Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

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

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

Dr. Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, March 12, 2009

MINUTES of the REGULAR ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

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

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

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

ROLL CALL

2.

Richard Stamps, Micheal Kilpatrick, John Dziurman, Brian Dunphy,

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, Paul Miller, Nicole Franey and Melissa Luginski

Present

8 -

Jason Thompson

Absent

1 -

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

Department

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that Mr. Thompson had left prior notice he

was unable to attend the meeting and was excused.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Dunphy announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

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

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

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

Ordinance Section 118-164(a).

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2009-0116

Minutes of the January 8, 2009 Regular Meeting

Chairperson Dunphy asked for any comments or corrections to the January 8, 2009

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

A motion was made by Cozzolino, seconded by Dziurman, that the Minutes be

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

Aye

Stamps, Kilpatrick, Dziurman, Dunphy, Cozzolino, Miller, Franey and

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the January 8, 2009 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

6.

A. Ordinance Amendment 528 (CLG Related Amendments)

B. Update from P. Davis re 2040 S. Livernois MOA

C. MHPN Network News, January 2009 Edition

D. 51st Annual Michigan in Perspective Conference Brochure

E. Oakland Co. Movement and Migration Presentation Information

F. The Rochester Era, March/April 2009 Edition

Chairperson Dunphy noted a number of items had been provided to the

Commissioners. He referred to Ordinance Amendment No. 528, which related to

amendments required because of the Certified Local Government (CLG) application,

and which had recently been adopted by City Council. He called for any

announcements or communications. No other announcements or communications

were presented.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any public comments. There were no public

comments.

NEW BUSINESS

8.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that a couple residents had attended the meeting to

discuss an issue related to a property, and suggested the Commissioners add that

matter to the Agenda and hear that matter first. The Commissioners were in

concurrence with the Chair's suggestion.

8A.

2007-0576

1585 S. Rochester Road

- Discussion Regarding Potential Move of House

Chairperson Dunphy invited the residents to come forward to the presenters table,

and asked for a brief introduction and update from Staff.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had been contacted about a week ago with an interesting

question related to the historically designated house located at 1585 S. Rochester

Road. He distributed copies of the survey sheet prepared by Dr. Jane Busch on the

property during the 2002 Intensive Level Survey to the Commissioners.

Dr. Delacourt reminded the Commissioners that property was included in a proposed

Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement. The residents before the Commission

had been in contact with the owners of the property about the potential to move the

structure off the site to a different location and to renovate it. He had suggested the

residents attend a Historic Districts Commission (HDC) meeting to discuss the matter

with the Commission to get an initial idea of the process involved, and to get some

feedback from the Commissioners about their proposal.

Tom and DeeDee Briski, 40137 Vincenzia, Clinton Township, Michigan,

introduced themselves and thanked the Commission for taking the time to hear about

their idea. Mr. Briski explained the property owner was in favor of their moving the

house from the property, and they would like to move it to a suitable location within

the Community, and to restore it. They felt it was an incredible piece of architecture

and they would like to restore it before it fell apart. The property owner seemed to be

very willing and felt it would be a benefit to move it. They would like to know what it

would take for the Commission to approve this, and also where the house could be

relocated. He asked if the Commission had historic areas they preferred that these

types of structures be located. Mrs. Briski asked if the historic integrity could be

preserved if they moved the house to another location. She stated they would like a

general idea from the Commission on whether this was a feasible option, and would

be in everyone's best interests.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified that when the developer came before the Commission

with his PUD proposal with respect to the historic property, one of the things they

looked at in terms of their development plan was to move the house. The

Commission approved that plan on that basis. He stated for the benefit of the

Commissioners who were not on that Commission at the time that plan was approved,

the Commission had already approved one option that had the house moved on the

property.

Mr. Briski clarified the house was going to be moved but would remain on the same

property. Chairperson Dunphy responded "yes", and stated if the house was moved

to another property that was a different issue. His explained the Commission had

approved moving the house from its current location to another location on the

property, along with the proposed development plan presented by the developer as

part of the PUD Agreement.

Mr. Briski inquired about the process.

Dr. Stamps stated it was a delight to have citizens come before the Commission that

shared the same feelings the Commission had about the nice resources in the City that

should be preserved rather than left to fall to pieces. He commented it was too bad

Mr. and Mrs. Briski had not seen the property when the barns and other outbuildings

were there because it was more delightful at that time than it was now.

Mr. Briski commented he had been driving past the property for about twenty years,

and thought it's current condition was a shame. Mrs. Briski asked if the

Commissioners knew where she could obtain photographs of the property depicting it

in its day because she would like to have copies of them.

Dr. Stamps suggested the Rochester Hills Museum might have some information. He

thought some of the original survey work might have included pictures of the various

outbuildings. He recalled that a barn, a pump house and some other structures were

on the property. He noted that a historic survey had been done back in the 1930's

that might have information about the property.

Mrs. Briski stated they thought if they could see photographs of the house as it looked

originally, they would try to renovate it as closely to that as possible.

Dr. Stamps stated that the general guidelines were that it was best to preserve things in

place, and he thought the City had done a good job of following those guidelines. He

pointed out that given the option, it might be better to move it and preserve it than to

leave it and destroy it. He was not sure where the Briski's would find a suitable

location. He hoped this house would be better preserved than the house across the

street, which was currently being used as medical offices. He commented that house

did not look right with the front porch chopped off and the large additions on the

back.

Mrs. Briski stated they wanted to keep the house as a residence. Mr. Briski stated

the property owner did not really want the house on the property, and would rather

see it moved off the property. He did not think there was much hope of keeping the

home in its current location and restoring it where it stands.

Dr. Stamps suggested Mr. and Mrs. Briski ask if the home could be moved to the

location it was going to be moved as part of the PUD Agreement, which was on the

south side of the property near Bordine's.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that the Commission had approved a development plan

that included preserving the structure. The developer did not get to opt out of that

plan just by saying they did not like that deal any longer. The Commission approved

the plan, and that was what governed the transaction. If they are willing to offer an

alternative that the Commission finds acceptable, the Commission will look at that

alternative. He wanted to be clear that the developer could not unilaterally back out

of the Agreement.

Mr. Briski stated that was why they had come before the Commission, to see what

could be done and what would work out the best for everyone. Mrs. Briski stated

she had been in contact with the property owner, and he was very willing to help them

because he preferred the house be moved. She stated they had some pictures from

the inside of the house they would like to show the Commission.

Mr. Miller stated he was all in favor of an adaptation and if necessary, removal to

preserve the structure. He thought the house would lose almost all of its historic

significance when it was moved away from the property. He noted it still had some

display value, but in terms of the historical significance, particularly if it were moved to

another part of the City, that could be lost.

Mr. Miller wanted to be sure the Briski's were aware the Commission had discussed

this building, including the fact City Staff would not enter the house in its present

condition. Mr. Delacourt stated that City Staff would not enter the premises until they

had more information. He explained the property owner had provided a mold report

to the City, which the Briski's were aware of; however, City Staff would not enter

without additional information about what exactly the report said. City Staff was not

qualified to determine what was there.

Mr. Miller understood Staff's reluctance until more was known, and clarified the

Briski's had been through the building. Mrs. Briski stated they had pictures of the

inside and it was hazardous. She stated that Mr. Vennettilli had mentioned the mold

and asked them to sign a waiver before they entered the premises.

Mr. Miller noted for the record the property owner's reluctance to do much with the

structure without pressure. He commented the Commission did not want to set a

precedent such that if someone did not want a historic structure, they would just give it

to someone else. He understood there was a plan in place; however, the property

owner was liable to preserve, maintain and update the structure.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the existing PUD Agreement was a legal application at this

point. Mr. Delacourt responded "yes". Mr. Dziurman clarified the PUD Agreement

was based on the historic home. Mr. Delacourt indicated "partially". Mr. Dziurman

clarified the developer received approval based on the understanding the historic

home would be preserved. Mr. Delacourt indicated that was correct. Mr. Dziurman

asked if the developer got rid of the historic home, if that would change his PUD

Agreement. Mr. Delacourt agreed that was something that would have to be

resolved.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the Fifth/Third Bank that had been built was part of the

development. Mr. Delacourt indicated that was correct.

Mr. Dziurman stated it was true that once a historic building was moved off its site, it

lessened its historic value and probably eliminated it. Depending on the history of the

building, it might still retain some historic value, particularly if it was associated with a

historic person or event. He wanted the Briski's to be aware of that.

Mr. Delacourt questioned if a property was designated under the criteria of

architecture, whether the house could maintain some of its integrity. He noted it was

connected to the property, but thought it might still meet the criteria.

Mr. Dziurman did not believe that was correct. He thought it was designated as part

of a farmstead. He recalled the property owner had promised the Commission he

would not take down the barns, and they were demolished anyway. He agreed that

moving it might help save the building, but wanted the Briski's to be aware it might not

necessarily be historic.

Mr. Dziurman referred to finding a location for the home. He commented that the City

of Troy did move things around, and had established their museum by moving a

number of buildings to their site at Wattles and Livernois. He stated the Troy Museum

tried to reconstruct the buildings on the site, creating a setting similar to Greenfield

Village.

Mr. Dziurman stated that the Commission followed the Secretary of the Interior's

Standards which are very specific and do include a guideline about moving buildings.

He explained it was not impossible, but it made it more difficult to retain the

designation.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the Briski's had a site for the home. Mr. Briski indicated they

did not. Mr. Dziurman referred to the Briski's question about whether there was a

historic area they should look at. He explained the City had two contiguous historic

districts - the Stoney Creek Historic District and the Winkler Mill Pond Historic

District. He indicated he would not approve moving the house to either of those

districts, because it did not belong there. He pointed out the Stoney Creek Historic

District was a Nationally Registered District. It was Nationally Registered because

what is there is historic to what was there and still is to some degree.

Mr. Dziurman stated if the Briski's wanted to move the house to another site and

restore the building, he thought that was wonderful. In his opinion, it would not retain

its historic characteristic.

Mr. Delacourt asked if "historic characteristic" meant it would not be eligible for local

designation, which would have an impact on the availability of tax credits. Mr.

Dziurman stated it had been done and it had been approved, but it was not an easy

process. He indicated the Commission would work with the Briski's, and he did not

want to sound like he was against the idea, but he wanted the Briski's to be aware of

what he understood to be the case.

Mr. Delacourt stated even if the home did lose it's historic designation, he assumed

that designated or not, the Commission would be willing to work with the Briski's. He

noted the Briski's had expressed a great interest in doing an accurate restoration, and

he assumed if the home stayed within the City, the Commission would be interested in

working with them, whether or not it required approval.

Mr. Dziurman stated that designation was fantastic because it would allow the Briski's

to receive some significant tax credits. He agreed the Commission would try to

accommodate them as long as the restoration was in compliance with the Standards.

Mrs. Briski asked if there was a process to be followed.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the move was proposed, whether the matter would have to go

to the Historic Districts Study Committee.

Mr. Delacourt stated his initial reaction was yes, and noted he had checked with the

City's consultant. Once a site was located, then the house in combination with that site

would be reviewed to determine if based on its location and the architecture of the

structure, whether it still met the criteria for architecture in its new location. Once it

was not tied to the original farmstead, which had already lost the other outbuildings, it

would have to be evaluated with the new site to see if it still met the criteria. The

Study Committee would provide a recommendation, and then the Commission would

have to make a decision about whether to approve the move. He explained that even

if the house did not meet the criteria, it could still be approved under a Notice to

Proceed, rather than a Certificate of Appropriateness.

Mr. Delacourt stated that another option the Study Committee could consider was to

review the house for delisting, and then the house could be moved anywhere.

Mr. Dziurman explained to the Briski's that he was one of the members of the Study

Committee, noting three Commissioners served on that Committee. He explained the

Commission was geared to protect the historic structures in the City, and the

Committee was created to be more objective about potential sites. He noted there

were citizen representatives on the Committee as well. He stated the Study

Committee would make the determination of whether the house still met the criteria. If

it was determined the house was still historic, then the Commission would review that

property as another registered site in the City.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Commission would still have to approve the move,

which was the first and biggest question. The Briski's were curious to know if they

started down that road, if the move was something the Commission was willing to

consider. He asked if the Commission would entertain the idea of a move, before all

the other procedures were started, or before the Briski's spent the time and energy

pursuing the matter.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the Briski's were tied into moving the house, noting they had

asked if they had to move or whether they could rehabilitate it there. Mr. Briski stated

that he thought the best place for it was right where it was. However, the property

owner wanted it to be moved. Mrs. Briski stated the property owner had discussed

his plans with them, and those plans did not involve having the house in that location.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated he personally did not have a problem with moving it. The

problem he had was that given the history of the barns being destroyed, it appeared

the Commission was letting the property owner off the hook. Mrs. Briski asked if that

was by moving the house. Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the property owner would get

rid of the structure, which had been an issue for him. He wondered if there had been

any negotiation about rehabbing the house but allowing the house to remain on some

portion of the property. He commented the PUD plans had been on the drawing

board for quite some time. The economy had changed drastically since the plans were

approved, and it did not appear anything would be developed very soon on that

property.

Mrs. Briski thought everything had stopped for the property owner as far as

developing because of the economy. She thought it would be worth asking again,

because the house was toward the end of the property bordering a subdivision.

Mr. Kilpatrick recalled the conversation when the PUD plan was brought before the

Commission, and whether it would work to move the house on the property, and the

potential uses for the house, such as a restaurant. He thought the developer had some

good ideas, but he was concerned that moving the house cleared everything for him.

He questioned whether the house in its current condition could survive a move of any

distance.

Mrs. Briski stated she was also surprised it could be done. She stated they loved the

house, but noted by the time they paid for the move and some land to put it on, and

after going through the house, the work was going to be more expensive than they

originally thought. She explained they were in the process of adding up those costs,

and the land was an important part of that expense. She stated they had established

with the property owner that they were doing him a favor by moving the house.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated he was hesitant because although he still believed the house

should be rehabbed, he was concerned about the message the Commission would be

sending to the developer.

Mrs. Briski stated they wanted to be flexible so they could make this happen, and they

would love for it to be a positive outcome for everyone. She referred to the historical

integrity if the house was removed from the property. She commented in Downtown

Mt. Clemens they held Christmas walks through their historic homes, and asked if

there was some type of community involvement like that in the City.

Mr. Miller stated that was something that was up to the individual homeowners, in

terms of whether the homeowners were willing to open up their homes and have

people come through and tell the story of the history of the home. He stated that

because of the nature of the City's contiguous historic districts, as nice as the house at

1585 S. Rochester was, it was not part of that history. He was not aware of a historic

neighborhood in the City where the house could be moved. He stated that the

Commission did not have organized Holiday Tours, but the Library and other

organizations around the area did have holiday walks and tours.

Mr. Miller stated none of the Commissioners were in favor of losing the structure, and

all of them mourned the loss of the significance it had as a farmstead. Yet, they were

not happy about losing the last vestige in this location. He questioned whether the

property owner would be willing to allow the house to remain on the property because

if it remained on the original farmstead property, it would retain much more value than

it would if it was moved.

Mr. Briski asked if it was moved on the same property, whether it would retain its

historic integrity.

Mr. Miller did not know that, but stated he knew there was more of a history of

moving historic structures to accommodate issues on the site, where those structures

remained on the site. He stated he was interested in seeing the pictures the Briski's

took of the inside of the house.

Ms. Franey stated she drove past that house every day, and she often thought about

what she could do with that house because it was such a beautiful house. She thought

it was great the Briski's were there and wanted to do something with it. She asked if

the Briski's goal was that they wanted the home to be a historic site or whether they

really wanted to preserve it and utilize it.

Mrs. Briski stated they wanted to restore it and use it as their residence. Mr. Briski

stated they thought it was the same thing. Mrs. Briski stated they were just learning

there was a difference.

Ms. Franey stated they were two different things. Based on the conversation that had

been held, if the house was moved, it could lose its historic title; if it was kept where it

was, there were some issues although they may retain the historic title. She asked if

what the Briski's wanted was to retain the historic home, or really wanted a house with

those attributes that they could preserve.

Mr. Briski stated preserving it was the first thing, and hopefully they could retain the

historic part of that as well. He commented to preserve it and keep it standing was

the first thing. He noted the historic value did mean something, not necessarily just for

the tax credits. He stated he did not know about the tax credits until yesterday and

was not sure what it exactly entailed.

Mr. Delacourt stated there had been a lot of discussion about preservation and

preserving the historic character versus whether it met the criteria for designation. The

house could be moved and restored to its most pristine original condition, but because

it was not in its original location, it may fall short of the criteria for designation. That

meant there would be no local requirement to have the restoration work reviewed by

the Commission, nor would they be eligible for the tax credits.

Mr. Briski commented that preserving it would have to be first, otherwise the rest

might not even be able to happen.

Ms. Cozzolino stated the Commission had had many conversations about the home

over the last several years, and there had always been concern about the condition of

the home. In her opinion, she thought the Commission had a tremendous interest in

seeing the house exist, whether in its current location or somewhere else. She thought

both the Commission and the Study Committee would do what they could to try to

help the Briski's.

Mrs. Briski summarized, if the situation worked out with the property owner, and they

found a place and they moved the home, there was no objection to that. What they

would not know is whether the home would retain its historic integrity.

Chairperson Dunphy stated there were a number of issues the Commission would

have to consider. He clarified that without something formal to review, as everything

depended on the details, the Commission could not give the Briski's a definitive

statement. He pointed out the developer did have a plan approved by both the

Commission and the Planning Commission, that involved the developer keeping the

structure and rehabilitating it. Anything that changed that agreement would have to be

approved by both those Commissions.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he thought the Commissioners were open to consider the

idea, which was about as far as the Commission could go with it at this time.

Mr. Dziurman stated that based on the current economy, the Briski's should consider

talking to the property owner about purchasing the home in its existing location. He

thought there might be an opportunity, although it was prime property on Rochester

Road. He stated that would be the best situation because they would be assured of

tax credits. He explained tax credits could help pay for a new furnace, a new roof,

and other things besides historic items.

Mrs. Briski asked about the consequences for the property owner if he did not restore

the house.

Mr. Dziurman noted the property owner had owned the property for a long time,

back when it was a farmstead. He did not know what the home or the property were

worth, but he thought it was worth asking because moving and restoring the house

was not going to be easy or inexpensive.

Dr. Stamps asked if the property owner would lose his PUD Agreement if the house

were moved. He suggested if the Briski's preserved the house in place, then he could

continue with his proposed development. If the house disappeared, he did not think

the developer could proceed with the development he was given permission to do if

he preserved the house. If the property owner wanted to continue with his

development plan, he needed to find a way to preserve the house. It might be an

advantage if the Briski's preserved the house, and the property owner continued to

develop the property as planned.

Mrs. Briski wondered if the property owner knew if the house was removed, the

terms of the PUD Agreement would have been changed.

Mr. Delacourt cautioned about making assumptions about what could and could not

be done, or what the property owner would or would not do as it related to the

house. He noted the discussion was not about what could be developed on the

property, which would ultimately be approved by the Planning Commission and City

Council, and if something changed, the Historic Districts Commission as long as the

property remained designated. The relationship of the Agreement to the structure and

the designation of the property had an important impact on that. The only thing the

Briski's were requesting was input on the potential to move the structure, and not how

it impacted the PUD Agreement.

Mr. Delacourt stated if the move was a possibility, all those items brought up by the

Commission would have to be discussed by several Boards and Commissions in the

City. He stated he had not talked to the City Attorney about what could or could not

be done at this point.

Dr. Stamps noted the survey sheet indicated the area of significance was architecture.

He thought that even if the structure was moved, if the architecture was retained and

restored, it was more likely it would still be eligible because of the architecture.

Mr. Dziurman disagreed. He commented one of the reasons the developer had to

come before the Commission for approval of the PUD plan was because the entire

property was designated. Mr. Delacourt clarified the portion south of Eddington

Boulevard to Bordine's. The parcel where the Fifth/Third Bank sat was not

designated.

Mr. Dziurman thought perhaps the Briski's could purchase the house, limit the

designated portion to an acceptable sized site, which would allow the balance of the

property to be delisted. He commented the Briski's would probably want to know

what type of development would be proposed before they decided they wanted to

reside there. That might give the property owner some incentive to sell that portion of

the property.

Mr. Delacourt stated whether the home stayed on the site or was moved, he expected

there would be negotiation and a rework of the entire development agreement. He

guessed the property owner was well aware the designated house was an inducement

to the PUD Agreement, and the topic would come up and those discussions would

have to take place with the City. He noted limiting the size of the historic district and

delisting the balance of the property would follow a process through the Study

Committee. The Study Committee would look at the resulting piece to be designated,

and the delisting of the rest of the parcel, and make a recommendation to City

Council.

Mr. Miller commented it was clear that the Briski's needed to do their homework on

this matter as it was quite involved. He stated at one time he had considered

purchasing an older home and moving it, and he understood it can be done, but a large

part of the cost involved what had to be done to move the house down the roads. He

thought it might be cost prohibitive to move it a long distance, which might help in the

decision.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the Briski's could show the Commission the pictures from the

inside of the house.

Mr. Briski displayed some additional pictures of the outside of the house, noting there

were holes right through the roof, and there was water damage. He stated most of the

rooms had peeling paint, and the walls and plaster were damaged. He displayed a

picture of a paneled room that was still intact, but there were many areas where there

were holes which were also ruining the floors. He commented there were some good

parts to the house as it contained some nice wood, but it needed to be covered.

Mr. Briski pointed out the second floor, where the floor had swollen up and buckled.

He displayed a picture of a room where the wood had just rotted out. It was not only

just wet, the ceiling had fallen down. He noted even on the first floor, some of the

ceilings had caved in as well. Many of the shingles were gone.

Chairperson Dunphy asked that the Briski's leave a set of the pictures for the file. The

Briski's provided a set of the pictures, which have been placed on file.

Mrs. Briski stated they intended to ask for estimates from contractors, and asked if

the Commission had any recommendations. Mr. Miller stated a historic contractors

guide was available from the Michigan Historic Preservation Network. Mr. Delacourt

suggested the Briski's stop by City Hall for some additional information.

Mrs. Briski stated that Mr. Vennettilli had indicated he would be out of town for a

couple of weeks, but had given them permission to have contractors access the site to

provide estimates. That would give them an idea of the financial aspect of their

proposal and if it is feasible.

Mr. Briski clarified it was the Commission's first choice for the structure to remain

intact on the existing site. It was noted that was the Commission's consensus.

Ms. Cozzolino stated from a moving perspective, a couple of years ago the

Rochester-Avon Historical Society did some research in connection with a proposed

move of the grain elevator in Downtown Rochester. The Society has the name of a

contractor who gave them some estimates. She suggested the Briski's could contact

the Society for that information.

Mrs. Briski stated she had spoken to Rod Wilson, and Mr. Wilson had told them

about that proposed project. Mr. Briski clarified the grain elevator was no longer

going to be moved. Chairperson Dunphy indicated that was correct.

Ms. Luginski thanked the Briski's for their interest in older homes in Rochester, and

commented she wished there were more people interested in these types of projects.

She asked if the Briski's currently resided in Rochester Hills.

Mrs. Briski stated they resided in Clinton Township. She commented that two of their

children attended Rochester College; their church was in the area; and they spent

much time in area, making it an ideal location for them. She noted they had been

looking for a historic house for quite some time.

Ms. Luginski complimented the Briski's for considering this project, noting there was a

lot of work to be done. She appreciated their interest in historic properties.

Mr. Briski commented he used to work at Sanyo Machine and had driven past the

home for many years. He thought it was a shame to see the house slowly deteriorate.

Dr. Stamps noted that the Troy Historical Museum had moved buildings, including a

parsonage that was moved just a couple of years ago, and suggested the Briski's

contact Ms. Campbell at the Troy Historical Museum for contractor information.

Mr. and Mrs. Briski thanked the Commission for their time and input.

This matter was Discussed

8B.

2009-0117

Joint Meeting - City Council, HDC, HDSC

- Discussion

Chairperson Dunphy noted a joint meeting was scheduled for March 23, 2009 with

City Council, the Commission and the Study Committee.

Mr. Delacourt stated that based on a conversation with the City Council President, he

would put together a small packet of information, including the Ordinance, a District

Map, the State Act, and the Secretary of Interior's Standards. He would provide a

short introduction regarding the individual responsibilities and charges of each Board,

as they relate to City Council, followed by a discussion about those charges and

responsibilities. There would also be discussion about "demolition by neglect"; the

Certified Local Government status, and some of the studies currently underway by the

Study Committee and that process. He reminded the Commission this was a City

Council meeting and would be televised.

Mr. Delacourt suggested if there were other topics of conversation the Commission

wanted to include at the joint meeting, they should provide that information to him for

inclusion in the packet materials.

Ms. Luginski asked if the Commission would receive a copy of the Agenda prior to

the meeting. Mr. Delacourt indicated they would, and noted Council packets were

transmitted electronically and were typically available on the City's website the

Wednesday prior to the meeting.

This matter was Discussed

8C.

2008-0684

2009 Earl Borden Award

- Review Selection Criteria

- Selection of 2009 Recipient(s)

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commissioners had received material regarding the

Earl Borden Award. He referred to the Selection Criteria document, which had been

reviewed by the Commission at their January meeting, with the goal of updating and

cleaning up the criteria and procedures. He anticipated the Commission would use the

Selection Criteria to guide the process going forward, noting the original version dated

back to 1994. He noted the revised document more clearly indicated there were two

separate awards that could be given; one for the structures themselves, and one to

individuals for their leadership in historic preservation. The revised document included

a time frame for the process.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the Commissioners had any thoughts or comments

about the Selection Criteria.

Mr. Miller referred to the award selection criteria that indicated, "such renovation shall

have been made by the award recipient". He asked if that meant "as opposed to

hiring a firm" or if that meant the actual recipient did all the work personally with their

own hands.

Chairperson Dunphy thought that was intended to award people for work done while

they owned the property. In other words, they did not purchase a property that had

been renovated and got the award for that prior work.

Ms. Cozzolino suggested the criteria be reworded to indicate the recipient was

responsible for the renovation work. Chairperson Dunphy indicated that criteria

would be clarified.

Chairperson Dunphy opened the floor for award nominations for the 2009 Earl

Borden Award. He noted the Commission had briefly discussed some proposed

individual recipients, as well as a structure they had received information about at the

January meeting.

Mr. Dziurman stated he thought 971 Runyon deserved an award because the owners

had done a fantastic job restoring the house. He commented he had forgotten it had

received an award back in 1994, but pointed out the current owners restored the

house again. It was important to acknowledge people were taking care of their

homes. He noted he was not against the two other candidates the Commission had

discussed in January, but pointed out he thought the award should be given to

individuals who were involved in preservation over a long period of time. He thought

the leadership award was an important award and should have a legacy that whoever

received the award had been active in preservation for a number of years.

Ms. Luginski said she recommended the Runyon Road structure, and noted the

owners had redone every room on the interior, and had put in a significant effort to

maintain all the internal woodwork. The exterior was changed quite a bit when they

removed the enclosed porch and restored the porch to its original look. She thought

the work done by the current owners over the last three years was significant.

Ms. Cozzolino understood that Deborah Larsen did not receive any compensation for

writing her book, and would not receive any compensation for the copies that were

sold. Chairperson Dunphy also believed that to be the case. He stated in discussions

he had with the Rochester-Avon Historical Society Board, he did not recall any

mention of compensation for Ms. Larsen's work on the book. All the proceeds are

going to the Historical Society.

Chairperson Dunphy called for nominations for the 2009 Earl Borden Award.

Ms. Luginski nominated 971 Runyon Road, owned by Mark and Micki Kowal, which

was seconded by Mr. Dziurman.

Dr. Stamps asked if the Kowal's were the same applicant that had come before the

Commission with a different proposal for the front porch. Upon discussion, the

Commission gave the Kowal's some suggestions and the Kowal's followed those

suggestions. Ms. Luginski stated that was correct. Dr. Stamps stated he was

impressed by the Kowal's and would support the nomination of their restored

residence.

Chairperson Dunphy called for a vote on all those in favor of the selection of the house

located at 971 Runyon Road, owned by Mark and Micki Kowal, as a recipient of

the 2009 Earl Borden Preservation Award. The Commission accepted the

nomination unanimously.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any other nominations for the 2009 Earl

Borden Award.

Mr. Kilpatrick nominated Deborah Larsen for the preservation leadership award. He

noted he agreed with Mr. Dziurman's sentiments, but also was compelled by the fact

she was donating the proceeds to the Rochester-Avon Historical Society. He pointed

out the Society took an active role in preservation in the Community, and he thought

she was a deserving candidate.

Ms. Cozzolino seconded the nomination, and stated she understood Ms. Larsen spent

an enormous amount of time writing that book, and put a great deal of effort into the

book.

Chairperson Dunphy called for a vote on the nomination of Ms. Deborah Larsen as

a recipient of the 2009 Earl Borden Preservation Leadership Award. The

Commission voted in favor of the nomination, with one opposed vote.

Chairperson Dunphy summarized that the house at 971 Runyon Road (Mr. and Mrs.

Mark Kowal), and Ms. Deborah Larsen had been selected as recipients of the 2009

Earl Borden Award.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the presentation would be scheduled for a City Council

meeting in May; the recipients would be notified, and the invitation and plaques

prepared and ordered. He noted the Commissioners would be notified when the City

Council meeting date was selected.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

9A.

2006-0428

Certified Local Government (CLG) Application

- Update

Chairperson Dunphy requested an update on the status of the Certified Local

Government (CLG) Application.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had received an update from the State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO). Although the City had not formally received designation as a CLG,

SHPO was in the process of preparing the necessary documents for signature by the

Mayor. Once SHPO has the executed agreements, they forward those agreements to

the National Park Service for approval of the certification.

Ms. Luginski asked if Staff expected any problems with the application at this point.

Mr. Delacourt responded "no", it had moved on to the next step. He noted the

Mayor had to sign an agreement indicating the City would perform under the

requirements of the CLG Program. He had never seen those requirements, but did

not expect there would by any problems.

Mr. Miller asked if the agreement was with the State or the Federal Government. Mr.

Delacourt stated it was with the State. Mr. Miller asked why the Federal Government

was reviewing it. Mr. Delacourt explained that the Department of History, Arts and

Libraries operated under the National Park Service, and the CLG Funds came from

the Federal Government through the State.

Mr. Dziurman explained the SHPO, although a State Agency, acted on behalf of the

Federal Government. Mr. Delacourt noted the State was reorganizing its various

departments, including the Department of History, Arts and Libraries, and SHPO

would most likely be housed under another State Department.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there was a timeline for completion of the CLG process.

Mr. Delacourt stated it could take a couple more months before any formal news is

received.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the City or the Mayor's Office would provide the

information to the news media once the CLG was confirmed. Mr. Delacourt agreed it

was an important certification that the City could be proud of.

This matter was Discussed

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

2008-0678

Stoney Creek Village

- Discussion of Resident Concerns

Ms. Luginski stated she resided in the Stoney Creek Historic District, and there was a

road project planned for Summer, 2010 regarding the bridge on Tienken Road in that

District. She stated there had been some deck issues with the bridge during the past

week, which closed the bridge for some time. The bridge was planned for 2010 and

it appeared it would go forward in 2010.

Ms. Luginski stated that a Section 106 Study would be done in connection with the

project, as Federal dollars were involved. She had been told there would be time for

public input, and she thought the Commission might want to watch for that as the

bridge would have an impact and affect on the District. She wanted the Commission

to stay on top of those plans. Because of the proximity of the houses to the road in

that District, she thought the Section 106 review could elevate into an environmental

impact study and a 4F Study through the Federal Highway Department.

Ms. Luginski stated the size of the bridge was a big issue, noting the current bridge

was narrower than the proposed new bridge. The new bridge could impact some

City-owned property and some privately owned property. There was also talk of a

pedestrian path, which was seen as a benefit by the area residents, because it would

bring people down to the Historic District and allow them to ride or walk through that

area safely. She thought the Commission wanted to be sure it was done well. For

example, with respect to the bridge itself, she mentioned that Pat McKay from the

Van Hoosen Museum had suggested the possibility of creating a cobblestone bridge

rather than a concrete bridge. She thought it was important the Commission was

aware of any proposals.

Mr. Dziurman stated the design aspect of the bridge should come before the

Commission for review and approval. Mr. Delacourt stated he did not believe the

Road Commission had reached that point yet. Mr. Dziurman stated Ms. Luginski

indicated Pat McKay was making some suggestions, and he thought the Commission

should be part of that discussion.

Ms. Luginski stated Mr. McKay attended a meeting with the Road Commission. Mr.

Dziurman stated that the Commission should not be overlooked in any design process.

He commented that widening the bridge was one thing, but expressed concern over

what they wanted to do to the road. He pointed out that was a Nationally Registered

Historic District, and the installation of sidewalks should be carefully considered. He

did not want the Commission to be the last to be involved in the process.

Mr. Miller asked if the public input meeting had already been held. Ms. Luginski

stated it had not. She commented a meeting had been held for the stretch of Tienken

Road between Livernois to Sheldon Road. Mr. Delacourt noted that stretch of

Tienken Road was outside the Historic District.

Ms. Luginski stated there was concern because that stretch of Tienken Road was

being discussed as a five-lane road, and there were some who did not want to see that

portion become a five-lane road. She thought the width of the new bridge was

critical, noting there were two-lane bridges that could become a four-lane bridge. She

thought it was important that the integrity of the District was protected and she thought

it was important the Commission was aware that process would be happening soon.

Mr. Dziurman stated it was his point that the new bridge should not be something that

was made up, but should accurately reflect what was there when it became a District.

He emphasized it should not necessarily be what someone thought it should look like.

Mr. Delacourt felt it was important to point out that this would be a long process, with

everyone having time for input.

Ms. Luginski was concerned that if the bridge was scheduled for installation in

Summer of 2010, there was not much time left for that input. Mr. Delacourt thought

all agencies that were involved were aware of the input that had to be provided before

it moved forward.

Dr. Stamps commented this was the first he had heard about the proposed bridge.

Mr. Delacourt reiterated that all the agencies involved in the installation of the bridge

were aware of who had to provide public input before it was built, including the

Commission. Mr. Dziurman questioned whether the Commission should contact

someone first. He did not want the Commission to be contacted after the fact. Dr.

Stamps asked if the Commission should contact the project manager and request a

meeting.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if would be appropriate for Planning Department Staff to

ask the Road Commission for an update for the Commission. He noted the Road

Commission might not be ready for any type of presentation, but perhaps there was a

brief update to inform the Commission about where the process was headed. Mr.

Delacourt stated he would make that request.

Dr. Stamps suggested the Road Commission be advised that the Commission was

concerned because it appeared to be happening, but the Commission was out of the

loop.

Mr. Dziurman commented he would like to request that the project manager come

before the Commission to explain the project. He thought the Road Commission

should understand how important the District was and the bridge's affect on that

District. He requested that someone from the Road Commission come and talk to the

Commission about this project. Dr. Stamps supported the idea that a representative

from the Road Commission talk to the Commission.

Mr. Dziurman thought that the Road Commission needed to be aware the

Commission was serious about that Historic District. Mr. Delacourt guessed that until

the Section 106 Study was completed, which was done through the SHPO and

operated under certain standards, the impact and how the bridge was reviewed was

not even determined.

Mr. Dziurman stated it was an automatic that the bridge was in a historic district, and

that fact could not be changed. Mr. Delacourt commented there was a process and

the Road Commission would follow that process.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if Staff could find out when the Road Commission intended to

approach the various City Boards and Commissions, or whether there was a

timeframe in place. Mr. Delacourt stated he could ask that question.

Ms. Luginski stated in her discussions with the SHPO regarding Section 106 reviews,

they did say that the Section 106 review included public input as part of the process.

Mr. Dziurman commented that public input did not include the Commission, which

was more for the residents.

This matter was Discussed

2005-0914

Rochester Grain Elevator

- Update

Chairperson Dunphy provided a quick update on the Rochester Elevator. He stated

the property had not changed hands and was still owned by the original owner and

operating as his business. The City of Rochester asked the owner to make some

cosmetic improvements to the property under their blight ordinance. The

Rochester-Avon Historical Society had talked to the owner about some type of

cooperative project that would help the owner to put a coat of paint on the building;

stabilize it and preserve it, while the final disposition of the building is worked out.

There was still on-going discussion about how that would take place, and who would

pay for what. It has been the position of the Historical Society that they wanted to see

the building preserved, and ideally, adaptively re-used. He commented if it could

remain on its current site, that would be the best. He noted the Rochester City

Council had discussed the idea of purchasing the property and using it as a town

square park. In the meantime, they wanted to be sure the building was preserved.

They will make arrangements to get the building painted, and will repaint the

checkerboard sign on the end, which would be done by a professional sign painter

who will recreate the historic sign on the side of the building.

This matter was Discussed

Dr. Stamps stated that the Historic Districts Study Committee was studying the

National Twist Drill property located at the northeast corner of Rochester and

Tienken Roads. He commented it appeared to be a very important, architectural and

historical feature in the City. He asked for suggestions for an adaptive re-use of the

building, although the Study Committee was still in the early stages of the study

process.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business. No other business was presented.

He noted the next regular meeting date is April 9, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Dunphy adjourned the meeting at

9:10 PM.

_________________________________

Brian Dunphy, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

_________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

{Approved as presented at the May 14, 2009 Regular Historic Districts Commission

Meeting.}