the most

compatible use.

Mr. Thompson asked if anyone was aware of what the other bidders intended to

do with the property. Mr. Delacourt stated there were a number of bidders;

however, what those bidders would ultimately request to do with the site, or

whether they would adaptively reuse the building was not clear. Mr. Dziurman

pointed out it was currently a school, and to continue as a school, particularly

one with such a high reputation, made sense to the Study Committee.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked what the Study Committee wanted the

Commission to do. Mr. Dziurman asked if the Commission wanted to add

support by a resolution. He noted he was not sure it made sense for the

Commission to lend support, although it made sense for the Study Committee to

do so.

Chairperson Kilpatrick stated he agreed with the Study Committee's position, but

was not sure if the Commission had a place in this situation. Commissioners

questioned how many bidders had bid on the property and when the school

district would make a decision. Mr. McCauley noted there were seven bids, and

the Steiner School was the 5th highest bid. He stated it was his understanding

that the highest bidder was a developer of strip malls. Mr. Delacourt stated he

understood it was the Talon Group, which developed residential, office and

commercial developments.

Mr. McCauley stated the second group intended to use the property as a

combined residential/commercial, and the third group intended to use it as

commercial and residential. He stated the Steiner Schools, in their bid, had

requested the right to match the highest bid. He explained the Steiner Schools

had an appraisal done; however, the appraisal was based on the residential

zoning, whereas the other bids were based on commercial having a higher value

for the land. He indicated the Steiner School was pursuing the alternative to

match the highest bid. He felt anything the Commission could do to support

their case would be beneficial.

Mr. Dunphy stated he was not convinced there was a formal role the

Commission could take in this matter. He felt the Commission supported the

use of the facility as a school, and the concept of having that kind of an asset in

the community. He noted it would be an interesting process because a

commercial development would put the property back on the City's tax rolls.

Mr. Dziurman stated part of the discussion by the Study Committee was the fact

that if a developer were successful, there was the possibility that the developer

would want to rezone the property, and the developer would be required to go

through the Study Committee's process and procedures. He believed the

developers might have conditioned their bids on a successful outcome. He noted

there might be less anguish for the school district if the same use continued on

the site, along with a faster sale.

Chairperson Kilpatrick stated he was familiar with the site and noted there were

a lot of homes in the area. He did not believe the adjacent residents would like

to see anything other than the school on that site. He asked if the Steiner School

had discussed the situation with the neighbors.

Mr. McCauley stated that the Steiner School had a good relationship with the

neighbors, and he felt the neighbors were supportive of the school.

Chairperson Kilpatrick indicated he felt the Avondale School District might like

to keep the school because it had been an asset to the school district as well.

Mr. McCauley stated he thought the highest bidders were considering cluster

housing or condominiums. He noted the bids had been opened, and some of the

bids did include approval of the intended use. He indicated some of the bids

were very clear about the number of homes they wanted to put on the property,

which would require a zoning variance.

Dr. Stamps suggested the Steiner School contact the adjacent homeowner

association and request their support. He referred to the posters displayed on the

walls in the auditorium, and noted under "good government" it stated "better city

planning and no strip malls"; under "regional initiatives" it stated "historic

preservation", and under "enhance the quality of life" it stated with a red star

"historical preservation". He felt that keeping the use of the Stiles School

Building as a school would fit in with those objectives. He felt the Steiner

School would find support in the City, although the HDC might not be in the

position to write a letter of support. He felt the Steiner School Committee could

help preserve the history of the area. Mr. Dziurman noted the Study Committee

would send a letter of support.

Mr. McCauley thanked the Commissioners and asked if the Study Committee

letter could be sent to the Avondale School Board before their meeting on

Monday, May 16, 2005.

Mr. Delacourt noted the Study Committee intended to have City Council review

the letter prior to sending it to the School Board. Mr. Dziurman suggested the

Study Committee members could be polled via email, because the Study

Committee had not been aware of the School Board's meeting on May 16th. Mr.

Delacourt asked if the School Board would be deciding on the bid at the May

16th meeting. Mr. McCauley stated he thought the process was for the Board to

hold discussion. He felt the letter of support would be helpful during the

discussion. He stated it was his experience that the decision part was a rubber

stamp of the result of the discussion.

Mr. McCauley provided a copy of some information about the school building,

which will be placed on file and made a part hereof.

Ms. Sieffert clarified for Mr. McCauley that although he was before the Historic

Districts Commission, it was the Historic Districts Study Committee that had

met and discussed the school property and would send the letter of support. Mr.

McCauley stated he did not understand the relationship between the two groups,

but he was aware it was a separate committee. Mr. Dziurman stated that

originally the Study Committee was a part of the Historic Districts Commission;

however, in order to avoid the appearance of inappropriateness, the State

changed the State Law requiring that the two groups be separate. He explained

the Study Committee was charged with the responsibility of studying historic

properties and to take that information to City Council and the State, and it was

City Council's decision on whether they agreed with the Study Committee's

recommendation. He stated it was the procedure that before a property could be

placed on the historic register, it had to go through the Study Committee and the

study process. He noted that previously that had been the responsibility of the

Historic Districts Commission, but was now the responsibility of the Study

Committee. Ms. Sieffert noted that the final decision was made by the City

Council.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Historic Districts Commission was the reviewing

authority for properties that are already designated. He explained the

Commission reviewed alternations, modification or changes to existing

resources once they have been designated. He stated the Study Committee made

recommendations to City Council on changes, modifications or designations of

new districts.

Chairperson Kilpatrick explained that if the Steiner School was successful in its

bid, and agreed to be designated historic, any changes the school wanted to make

to the outside of the structure would come before the Historic Districts

Commission for review and approval.

Ms. Sieffert strongly recommended if the Steiner Schools were successful in

their bid that they come back to the Commission and let the Commission help

them with creative ideas regarding tax breaks for historic properties. She noted

the Avondale School District would not be selling the property except that they

had serious financial difficulties.

Mr. Dziurman stated that was the reason the Study Committee felt the Steiner

Schools would be the best use of the building. He noted the Avondale School

District might have to wait a considerable amount of time for a developer to

request zoning or other changes from the City.

Chairperson Kilpatrick asked Mr. McCauley if he had any other questions, or of

the Commissioners had anything further to discuss regarding this matter. Mr.

McCauley thanked the Commission for their time.

Commissioners discussed the potential deed restrictions, noting if the property

were deed restricted and the use changed, the property would revert back to the

heirs of the original owner. Mr. Dziurman noted one way to resolve that

situation would be for the school district to sell the property to another school.

Chairperson Kilpatrick reminded the Commissioners that the Earl Borden

Awards would be presented next Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at the City Council

Meeting.

Ms. Sieffert stated the awards presentation would be a pretty lengthy program

this year because of the numerous people involved. She stated many

representatives from Hugger Elementary School would be attending, and a

portion of the musical would be played during the meeting intermission. She

noted since Greg Doyle was the President of the Rochester-Avon Historical

Society, many of the society members would attend. She stated the Master

Gardener from the Oakland University Greenhouse had invited many of the

volunteers and others from the University to attend, along with the Eagle Scouts

who had participated in the renovation of the greenhouse.