Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Melinda Hill, Vice Chairperson Brian R. Dunphy

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

Micheal Sinclair, Dr. Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, September 13, 2007

MINUTES of the REGULAR ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

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

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

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

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Melinda Hill, Paul Miller, Richard

Stamps and Jason Thompson

Present

6 -

Brian Dunphy, Micheal Kilpatrick and Michael Sinclair

Absent

3 -

Also Present: Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Hill announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

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

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

of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, MCL Section

399.205, and City Code Section 118-164.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2007-0573

June 14, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Hill asked for any comments or corrections regarding the June 14, 2007

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

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

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

Aye

Cozzolino, Dziurman, Hill, Miller, Stamps and Thompson

6 -

Absent

Dunphy, Kilpatrick and Sinclair

3 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the June 14, 2007 Regular Historic Districts Commission

Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

6.

A. The Rochester Era, August/September 2007 Edition

B. MHPN Network News, Summer 2007 Edition

Chairperson Hill stated that the Commissioners had received copies of the above

documents, and called for any other announcements or communications.

Mr. Miller requested a brief update about the Heritage X Conference held at Oakland

University on September 12, 2007, noting he had been unable to attend the

conference.

Chairperson Hill stated the original Oakland County Heritage Conference was held at

Meadowbrook Hall, and the Conference held on September 12th was the tenth

conference, coming back to Meadowbrook Hall. She thought it was an excellent

conference, noting there was a nice variety of topics and it was well attended.

Dr. Stamps stated the Conference was co-sponsored by the Oakland County

Planning and Economic Development Office and was attended by both City and

County Planners, providing an opportunity to share information on both environmental

and preservation issues. He stated that the County had rolled out their efforts on

maps. He explained the County had created a cultural resources map ten years ago,

and this year rolled out a Native American map and was working on three other maps

- one about the way people used to work in Oakland County through farming, mills,

business and industry; and one about historical recreation in Oakland County. He

thought it was a good Conference.

Chairperson Hill stated she would review her notes from the Conference, including

information about how to promote preservation in communicating to the younger

audience through the schools and other avenues, with the hope that future generations

would view structures in a different way and not feel everything had to be new to

function. She indicated some interesting methods had been brought up, which the

Commission might be able to apply in educating the Community’s students.

Dr. Stamps stated the keynote speaker during the lunch hour spoke about specific

things that were being taught in the elementary school, such as looking at the date on a

building and creating a math problem by subtracting that date from the current year, so

the students could figure out the age of the building. He explained walking tours with

the students were done, and the students were asked to count the number of

windows, or identify the different shapes on a building. In other words, the historic

tour was used to promote other learning exercises, as well as creating a sense of

space and letting the students learn about their community. Dr. Stamps stated the

tours were popular with not only the students, but also with local politicians, who

oftentimes were on the tour route shaking hands.

Dr. Stamps stated one of the afternoon sessions discussed gathering data from

different cities on their monuments, or other resources, and packaging that information

and selling it in handouts or brochures or books or CD’s or on pod casts. Rather than

having walking tours, students could take a tour through a pod cast.

Chairperson Hill stated there were discussions on how to engage students so they

discover the history of a resource and find out it is interesting. She stated the

Preservation Network and Randolph School, which is a vocational school in the

Detroit School system, through a grant, allowed pupils from the Randolph School

work on Historic Fort Wayne. They learned how to do plastering and mortar repair

and a number of skills, but first took the students around the City, many of which had

never seen the various historic buildings in the City. Not only were the students

engaged in a sense of the structures and how to preserve them, they also learned a

skill or trade.

Chairperson Hill stated that pieces of the various sessions might be used by the

Commission to engage people who were not preservationists to look at what the

Community had in a different light.

Dr. Stamps stated the during the Preservation Network’s tour with the students in the

City of Detroit, one of the students had commented, upon seeing the Fisher Theatre,

that he did not know such a building existed in the City.

Mr. Miller commented he had attended the first Heritage Conference ten years ago,

which was not as interesting as the recent conference sounded. He was delighted to

hear about the activities the Oakland County Planning and Economic Development

Department is involved in. He commented he had seen the Native American map

because a copy was presented to City Council a few weeks ago, and noted it was

interesting to see the marked trails through the City. He thought the Commission

could discuss pre-settlement history as a future Agenda item, as this was a vastly

underutilized aspect of the City’s heritage.

Dr. Stamps stated there was a small citizen movement in the Community that wanted

to put signage on the Rochester Hills Trail between the Rochester Hills and Auburn

Hills, and that committee had identified nine areas along the trail for signage. One is

proposed to be located by M-59 and Adams Road about the mastodon and the

Indians; and another was identified that would indicate the location of the first Indian

trails, then wagon trails, then the railroad, and now the bike path to show the

evolutionary development.

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

announcements or communications were presented.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Hill asked if there were any public comments on any Non-Agenda

matters. There were no public comments.

NEW BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2007-0574

Update regarding Administrative Approval of In-Ground Pool

Address: 6475 Mallon Court

Sidwell: 15-01-327-004

Owner: James and Debra Wetzel

District: Stoney Creek

Chairperson Hill stated that an administrative approval was given to 6475 Mallon

Court for the installation of an in-ground pool. She indicated she had some discussion

with Mr. Delacourt in August when the request was made, and noted it was difficult to

pull together a quorum for an August HDC Meeting. After discussing the matter more

in depth, it was decided that the property was not a contributing resource, and was

located in an area that would most likely be eliminated if the boundaries of the Stoney

Creek Historic District were redistricted. She stated it was a newer home on a

private road, and because the applicant hoped to install the pool in time for use this

summer, it was decided to proceed with an administrative approval.

(Arrive Mr. Sinclair 7:50 PM)

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Melinda Hill, Paul Miller, Michael

Sinclair, Richard Stamps and Jason Thompson

Present

7 -

Brian Dunphy and Micheal Kilpatrick

Absent

2 -

2007-0574

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission should discuss when or when not

administrative approvals should be given. She questioned whether swimming pools

should automatically be an administrative approval, but noted if the pool were being

installed on a contributing resource, that would be a different situation. She felt the

requests would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and called for

discussion from the Commission. She noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness

for 6475 Mallon Court stated the reasons why the administrative approval was given,

including the fact the residence was constructed in 2002; was a non-contributing

resource, and it did not abut or affect any contributing resources in the District.

Mr. Miller stated he thought when a request like this involved a non-contributing

resource surrounded by other non-contributing resources, as opposed to having an

impact on an adjacent contributing resource, an administrative approval was alright.

He noted he had been suggesting for some time that the historic roles needed to be

simplified for both the Commission and the property owners who lived within the

confines of a District in a non-contributing resource.

Mr. Dziurman thought the request had been handled appropriately. Dr. Stamps

concurred.

Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that the Study Committee intended to review

the District boundaries, but were presently constrained by time and budgetary

requirements. He agreed the request did not have any impact on the District, and was

in an area that could be eliminated from the District if the boundaries were redrawn.

Chairperson Hill stated that was a reason to permit the administrative approval, along

with the fact the premises was not surrounded by other contributing resources. She

suggested the Commission could schedule a discussion in the future about whether

there were other situations where the Commission would allow an administrative

approval.

This matter was Discussed

8B.

2007-0576

1585 S. Rochester Road

- Duty to Maintain Correspondence

Chairperson Hill stated that next three items were about resources that had some

problems that were somewhat related to demolition by neglect. She noted letters had

been sent to the property owners requesting some discussion about what they were

going to do with their resource to prevent the problems that were going on. She

suggested the Commission discuss each item separately.

Mr. Dziurman commented that that owner of this property was the same property

owner who tore down the barns in that same development, despite having promised

the Commission the barns would be saved. He did not think the house would be

taken care of by the property owner, although he felt the home should be protected.

He stated that based on the Commission’s past experience with the property, he did

not think the property owner was very historically minded.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not believe the ownership of the resource had

changed, and noted the property had not been developed under the Planned Unit

Development (PUD), except for the bank.

Mr. Dziurman noted that previously the subdivision had been developed, and the

house sat on the final piece. Chairperson Hill stated a PUD was in place that included

the bank, the historic house, and the rest of the development which originally had

some commercial; however, she thought the project was now strictly a residential

development. She did not know the status of the PUD, since only the bank had been

developed, and the balance of the project had not been started.

Chairperson Hill noted the Commission had options to take action; however, those

options were controlled by City Council. She stated the Commission could request

that action be taken, which could happen through a court order, but City Council

would have to approve that action.

Mr. Miller asked if there was an intermediate step whereby a demand letter was sent,

or whether the letter that had been sent was what the Commission could do. He

understood City Council would have to move forward with any Ordinance or legal

remedies, but asked if the Commission had a method of being more firm. He believed

the property owner might have received similar letters that had been ignored.

Chairperson Hill stated the letters could be followed up with a telephone call, and

noted no response had been received from any of the parties to date. Mr. Miller

pointed out the letter gave the property owner 90 days to respond, and suggested the

Commission be kept informed of any response, and that the property owner be

contacted by telephone. He stated the Commission could revisit the matter in 90

days.

Mr. Thompson asked if the house would last 90 days, noting it did not appear to be

structurally sound. He pointed out the pillars had already collapsed.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not have an answer to that question. She pointed out

the property was private property and it was difficult for the City to go on the

property without permission. She did not believe the Building Department could make

an inspection unless they had received permission to do so. She questioned whether

there were problems with the roof and whether it was leaking inside, and well as

whether there were problems with the pillars.

Mr. Thompson stated that from an outside view, it appeared to be a hazard and

would collapse. Chairperson Hill noted the view of the porch looked bad, but she did

not know if the house looked as bad. She did not know how much support the pillars

were to the house.

Mr. Dziurman thought the letter was appropriate at this time, but commented that the

Commission always sent appropriate letters, but did not have the authority to do

anything about it. He did not think the house would fall down, but the porch roof

might go down. He thought the building should be inspected and should be

mothballed, if possible, and stabilized, with the property owner bearing the expense.

He thought that was the charge of the Commission, but was not aware of whether the

City would do that and put a lien on the property. He asked if the proposed Blight

Ordinance had been passed. He was informed it had not been passed. He thought

the structure needed immediate attention, and that should be done if the City could do

so legally and place a lien on the property.

Mr. Thompson stated he would like to see the same thing, and suggested the matter

be brought back to the next meeting. At that time, the Commission might have a

response from the property owner. He agreed if nothing was going to be done, the

Commission should move forward to request Council have the structure mothballed.

Mr. Miller stated that in looking at the porch roof, it was straight as an arrow. He

commented that he used to be a licensed contractor/builder, and although things would

sag, they rarely fell down unless it was really rotten and caused something to collapse.

He stated that back in the late 1960s, he was hired to paint both this and a smaller

house on the property, and there were some incredibly intricate details that if ignored,

would be lost. He pointed out if the house was repaired inappropriately, much of that

detail would be damaged or lost. He agreed the Commission should move forward a

bit more strongly than the letter indicated. He thought one way to do that was to have

the Chairperson discuss the matter with the Council President to see if Council would

be receptive to preserving a designated resource.

Dr. Stamps agreed with the statements made, and suggested the Commission might

ask Mr. Delacourt to contact the property owner and reiterate the concerns, explain

the options, and advise it would be the Commission’s intent to have the structure

mothballed before winter. He stated that would give the property owner a timeline

and address the concern of protecting the structure before the winter season.

Chairperson Hill concurred that the Commission would like to have Mr. Delacourt

make some contact with the property owner prior to the next HDC Meeting verifying

the property owner received the letter; asking what he intended to do with the

structure, and suggest that mothballing be done. She thought Council should be

informed that the HDC sent letters to three designated property owners because there

were problems, and that the Commission was trying to work with the property owners

to see something done. She thought it would be helpful to inform Council what was

happening, and that the Commission hoped the property owners would handle the

problems on their own.

Mr. Dziurman stated the letter that was sent referred to the Ordinance, Section

118-33 (Duty to Maintain) that stated “within a reasonable time”. He questioned the

definition of reasonable, and pointed out that 90 days of the date of the letter would

be Thanksgiving. He thought the Commission should be very clear, perhaps with

another follow-up letter, that if no work is done, the City might do something.

Ms. Cozzolino asked what administrative steps had to be followed to move the matter

along. Chairperson Hill stated that a request would be sent to Council indicating that

per the Ordinance in this type of situation, Council could ask that a court order be

sought to enter the property and mothball the structure, if the owner is not willing to do

that work, and then place a lien on the property for the repairs. She stated that would

be an up-front cost to the City and could involve litigation costs as well. She stated

that because the structure was part of an approved PUD that contained direction

about what should happen to the resource, she thought Council needed to be informed

about the problem, and that a letter had been sent attempting to solve the problem.

She noted if the PUD did not move forward for several years, something needed to be

done because the house was part of the PUD Agreement, and it was a different

situation.

Dr. Stamps stated the City knew how to handle this type of situation as the City had

mothballed the former Prewitt House (1046 E. Tienken). He thought if the

Commissioners all strongly agreed, and Mr. Delacourt contacted the appropriate

people, the process would move forward.

Ms. Cozzolino asked what the time frame would be from the initial request to Council

until the structure was mothballed. Chairperson Hill stated that would depend on

when the court order was requested and received, which the City would most likely

be given as the Ordinance followed the State Act and allowed for that to happen.

Depending on how quickly the court order was received, it would also depend on the

weather, timing, and whether the work was performed by City employees or whether

a contractor had to be hired.

Chairperson Hill stated that because the letter gave the property owner 90 days to

respond, and if Council was informed the letter had been sent; Mr. Delacourt had a

conversation with the property owner, and if nothing happened within the 90-day

period, this matter could be placed on a Council Agenda, and it would move along.

She thought that the sooner the communication was there, the better it would be for

everyone. She suggested Mr. Delacourt provide a Memorandum to City Council,

along with a copy of the letters that were sent. The Commissioners agreed that was

an appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. Miller stated that based on the conversation, he was prepared to make the

following motion:

MOTION, in the matter of 1585 S. Rochester Road, HDC File No.

03-003, that the Historic Districts Commission requests that City

Council pursue a Circuit Court Order under Section 118-33 of the

Rochester Hills Code of Ordinances to ensure the proper preservation

of the resource located at 1585 S. Rochester Road, which is part of

an existing Planned Unit Development Agreement between the

property owner and the City, to prevent its further deterioration

through demolition by neglect, should no response be received within

90 days of an August 27, 2007 letter sent to the property owner by

the Historic Districts Commission regarding the property owner’s duty

to maintain the designated resource located at 1585 S. Rochester

Road.

Dr. Stamps stated he would second the proposed motion on the floor. Chairperson

Hill called for discussion on the motion on the floor.

Mr. Thompson suggested the Commission wait for 90 days and see what happens

and if Mr. Delacourt is able to contact the property owner. He pointed out the

Commission could make a motion at the next meeting if nothing had happened. He

thought the property owner should be given an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Dziurman understood providing the property owner an opportunity to respond,

but noted that rarely happened. He thought the Commission should start the process

by notifying City Council that the letters had been sent, so that after the 90 days

expired, Council would be prepared to move forward to request a Court Order be

obtained. He noted that would be based on the property owner not responding or

doing anything to protect the resource. He thought the issue of the PUD Agreement

was an important aspect because the property owner had received an approved PUD

based on the designated historic property. He indicated the Commission needed to

be sure those two things were tied together, and if something happened to the

resource, then perhaps the PUD Agreement would be taken off the table. He was not

sure how that would be done, but felt if the resource was being compromised, it was a

significant part of the PUD, and something had to be done about the resource.

Mr. Miller stated he would amend his proposed motion such that the Commission

pursue a conversation with City Council and would bring their request forward after

30 days. He thought the discussion with Council should begin now, and if work does

progress satisfactorily, then Council would be requested to proceed with the Court

Order.

Mr. Thompson stated the request to Council could made 30 days from now, but that

contact should be made with Council, especially regarding the PUD issue. He thought

the Commission could make a motion and proceed in 30 days.

Mr. Miller stated that because of Council’s Agenda, it would be better for the

Commission to get their matter on the list of items to be scheduled for a Council

meeting.

Mr. Dziurman suggested a letter to City Council, making them aware of the situation,

and what the HDC wanted to do about it, and what the Commission wanted the

Council to do about it, because of the PUD and the fact it is a designated property.

He suggested the Planning Commission also be made aware of the situation. He

thought a letter from the HDC to the Council and Planning Commission explaining the

HDC’s concerns, and there were other things attached to the property that the other

Boards should be concerned about as well. He thought that would take 30 days, or

the Commission could ask for a response before their next meeting.

Chairperson Hill concurred that Council should to be informed, but believed Mr.

Delacourt should send a Memorandum from the standpoint that he is the liaison. The

Memo would inform Council that the letters were sent, and there is concern with this

particular property because it is tied in as part of the PUD. She thought that made

sense, particularly since Mr. Delacourt was in the Planning Department. She noted

the Memo could include the fact that there had been discussion by the HDC and the

HDC was interested in having Council be aware of the situation, and if no action is

taken by the property owner, the HDC was very interested in having Council pursue

an Order under the Ordinance. She was not sure the Commission needed to make a

motion to accomplish that. She suggested the HDC have a motion ready for the next

meeting, which would be sent as a follow-up to the Memo. She felt it would be more

appropriate to inform Council about the situation first, rather than forwarding a motion

asking them to act on the matter.

Mr. Miller stated he would withdraw his proposed motion, but noted he thought it was

important that the Commission be proactive as much as possible on this property. Dr.

Stamps agreed to withdraw the proposed motion on the floor.

Chairperson Hill agreed there was good cause to be proactive with the PUD

Agreement in place. She stated that Council should be informed that the HDC had

discussed the matter and the house was part of the PUD and not an occupied

property.

Mr. Miller stated the PUD particularly concerned him and he thought it was important

those concerns be brought forward.

Chairperson Hill asked if the Commission thought there was enough direction for Mr.

Delacourt to move forward.

Mr. Thompson stated he wanted to make it clear that as part of the next Agenda for

the next meeting, that a formal motion be included in the packet for the Commission to

discuss. He agreed if nothing happened in the next 30 days, the Commission should

be prepared to move forward on the matter.

This matter was Discussed

8C.

2005-0398

1046 E. Tienken Road

- Duty to Maintain Correspondence

Chairperson Hill noted this was the former Prewitt residence, and commented the

letter to this property owner was a bit different because some of the items in the

Certificate of Appropriateness had been addressed. Also, the property owner had

requested an extension of the Certificate of Appropriateness because they were trying

to obtain a mortgage on the property as their Land Contract was coming due. She

noted some items approved in the Certificate of Appropriateness were still

outstanding, and stated she was not aware of the status of the renovations with respect

to the Building Department.

Mr. Thompson asked if the reason why the items had not been completed was

because of a financial component. He commented he did not want to come down

hard on an individual homeowner, especially in this economy, who was struggling

financially.

Chairperson Hill commented the house was for sale, and the current owners had never

resided in the house. She was not sure about their financial condition or whether they

were ever successful in obtaining a mortgage on the property.

Ms. Cozzolino stated that what she recalled from the meeting when the property

owner appeared before the Commission, was that he was not financially able to

complete the work the Commission required him to do, or was unwilling to do so from

a financial standpoint.

Mr. Miller mentioned that it was an immigrant family that purchased the property who

were not that familiar with the legal system and real estate agents. He noted Mr.

Krgovic’ told him the only reason they bought the home was because it was a home

they could afford where their children could attend the Rochester Community Schools.

He stated the property owner did not know what he was getting into. He indicated he

spoke to Mr. Krgovic’ after the meeting, and Mr. Krgovic’ was horrified at the idea

that the door he purchased from the Home Depot would not meet the historic

standards and the Commission wanted him to move the door. He did not believe the

family had much money to put into the resource.

Chairperson Hill noted that work had been done on the home, and the prior door had

been removed. However, the property owner had put a regular six-panel door on the

outside of the front porch, rather that putting the door where it should be. She stated

that door was installed recently. She noted part of the shutters were put back on the

house, but part of them were not. She stated the house had been repainted, first with

an incorrect taupe color, and then corrected with white paint. She understood

plumbing, plastering and other interior work had been done as well. She did not think

it was a matter of having the funds as the property owner was working on the house,

they had just not complied with the Certificate of Appropriateness from the HDC

standpoint. She noted that from the Building Department standpoint was another

issue, as the Commission was not dealing with the interior.

Mr. Dziurman did not think the letter was strong enough, and should have included a

time limit. He pointed out the Certificate of Appropriateness had been extended, and

thought the Commission should set a time limit. He did not think the property owner

would respond to the letter.

Chairperson Hill stated a prior letter had been sent, which requested the property

owner to change the door on the front porch, paint the house white, and put the

shutters back on, which was the reason the Certificate of Appropriateness was

extended to August 4, 2007. She stated the matter had become somewhat

complicated because of issues found by the Building Department on the interior work.

She agreed that the Commission needed to get their issues resolved in a stronger

manner.

Mr. Dziurman noted the issues with this resource had been on going for more than

fifteen years. He commented the problem was that the Commission did not have any

power to do anything. He agreed the resource had been fixed up a little bit, but

needed an update on the matter before he could make any decision.

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission could go through the same process as was

discussed with the prior Agenda item, but just for the items in the Certificate of

Appropriateness that had not been completed. She clarified the Commission’s

concerns were with the exterior of the house.

Mr. Dziurman stated that about two years ago he was asked to tour the home with

representatives of the Building Department. Chairperson Hill believed that had

happened because the City was considering mothballing the structure, and had

happened before the current owners purchased the property.

Ms. Cozzolino suggested the Commission reschedule this matter to the next Agenda

and ask Mr. Delacourt for an update. Chairperson Hill suggested Mr. Delacourt have

a follow-up conversation with the property owner.

Mr. Miller stated that because this property was owned by an individual homeowner

and a family, he would like the Commission to be a little less strong. He agreed the

Commission needed to find out what was going on, but did not want to have the

current owners walk away and the City end up with a vacant structure again because

the homeowner thought it was too hard or too expensive or too much. He agreed the

Commission needed a response from the homeowner and was in favor of a follow-up

telephone call and a discussion with City Council, but cautioned pursuing legal steps

on this case.

Mr. Thompson stated he would like more information before making a decision, and

suggested the matter be scheduled for the next Agenda. He stated he would like to

review the meeting minutes from when the property owner appeared before the HDC.

Chairperson Hill clarified Mr. Thompson wanted to review the minutes from the

original approval. She agreed she would also like to review those minutes. She stated

this matter would be scheduled for the next HDC Agenda; the Commission would

receive an update from Mr. Delacourt; the information would be passed along to City

Council, and requested Mr. Delacourt hold a follow-up conversation with the

property owner.

This matter was Discussed

8D.

2006-0105

1841 Crooks Road

- Duty to Maintain Correspondence

Chairperson Hill stated she understood the property owner had some conversations

with the Building Department and had submitted an Application for the Zoning Board

of Appeals. She explained a portion of the proposed addition fell within the proposed

Crooks Road right-of-way. She questioned whether the plans had changed from the

plans approved by the Commission. The only portion she recalled that extended out

was the area to the south of the front porch where two rooms had been added on that

were going to be removed and then an addition put on.

Mr. Miller asked if there were plans to widen that section of Crooks Road.

Chairperson Hill explained it did not matter from that standpoint because if something

falls within an existing right-of-way, there was a problem.

Mr. Miller believed the right-of-way had been expanded over the last decade.

Chairperson Hill thought it had probably existed for a while because Crooks had been

a major road for a long time, although she did not know if it had a 120-foot

right-of-way. She did not know if the existing home might sit within the right-of-way

and was considered nonconforming.

Mr. Miller stated he assumed Crooks Road was a county road and thought the

Commission should stay on top of how any road expansion plans might impact the

resource. He commented if the property owner had been having conversations with

City Staff, he did not think the Commission had to do anything at this time. He

understood the homeowner putting this off if there was a question about whether or

not the work would be allowed to proceed.

Chairperson Hill felt the Commission needed more information. She noted she was

not opposed to the letter being sent because not much had been done and the

resource looked pretty bad. She thought the Commission had done what it should in

informing the property owner this was not a good situation. She stated the

Commission needed to be informed about the intent and what was happening.

This matter was Discussed

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

9.

9A.

2007-0575

Review of Survey Results

- From Open House and Mailing

Chairperson Hill stated that surveys had been received during the Open House and

from the mailing to the designated property owners, and some responses were still

being returned.

Mr. Miller stated he was interested in the comment about finding money for historic

preservation. He indicated he had heard there was some type of tax capture

possibility for historic districts, and asked that Mr. Delacourt find out about it and

suggested the matter be scheduled for discussion at the next HDC Meeting.

Mr. Dziurman stated the historic tax credits had been preserved in Lansing. Mr.

Miller stated he had heard it was a similar to the tax capture used by Downtown

Development Authorities. He thought if there was something available beyond tax

credits, it would be helpful for the Commission to know about that. He explained if

there was a tax capture such that taxes were retained to be used within the District,

the Commission should be aware of that.

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission could ask Mr. Delacourt if he had any

information about that tax. Mr. Dziurman thought the Preservation Network would

have provided some information about that. Chairperson Hill stated some

communities had downtown areas that were designated historic, and they might be

able to capture some sort of tax increment financing; however, Rochester Hills was

not set up to do that, because the City had so many non-contiguous districts.

Mr. Miller stated that proposed tax had been brought up during discussions at City

Council about the Ferry Court/Wayside Park property. He noted City Council was

looking for some ideas to generate money for preservation, and it would benefit the

Commission if they knew about all the options available.

Chairperson Hill referred to the survey results, noting twelve surveys had been

returned from the mailing, although one was a duplicate from one received at the open

house. The Commission had just received one additional survey, bringing the total

returned to nineteen.

Mr. Dziurman stated that the Commission had talked about the fact that Oakland

Township had a millage for historic preservation and possibly trying to do the same

thing in the City. He thought the Commission should pursue it, although it would take

a lot of effort, but should be spearheaded by the Commission. That would allow the

City to have funds to distribute for preservation.

Chairperson Hill commented that would be a giant leap. Mr. Dziurman noted

Oakland Township had done it and gotten the millage voted in. Chairperson Hill

noted Oakland Township had tied that millage in with a greenspace millage, and they

did have funds.

Chairperson Hill stated that if the City received Certified Local Government (CLG)

status, that would help open some doors for grant possibilities.

Mr. Miller agreed the Commission should pursue the possibility of a millage. He

agreed Oakland Township had tied their millage into open space, but believed the City

could also tie in a millage with open space.

Mr. Miller noted the survey comments about the paving of Washington Road, and

stated he was appalled that those residents left a City Council meeting thinking things

would stay the same. He felt that lead to other responses on the surveys about saving

the trees. He recalled Time Magazine had an article about large trees and a

movement across the nation to preserve large trees because every large tree lost had a

significant impact on the environment in terms of filtration, evaporation, cooling, etc.,

that no amount of smaller trees could compensate for. He stated those trees were

being declared and protected as historic resources. He thought some historic districts

could be adversely impacted by large road improvement projects, along with sewer

and water and curb and gutter plans. He did not recall any conversation at the HDC

Level about the plan to pave Washington Road. He thought it would help the

Commission to be more engaged with things going on in the districts. He agreed the

historic feel would be lost if Washington Road was paved, and the trees would be

lost. He commented he had not seen the road expansion plans.

Chairperson Hill stated she had tried to keep up on what was happening with that

project, and agreed once something was submitted to the City, there should be some

conversation with the HDC because the project would run through two of the City’s

contiguous districts. She thought the courtesy should be extended to the Commission

of showing the plan to them, or it would be appropriate to invite the Commissioners to

attend the Council meeting when the plan is presented.

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission had discussed what to do with the survey

results, and suggested some time be scheduled to discuss whether another open house

would be held next year, or whether there was a smaller workshop that should be held

based on the survey responses. She commented the purpose was to keep the lines of

communication open between the designated property owners and the Commission.

She noted it appeared the property owners were interested in some type of a

workshop.

Mr. Miller commented that since the Commission had asked the residents what type

of workshop they were interested in, the Commission should explore when and where

to hold another event.

Dr. Stamps asked if the Commission could request whoever is to widen or pave

Washington Road, if the project moves forward, that they bring the proposal to the

HDC as it moves through the system. He thought such a request would be the

appropriate thing to do. Chairperson Hill stated it was a County road, and explained

the County had the opportunity to use funds to pave some mile of gravel road within

the County. She noted the County had 800 miles of gravel road within the County

and were considering doing Washington Road in 2010 or 2011. She explained City

Council did make a resolution that included some conditions on what they would like

to see. She did not know where the County was going with the proposed project, but

noted the County could decide to pave another road somewhere else in the County.

Dr. Stamps suggested Mr. Delacourt contact the County and asked that a flag be put

on Washington Road because it runs through the City’s historic districts, and if plans

move forward, the Commission be contacted early on in the project so the

Commission could contribute input to the idea.

Dr. Stamps referred to the millage request to support historic districts, structures and

properties, and suggested the Commission invite a representative of Oakland

Township to attend the next HDC Meeting and discuss what they did and how they

did it. He thought it would be good to discuss the behind-the-scenes work on the

millage proposal. He did not think this was the appropriate time to bring a millage

request forward, but thought the Commission should start working on it in the event

the economy changes.

Dr. Stamps referred to the discussion about a workshop for the historic district

property owners, and agreed since the Commission had asked what they were

interested in, the Commission should schedule an event. He commented based on the

Heritage X Conference information, windows was something that people were being

trained to repair.

Chairperson Hill stated the Jim Turner from Turner Restoration had conducted a

number of workshops around the area. She suggested perhaps Rochester College

would like to participate by allowing the use of their chicken coop for a hands-on

demonstration in the spring.

Dr. Stamps understood that the Van Hoosen farmhouse windows needed repair, and

Mr. McKay had found a donor who would repair all the windows in the house. He

suggested that might be a good example of how that work was done. He thought it

would be worth asking Mr. McKay if the window repair could be used as an example

of a workshop for the Community. Chairperson Hill agreed that was a good

suggestion.

Mr. Sinclair stated he had storm window frames that he had built for his house that did

not have glass in them, and suggested they could be used for a hands-on workshop.

He thought he had about twenty that could be used.

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission would have to think about what time of year a

workshop could be held. She thought it was important to keep the connection, and let

the property owners know the Commission heard their responses and wanted to work

with them. She suggested the matter be discussed at a future Agenda to discuss the

cost. She commented that perhaps Oakland Township would want to partner in

holding the workshop and help share in the cost. She noted that Mr. Turner had held

his workshop through the Preservation Network, and she was not aware of what the

Network charged for those workshops.

This matter was Discussed

9B.

2007-0577

Review

- Draft of "What every historic property owner needs to know" Guide

Chairperson Hill asked if there were any comments about the draft Guide.

Mr. Dziurman stated the Guide looked very good, but wanted to have some time to

review it in better detail. He suggested the Commission schedule this matter for the

next meeting. He commented some graphics should be included.

Mr. Miller stated the Commission needed to discuss the items that would be

considered normal maintenance versus items that required approval by the

Commission. Mr. Dziurman stated that normal maintenance did not require

Commission approval.

Mr. Miller stated he would like to see the Commission pursue the open space that is

significant historically. He noted that had not been popular because the focus had

been on structures, but there were few historic open spaces left. He thought that tied

in with preserving historic trees.

Mr. Dziurman pointed out the City had a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Miller

stated the City did have some historic trees, but could have more. He commented

that the Meadowfield property located behind the Home Depot store contained an old

swamp white oak that was at least 300 to 400 years old, along with other old, large

trees in the wooded portion of that property. He thought the HDC could make some

progress in that area.

Chairperson Hill stated she would also like some additional time to review the draft

Guide. She referred to the discussion about trees, and suggested some type of

ad-hoc committee might be formed. She noted the HDC had not had time to look at

historic landscapes and historic trees because the HDC needed to spend time on the

resources and structures and keeping those maintained as much as possible, and had

not delved into landscape issues. She was sure there were more historic trees within

the Community, and commented it would be nice to see if there was still a list. She

thought it would be nice if there was a group who was interested in pursuing it further

and report back to the Commission.

Ms. Cozzolino agreed she needed some time to review the draft Guide, and

commented that she would have found something like this tremendously helpful when

she started on the Commission.

Dr. Stamps asked if it would be appropriate to send the Guide to the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) and ask for their suggestions or input. He noted it would

provide another set of eyes and if the Commission was doing something wrong, the

State would catch it. Chairperson Hill liked the idea if the State was willing to do that,

but suggested perhaps they review the Guide at the next meeting and provide the State

with the revised version.

Dr. Stamps stated that even if the State did not want to review the document, they

would be aware the City was putting one together.

Chairperson Hill stated this matter would be scheduled for the next meeting to allow

the Commissioners a chance to review the document.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.

Chairperson Hill called for any other business.

Mr. Thompson advised the Commissioners that the Study Committee would be

holding three public hearings on Monday, September 17, 2007 at 5:30 PM. He

explained the public hearings were on three properties being suggested for delisting.

Chairperson Hill stated she was unaware of the public hearings and asked which

properties were being considered.

Mr. Thompson stated the three properties were 1470 W. Tienken Road, 1207 N.

Livernois and 56187 Dequindre Road.

Mr. Miller commented he had suggested the Rochester-Avon Historical Society host

a candidate forum on the topic of historic preservation and why it is important. He

thought that would give the public a chance to see how candidates stood on the issue

of historic preservation.

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

She noted the next meeting was scheduled for October 11, 2007.

ADJOURNMENT

11.

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

9:15 PM.

________________________________

Melinda Hill, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Approved as presented at the November 8, 2007 Regular Historic Districts Commission

Meeting.