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

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, October 8, 2009

MINUTES of a 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 7:00 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Paul Miller, Richard Stamps,

Micheal Kilpatrick, Brian Dunphy, 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 provided prior notice

he was unable to attend this 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, MCL Section 399.205, and

City Code Section 118-164."

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2009-0413

Minutes of the August 20, 2009 Special Meeting

Chairperson Dunphy asked for any comments or corrections to the August 20, 2009

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

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

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

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the August 20, 2009 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting be approved as presented.

5B.

2009-0414

Minutes of the September 10, 2009 Regular Meeting

Chairperson Dunphy asked for any comments or corrections to the September 10,

2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, he called for a motion to

approve.

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

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

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

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

Districts Commission Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

6.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any announcements or communications. No

announcements or communications were presented.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if there were any public comments. He advised the

audience members in attendance that if they wished to speak on any non-Agenda

items, they should complete a speaker's card and turn it in to the recording secretary.

There were no public comments.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that if any member of the audience wished to speak on an

Agenda item, they should also complete a speaker's card and provide it to the

recording secretary.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2009-0335

1046 E. Tienken Road

Applicant: Matthew Vincent

Sidwell: 15-01-352-023

District: Stoney Creek

Request: - Certificate of Appropriateness

- Paint Colors; Front Interior Replacement Doors

- Certificate of Appropriateness

- New Driveway

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that this Item had been pulled from the

September 10, 2009 Agenda at the request of the applicant. He called for a brief

update from Staff.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Mr. Vincent was present at the August 20, 2009 meeting

and presented a series of renovation items that were approved by the Commission at

that meeting. The Commission had also identified some items and requested Mr.

Vincent return with additional information regarding the paint colors for the siding,

gutters, windows and shutters, as well as revisions to the interior doors. He noted

details regarding those items had been included in the packet.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was discussion by the Commission at both the August 20th

meeting and the September 10th Historic Districts Commission (HDC) meetings about

taking the taper off the porch columns, which was shown on Mr. Vincent's revised

plans. He stated Mr. Vincent had included details regarding the front doors based on

the Commission's comments.

Mr. Delacourt stated Staff had included a potential motion in the packet that

supplemented the approval granted at the August 20, 2009 meeting, relating to just the

items mentioned above.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was considerable discussion at the August 20th meeting

regarding the proposed driveway for the property. Subsequently, the applicant had

some survey work done and met with Staff from the Planning and Building

Departments. Contact was also made with the Road Commission for Oakland

County. He explained the applicant now proposed to move the driveway to the west

side of the home and would close the existing curb cut on the east side of the home.

He pointed out there was a very narrow strip of property on the east side of the

house, and the proposed driveway seemed to work better from a grade standpoint

and from the homeowner's standpoint. He noted revised plans had been included in

the packet.

Mr. Delacourt stated because there was considerable discussion about the driveway,

Staff had provided a separate potential motion for the Commission's consideration and

discussion regarding the proposed driveway. He noted the applicant would present

his additional information.

Matthew Vincent, 5595 Orion Road, Oakland Township, owner of 1046 E. Tienken

Road, was present. He stated there would be two interior front doors, one facing east

and one facing Tienken Road. After researching Greek Revival homes, he found that

primarily the most common door for that era was a four-panel door. He noted a

two-panel door was also somewhat common but not as prevalent as the four-panel,

which is what he is going to have made, if approved. He stated they would be solid

wood doors with solid wood jams.

Mr. Vincent stated his research regarding Greek Revival homes indicated that most

homes from that era commonly used white paint to mimic the marble Greek columns.

He speculated that was probably why most Greek Revival homes were white and why

he chose to keep the home white. He proposed to use Behr Ultra White paint, noting

no color swatches were available for that color. White would be used for the trim, the

windows, the siding, and basically everything except the shutters.

Mr. Vincent stated the color for the shutters would be Behr Mountain Spruce, which

is a green stain, and passed around color brochures for the Commission's review.

Mr. Vincent stated he would straighten out the front columns, which were currently

tapered.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the applicant was using the solid color or the semi-transparent

shown on the color brochure. Mr. Vincent stated it was a solid stain, noting he

wanted to keep some of the wood grain, although the stain was not transparent.

Mr. Vincent stated in his research, he had found that columns were either round or

square, so he would straighten out the existing columns. Mr. Dziurman asked if they

would be square. Mr. Vincent responded "yes, they would go from tapered to

square".

Mr. Vincent referred to the brick pavers, noting he would use a standard red brick

with a cobblestone border for a sidewalk from the front of the house connecting to the

driveway. He noted he would not put in brick pavers on the east side of the home, as

originally proposed, as that driveway would not be used and the side door would be

removed. He stated he would try to find used brick from the era of the house, rather

than buying new brick.

Mr. Vincent explained his survey showed about 18.8 feet from the west side of the

house to the property line, while the east side where the driveway currently existed

had just a little over 12-feet to the property line. While measuring the actual existing

driveway, he found it was on the property line and if he put down gravel or built a

retaining wall, it would be on the adjacent neighbor's lot. It made more sense to move

the driveway to the west side where there was 19-feet of room. Also, based on the

shape of the house, it was easier to make the turn in the back and provided more

parking space. He stated the land on that side of the house was more even and level

and would not require such a severe retaining wall as would be required on the other

side of the home. He stated out of practicality, he chose to move the driveway to the

west side of the home.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the existing driveway would be kept as a parking area. Mr.

Vincent stated his plans showed that, but explained there was a septic field in the back

he did not want to drive over. He intended to fill that curb in and grow grass on that

side, noting there would just be one driveway on the west side.

Mr. Dziurman was not sure that many curb cuts would be allowed, and clarified the

existing would not be used and a new curb cut put in. Mr. Vincent agreed he was

moving the driveway. He noted his plans did not show that, but noted his final plans

would reflect the removal of the existing driveway.

Mr. Vincent stated that he would remove the door on the east side of the house and

would create a window in that area. He explained there was no point having a door

going to the neighbor's yard. He noted the window would be installed about a foot

over from where the existing door was located.

Mr. Dziurman stated he was not at the prior meeting the applicant attended, and

thanked the applicant for taking on this project. He explained it had been one of the

Commission's goals for many years to have this home taken care, and it looked like

the applicant would do a nice job. He referred to the August meeting minutes and

discussion about a brick porch, and asked if that was being done, noting that would

not be historically correct.

Mr. Vincent explained that was going to be a step down from the door that was being

removed on the side of the house. Mr. Dziurman stated he was referring to the actual

porch. Mr. Vincent stated there was no brick porch. Basically, he was opening up

the front porch, and removing the cheap glass that was currently there. He noted what

Mr. Dziurman may have seen was the brick walkway leading to the porch. Mr.

Dziurman agreed that made more sense.

Mr. Miller stated he was very pleased with everything he had heard and was

impressed the applicant was willing to change the columns. He thought the driveway

made sense because there was more room and flexibility on the west side of the home.

He asked if the shutters would be wood. Mr. Vincent replied they would be solid

wood.

Mr. Miller stated he had some experience with wood shutters and explained he had

found that once the finish was not so pristine, the shutters had a tendency to weather

and got into the glue joints. He highly recommended a solid stain because it lasted

longer than the transparent. He suggested when installing the shutters, they be made

easy to take down because they would require maintenance.

Mr. Miller asked about the door that was being moved. He referred to the interior

first floor plan and asked if the door was being installed on the west side of the house.

Mr. Vincent explained he was removing a door on the east side of the house. He

pointed out the location of the existing driveway, and stated he would remove the

door and replace it with a window next to it.

Mr. Miller asked if a door would be installed on the other side of the house. Mr.

Vincent stated there was a door there currently.

Ms. Luginski stated the Commission had given the applicant a lot of suggestions at the

August meeting, and she was very impressed with what the applicant came back with.

She thought he would make the house an asset to the historic neighborhood.

Dr. Stamps added his thanks and appreciation for taking a special resource and saving

it and making it great. He asked if the alley came back to the applicant's property.

Mr. Vincent stated it did. Dr. Stamps asked if the driveway could be extended back

to allow the applicant to use or access the alley. Mr. Vincent stated he had

considered that, but it would require some tree removal, and there was a big slope

making it hard to maneuver. He agreed it would be nice due to the fact Tienken Road

was such a busy road, and he might try to open it up at some point, but would not use

it year round.

Mr. Miller asked about the thickness of the panels in the wood doors, noting the

panels were thin on a typical interior door. Mr. Vincent explained it was an exterior

door and he was having them custom made. Mr. Miller stated he had similar doors

and the panel was quite thin, and did not do much in the wintertime. A wood storm

door was almost a requirement, even with the best weather-stripping and sealing. Mr.

Vincent acknowledged he might have to eventually look into a storm door.

Chairperson Dunphy added his personal appreciation to the applicant for a job well

done. He commented it was apparent there was an immense sense of relief on the

part of the Commission that the building would get the attention it deserved, and they

were looking forward to seeing the project completed because it would be a credit to

the entire Historic District. He called for any other discussion. Upon hearing none, he

asked if the Commission was ready to move a motion.

Mr. Miller moved the motion in the packet, which was seconded by Dr. Stamps.

Chairperson Dunphy called for discussion on the motion on the floor.

Mr. Dziurman asked about the color of the shingles as he did not see them mentioned

in the motion. Mr. Vincent explained the shingles were approved at the August

meeting and were basically the exact asphalt shingles currently on the roof. Mr.

Dziurman asked if they were the green color. Mr. Vincent stated they were auburn or

a brownish-red color.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the shingles should be included in the motion, which was the

reason he brought them up. Chairperson Dunphy stated they were part of the

approval at the August meeting.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any additional discussion on the motion on the floor.

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

A motion was made by Miller, seconded by Stamps, that this matter be Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 94-001, regarding the request for a

Certificate of Appropriateness for supplemental renovations in connection with

the Certificate of Appropriateness issued August 20, 2009 for the existing house

located at 1046 E. Tienken Road, the Historic Districts Commission

APPROVES an additional Certificate of Appropriateness with the following

Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The supplemental plans for the renovation of the existing house appear to be

compatible with the existing resource.

2. The subject site is a contributing resource within the Stoney Creek Historic

District located in the City of Rochester Hills.

3. The architectural features, design, arrangement, texture and materials

proposed in the supplemental plans are consistent with those of the

Stoney Creek Historic District, and do not appear to have a negative

impact on the resource.

4. The proposed supplemental renovations are consistent with the following

requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

Rehabilitation:

A. Number 1, which states: “A property shall be used for its historic

purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the

defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment”. The

Applicant is maintaining the historic purpose of the resource.

B. Number 2, which states: “The historic character of a property shall

be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration

of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided”.

The Applicant is retaining the historic character of the property and is

restoring the front porch back to its original look.

C. Number 3, which states: “Each property shall be recognized as a

physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false

sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or

architectural elements from other buildings, shall no be undertaken”. The

Applicant is not adding any features or architectural elements that would

create a false sense of historical development.

D. Number 5, which states: “Distinctive features, finishes, and

construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize

a historic property shall be preserved”. The Applicant has not proposed

any renovation or repair work that detracts or changes the craftsmanship

of this resource.

E. Number 6, which states: “Deteriorated historic features shall be

repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration

requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match

the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where

possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be

substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence”. The

Applicant is repairing as much as possible, and where that cannot be

accomplished, is replacing with like materials.

Conditions:

1. All supplemental improvements shall be consistent with plans and materials

presented to the City dated October 2, 2009.

2. Prior to any construction, the applicant shall submit for and receive all

required Building Permits from the City’s Building Department.

3. New interior 4-panel wood doors will be installed on front porch

entranceways to the interior the house (porch to house entranceways)

stained with Minwax Gunstock 231.

4. The exterior of the house will be painted Behr Ultra White, including any

repaired fascia, replaced wood lap siding, and installed gutters.

Deteriorated lap siding will be replaced with 3/8”x8”-16’LP smart lap

siding.

5. Wood 17” wide louvered shutters will be installed on the north and west

elevations of the home. The shutters will be stained Behr Mountain

Spruce (DP-322).

6. The existing metal door on the east side of the house will be removed, and

replaced with the existing window adjacent to that doorway.

7. The taper on the existing front porch columns will be straightened out to

more accurately reflect square columns found on a Greek Revival style

home.

2009-0335

Chairperson Dunphy noted the motion had carried, and asked if the Commission was

ready to consider a motion regarding the proposed driveway.

Mr. Miller moved the motion in the packet, seconded by Ms. Luginski. Chairperson

Dunphy called for discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Mr. Dziurman suggested a condition be included about the removal of the existing

driveway.

Chairperson Dunphy agreed particularly as it was indicated on the current set of plans

that the second driveway would remain. Mr. Delacourt agreed.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified that a condition #5 would be added and asked for some

proposed wording.

Mr. Dziurman suggested the following:

5. The applicant agrees to abandon the existing driveway and to grass it over

to completely remove all previous appearance of the driveway.

Ms. Luginski asked if that included the actual curb itself. Mr. Delacourt explained that

the County's Right-of-Way Permit would require closing that curb cut permanently.

Mr. Miller pointed out that when Tienken Road was improved, the curbs would be

torn up and replaced. He questioned requiring the applicant to install replacement

curb, to then have it torn it at a later date, noting it would have to be built according to

road design standards. Mr. Delacourt suggested the condition indicate the curb cut be

closed and represented as such on the revised plans. He stated Staff would work

with the Road Commission for Oakland County to determine when they planned to do

work on Tienken Road. He explained it would be handled by the County's permit for

opening the new driveway, and the County may require closing the existing curb cut.

The County might allow some flexibility depending on their schedule, as long as there

were no safety concerns.

Mr. Dziurman suggested the condition include wording that the applicant would work

with the Road Commission for Oakland County as to the timing for curb cut removal.

He thought that would give the applicant some leeway.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any further discussion on the proposed motion on the

floor. He clarified that an additional Condition #5 would be included that read:

5. The applicant agrees to abandon the existing driveway and to grass it over

to completely remove all previous appearance of the driveway. The

applicant will fill in the curb cut working with the Road Commission

for Oakland County on the timing of that work.

Upon hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Dunphy called for a roll call vote.

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

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 94-001, regarding the request for a

Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a driveway for the house

located at 1046 E. Tienken Road, that the Historic Districts Commission

APPROVES a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following Findings and

Conditions:

Findings:

1. The subject site is a contributing resource within the Stoney Creek Historic

District located in the City of Rochester Hills.

2. The use of the driveway is consistent with the Stoney Creek Historic District

and will have a positive impact on the resource.

4. The proposed improvement is consistent with the requirements of the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Numbers 9 and 10.

Conditions:

1. The driveway shall be constructed with1/2-inch recycled crushed asphalt.

2. Prior to applying the recycled crushed asphalt drive, the applicant shall

submit for and receive all required permits from the City of Rochester

Hills and the Road Commission for Oakland County.

3. The driveway will be installed on the west side of the existing resource

(house), and will include a parking area for two vehicles at the rear of the

property, along with a paved turn-around section to allow easier egress

from the property to Tienken Road.

4. The recycled crushed asphalt drive will be approximately 12-feet wide by

about 100-feet deep, running south from Tienken Road, and will be

consistent with the proper installation of a base and necessary drainage.

5. The applicant agrees to abandon the existing driveway and grass it over to

completely remove all previous appearance of that driveway. The

applicant will fill in the curb cut working with the Road Commission for

Oakland County on the timing of that work.

2009-0335

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that the motion had carried. He wished the

applicant all the best on his project, noting the Commission looked forward to seeing

the result. Mr. Vincent thanked the Commission for their time and consideration.

This matter was Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

9.

9A.

2009-0415

1021 Harding Avenue (HDC File #09-003)

Applicant: Paul Miller

Sidwell: 15-15-327-002

District: Non-Contiguous

Request: Certificate of Appropriateness

- Installation of Fence

Chairperson Dunphy read the request for the record.

Mr. Paul Miller stated he is the property owner and removed himself from the

Commission, noting he would not take part in the Commission's discussion or vote on

this request. He then took a seat at the presenter's table.

Chairperson Dunphy called for a brief summary from Staff.

Mr. Delacourt stated Mr. Miller wanted to include a farm fence on his property. His

information was provided to Staff on August 9, 2009, and was included in the packet

with a Memorandum and a potential motion in case the Commission was comfortable

acting on the request at this meeting. He noted Staff was not able to conduct a full

review on the request. Mr. Miller had requested the opportunity to discuss the matter

with the Commission before moving forward with his request.

Mr. Miller stated he was requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a farm

fence. He explained his property was a little over two acres in size, with very little

fenced-in pasture remaining. Based on discussions with the City regarding the height

of the grass per the Weed Ordinance, and rather than having to mow 100 feet back as

per the Ordinance, it was his preference to let his sheep eat the grass. He stated the

property had been fenced in previously, and noted before the road was paved,

remnants of the old farm fence existed. Particularly, a wood corner post was

removed during the construction of the road. Also, at that point a number of big trees

were removed from the property along with the two large brick pillars that were on

either side of the property. He noted a brick pillar remained along the east side of the

house yard, which was hard to see because it was up on the hill and was covered in

vines and other vegetation.

Mr. Miller stated a hedge ran north and south along the edge of the house property,

and he wanted to run the fence from the northeast corner of the lot to the brick pillar,

which would be about 150 feet. He noted a watermain easement ran along his side of

the road, and a fire hydrant was located in that area. He would not run the fence

along the front property line, but would keep it back from the road which would help

keep the sheep and other animals away from the road.

Mr. Miller stated there was an existing old fence he would be repairing and replacing

with like materials that ran along the east side of the property. He considered that

work to be routine maintenance and was not requesting the Commission's approval

for that work.

Mr. Miller stated he had considered the use of large wood posts because he thought

that might be more acceptable to the Commission. He had since decided not to use

them because when the roadwork was done, the grade was changed to a less inclined

grade; however, the fill material used was chunks of curb and asphalt. He noted the

difficulty he would encounter getting through that fill material, making it nearly

impossible to install fencing in that area. He stated he would be installing the fencing

by hand, and it could take some time to get one wood post installed and properly

secured. He discussed the installation and use of metal T-posts, which he preferred to

use.

Chairperson Dunphy called for questions or discussion from the Commissioners.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the existing fence was made out of wood fence posts. Mr.

Miller stated the existing fence was all metal and he would be using the exact same

material. He stated he had some wood corner posts in the rear of the property

currently used to contain the sheep. In the early 1970s he used cedar wood posts on

the corners, but those rotted out and were replaced with fence posts made out of used

telephone poles.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the fence would be attached to the brick pillar. Mr. Miller

responded no, but the fence would come very close to it. He explained he used the

pillar to measure the length of the fence, which would be approximately 150 feet.

Mr. Dziurman referred to the connection to the east where the north/south fence was

located, and asked if there was a wood post at that corner. Mr. Miller stated no, it

was removed during the watermain installation. He explained the watermain along his

property was fairly close to the road. The adjacent strip of property between his

house that was originally designed for ingress/egress for a potential residential project,

contained a large tap or spur to allow for that proposed development. That

installation included the removal of some of his fence.

Mr. Dziurman assumed there was a fence along the front of the property at one time.

Mr. Miller stated there was a fence, but it was pretty much just remnants at the time

the road was paved.

Mr. Dziurman asked if there were any other fences in the neighborhood that were

similar or what type of fencing had been used in the neighborhood. Mr. Miller stated

most of the lots in the neighborhood were large and open. He described a house west

of his with a wood fence and there were houses with chain-link fences.

Mr. Dziurman asked if there was similar farm property in the neighborhood. Mr.

Miller responded he was the only farm on his street.

Mr. Dziurman inquired about the color of the fencing material. Mr. Miller stated it

would be galvanized, grey steel. Mr. Dziurman asked if the posts would be green.

Mr. Miller said the posts would most likely be green with white at the top, as that was

the standard he had seen.

Mr. Dziurman asked about the height of the fence. Mr. Miller stated approximately

48-inches. He noted he had provided a copy of a catalog example of the fence

materials.

Chairperson Dunphy asked how far in from the roadway the fence would be. Mr.

Miller stated he was not exactly sure of the exact angle, noting he would like to include

as much as possible while staying out of the road right-of-way and staying away from

the fire hydrant. He indicated he would check with the Fire Department to find out

how much clearance area they wanted. He stated he had seen a number of examples

of fences with a box cut around fire hydrants, but he suspected the Fire Department

would not be happy with that, and it would include four extra corners that were

difficult to install. He supplied a ball park figure of about 35-feet. He noted that his

property description started from the middle of the road as it was a metes and bounds

parcel.

Ms. Luginski asked about the difference between the x's and the -'s used in the

applicant's drawing. Mr. Miller explained the x's depicted the location of the

proposed new fence. He referred to the 2002 survey sheets and noted the property

had been known as the Eureka Fruit Farm and produced more than 24 different types

of berries, which were sold directly to the consumers. He still had a lot of berries and

various fruit trees which created a problem with the deer. He found when he mowed

the grass shorter, more deer fed on the property. Recently, he had been planting fruit

trees in the fenced-in garden area to keep them away from the deer.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other discussion from the Commissioners. Upon

hearing none, he asked if the Commission was prepared to make a motion.

Mr. Miller asked for a point of clarification. He asked if with an item such as garden

fencing, that tended to be temporary and moved around, whether the Commission

preferred homeowners request approval for any alterations. He also asked about the

guidelines for constructing a dog house or a tree house on a designated parcel, noting

it was not clear in the information provided by the City.

Mr. Dziurman stated it came down to common sense. He explained a property owner

could construct a playhouse that was very small like a shed or it could be very

elaborate. The same held true with a tree house. He stated if the structure

overwhelmed the property or made a big statement on the property, he thought it

should come before the Commission. If it was minor, the Commission would

probably not even know about it and it would be okay. He thought it was common

sense.

Mr. Miller stated he was curious because of the outhouse that was installed at the old

schoolhouse in the Village. He agreed some small structures might not be obvious.

He pointed out the fact it was not visible from the road did not mean it should not be

approved by the Commission. He summarized that as long as it was of a temporary

nature and was not large and massive, then it should not be an issue. He commented

his daughter would like a tree house, and he had built a vermin-proof garden shed

which was converted to a chicken coop. He stated he would be building a chicken

coop at some point, but it would not be the large style typical of old farmsteads. His

would be a small wood structure that could be moved, less than 10 x 6 in size.

Mr. Dziurman stated he had just provided his opinion on Mr. Miller's questions.

Some of the other Commissioners noted they agreed with Mr. Dziurman's assessment.

Ms. Cozzolino stated she was prepared to make the motion provided in the packet.

She noted there had been some discussion about the corner posts and whether they

should be wood or metal, and stated if the Commission wanted to add a condition

about that, she would agree. Mr. Kilpatrick seconded the motion.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

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

A motion was made by Cozzolino, seconded by Kilpatrick, that this matter be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

7 -

Abstain

Miller

1 -

Absent

Thompson

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of File No. HDC 09-003, that the Historic Districts

Commission ISSUES a Certificate of Appropriateness for 1021 Harding Avenue,

which is a non-contiguous Historic District. The work consists of the installation

of protective fencing along the front perimeter of the parcel to keep livestock

contained on the property. This Certificate of Appropriateness is issued with the

following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The subject parcel is a non-contiguous Historic District located at 1021

Harding Avenue, Sidwell Number 15-15-327-002.

2. The proposed fence installation appears to be compatible with the

District.

3. The proposed work consists of the installation of a protective fence along the

front property line of the site. The applicant is installing the fence to

contain livestock on the property.

4. The proposed fence will consist of T-posts and woven wire field fencing.

5. The proposed fence installation will not detract from the rural

appearance/streetscape of the property.

6. The work, as proposed, meets “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

Rehabilitation” Standard Numbers 1, 9 and 10.

Conditions:

1. The work shall be consistent with the plans dated received by the Planning

Department October 2, 2009.

2. The applicant shall obtain any permit required by the City’s Building

Department.

3. The fence shall be removed from the property if no longer necessary.

2009-0415

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that the motion had carried, and thanked

Mr. Miller for his contribution to preserving a working farm on his property.

Upon the conclusion of his request, Mr. Miller returned to the dais as a Commissioner

to participate in the remainder of the meeting.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business, noting the next meeting was

scheduled for November 12, 2009.

2009-0411

1585 S. Rochester Road

- HDC Update

Dr. Stamps stated that 1585 S. Rochester Road had been scheduled for a recent City

Council meeting, and asked what had happened at that Council meeting.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that was the property north of Bordine's that the

Commission had approved an application that was part of a Planned Unit

Development (PUD) that involved relocating the house to another part of the

property. Nothing has happened with those plans, and the Commission had

subsequently issued demolition by neglect findings. The applicant went directly to City

Council with a request to delist the Historic District. City Council referred the matter

to the Historic Districts Study Committee with a requirement that a report be

submitted to Council within 180 days. He stated there was some public comment

from a former Commissioner providing background information about the

Commission's role in the process. Council discussed the need to revisit the entire

PUD if something changed in relation to the historic structure because the PUD

contained a requirement that the structure would be moved and rehabilitated in

connection with the Commission’s approval of the application.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the owner had any comments based on the discussion about

the PUD. Chairperson Dunphy did not recall any comments. Mr. Delacourt stated

that the property owner understood that if the property was delisted he would also

have to receive a modified or amended PUD from City Council.

Mr. Dziurman stated he did not think he had to tell the Commission his story about the

property owner again. Chairperson Dunphy thought the Commission knew how Mr.

Dziurman felt. Mr. Dziurman commented the property owner had a history.

Dr. Stamps asked when the 120 day time limit began. Mr. Delacourt stated the 180

days began with the date of the City Council meeting. Chairperson Dunphy agreed

that was his understanding.

Dr. Stamps asked when the Study Committee would receive the official request from

City Council to move forward and asked if Council would tell the Study Committee

what they wanted the Committee to do.

Mr. Delacourt stated Council did that at their meeting. He noted the matter was

originally intended to be on the Study Committee’s October 8, 2009 Meeting

Agenda; however, several Study Committee members wanted to meet at the Stiles

School Building and the October 8th meeting was cancelled. The matter will be

scheduled for the November Study Committee meeting.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the applicant requested, as did City Council, that the City's

preservation consultant be involved in the review. The information has been

forwarded to Ms. Kidorf and she was asked to start preparing the Preliminary

Report, which is the process that had been followed with all the Study Committee

reports done over the past several years. He hoped to have a Preliminary Report

available for the next Study Committee meeting.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the applicant recommended or asked for the consultant to do

the report, who was paying for it. Mr. Delacourt stated City Council was fine with the

existing budget being used. Mr. Dziurman stated that did not seem right to him.

Chairperson Dunphy added it was his understanding of Council's discussion that if the

Study Committee could not complete the report in 180 days, they could come back to

Council and request an extension. Mr. Delacourt agreed that was correct.

Mr. Miller asked whether the matter would come before the Commission before

returning to City Council. Mr. Delacourt stated he would provide a copy of the report

as information to the Commission. He explained the Study Committee process was a

separate process and there was no formal review of a Study Committee report by the

Commission. There is no formal role for the Commission in this process.

Mr. Miller clarified that was because a delisting had been requested. If a permit for

demolition had been requested, the matter would have come before the Commission.

Mr. Delacourt responded that was correct.

This matter was Discussed

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

2006-0105

1841 Crooks Road

- Update

Ms. Luginski inquired about the status of 1841 Crooks Road. Mr. Delacourt stated

that subsequent to the Commission's denial of the property owner's request to

demolish the house, the demolition by neglect was forwarded to the City Attorney

with a request to seek permission or whatever means necessary to allow the City to

enter the property and correct the items listed in the Building Department review and

per the standards for mothballing.

Ms. Luginski asked if the Commission would receive a status update at the next

meeting. Mr. Delacourt stated they would. Mr. Miller asked if any further discussions

had been held with the property owner since the denial of the demolition request. Mr.

Delacourt stated he had some discussions with Mr. Dunn since then which seemed to

lead in different directions. At this point Staff asked the City Attorney to take it over

and act on that request. He noted that the Commission had given Mr. Dunn all the

flexibility to move forward, and stated Mr. Dunn had indicated he planned to conform

to all the items listed in the Building Department review to secure the property. He

was not aware whether Mr. Dunn intended to appeal to the State Historic

Preservation Office, noting the appeal process information had been provided to Mr.

Dunn.

This matter was Discussed

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

ADJOURNMENT

11.

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

8:35 PM.

________________________________

Brian Dunphy, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

{Approved as presented at the January 9, 2009 Regular Historic Districts Commission Meeting.}