Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Study Committee

Chairperson Jason Thompson, Vice Chairperson Dr. Richard Stamps

Members: John Dziurman, James Hannick, Peggy Schodowski, LaVere Webster, Murray

Woolf

5:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, September 10, 2009

MINUTES of a ROCHESTER HILLS REGULAR HISTORIC DISTRICTS STUDY

COMMITTEE meeting held at the City Municipal Offices, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Thompson called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Richard Stamps, John Dziurman, Jason Thompson and James Hannick

Present

4 -

LaVere Webster, Peggy Schodowski and Murray Woolf

Absent

3 -

Others Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning Department

Judy Bialk, Recording Secretary

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Thompson stated for the record that a quorum was present.

(Arrive Mr. Webster: 5:40 PM)

Richard Stamps, John Dziurman, Jason Thompson, LaVere Webster and

James Hannick

Present

5 -

Peggy Schodowski and Murray Woolf

Absent

2 -

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

4.

4A.

2009-0331

July 16, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Thompson asked for any comments or corrections regarding the July 16,

2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting Minutes.

Page 3, Item 7A, 4th Sentence Change: French

To: Colonial

Upon hearing no other comments or corrections, he called for a motion to approve.

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

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

Aye

Stamps, Dziurman, Thompson, Webster and Hannick

5 -

Absent

Schodowski and Woolf

2 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the July 16, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Historic

Districts Study Committee Meeting be approved as amended.

4B.

2009-0349

August 20, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Thompson asked for any comments or corrections regarding the August

20, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing no comments or

corrections, he called for a motion to approve.

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

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

Aye

Stamps, Dziurman, Thompson, Webster and Hannick

5 -

Absent

Schodowski and Woolf

2 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the August 20, 2009 Rescheduled Regular

Historic Districts Study Committee Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

5.

Chairperson Thompson asked if there were any announcements or communications.

No announcements or communications were provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

6.

Chairperson Thompson called for any public comments. No public comments were

received.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.

Chairperson Thompson suggested that Agenda Item 8A (New Business) be moved

ahead on the Agenda. The Committee Members agreed with that suggestion, and

proceeded with Agenda Item 8A.

NEW BUSINESS

8.

8A.

2009-0332

Meeting with Economic Development Manager

- Discussion

Dan Casey, Economic Development Manager, Planning and Development

Department, City of Rochester Hills, was introduced to the Committee Members.

The Committee explained they wanted to meet with Mr. Casey to discuss

development of the City while it retained one of the elements of the quality of life - its

history. They wanted Mr. Casey to be able to capitalize on the historical elements of

properties so they could be preserved, rather than just bulldozed away. The City has

already identified the designated properties, and has identified those properties that

have the potential to be designated because of their historical nature. The potential

designation might make those properties more valuable pieces of property, and may

help encourage people to come to the City.

The Committee noted as the Community matures, the majority of the properties

available for development are the historical pieces. That could result in requests to

eliminate the historic designation because developers are not aware of the benefits of

designation, such as the use of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreements that

include special uses or allow increased density for a project. Tax Credits are also

available.

The Committee explained they recognized that historical sites will be considered more

frequently and they wanted to be more proactive to assist in the process to create

"win-win" situations for everyone that would help protect the City's heritage.

Mr. Dziurman referred to the upcoming M-59 Corridor Study and asked how wide

the corridor was, noting there were some historically designated properties along that

corridor. He thought the Committee wanted to be proactive in that Study as well.

Projects such as Oakland University's medical school will have an impact on the

Community. Other factors such as walkable communities and trailways also have an

impact. He referred to the Macomb Town Center project, which he was the design

architect for, and noted that structure had historical elements on it to help protect their

resources. He commented the Study Committee had met with the Planning

Commission, but noted the discussion centered more on property rights than

designation. The Committee wanted all the City's Boards and Commissions to work

together.

Mr. Casey stated that the members of the Planning Department worked together as a

team, and worked together on projects. Planning and economic development shared

the same goals but might have different philosophies. Rochester Hills is about 80%

developed, and is left with difficult parcels for new development. Redevelopment is

also important to the Community. He noted he was aware of the historic tax credits.

A city has to weigh many factors in making decisions about property, such as zoning,

use or impact on adjacent properties, tax base to the Community, and the historical

quality of the property. Will a property benefit more from tax credits or benefit more

if redeveloped as something else. Many factors have to be considered to make the

best recommendation. Economic development decisions are made to maintain and

increase the tax base of the Community, which in turn keeps the tax rates lower and

benefits the entire Community. Is this the right project for the property and will the tax

base increase or decrease?

The M-59 Corridor Study recognizes an area that will be redeveloping. At the time

the study was initially considered, the Grand Sakwa project was in the drawing stage;

medical buildings and brownfield redevelopment projects were coming forward. Now

the trend is moving toward high-tech and office uses. Industrial uses are declining in

Michigan as well as in the United States in general. Those buildings will have to

transition to other uses and it is a matter of what the Ordinances allow to make that

transition happen without negatively impacting the surrounding area.

The City's Master Land Use Plan was updated in 2007 and included economic

development in the plan. The implementation of the MLUP led to the updating of the

City's Zoning Ordinance to help provide the tools to effect those changes.

The purpose of the M-59 Corridor Study was to find out where the tax base would

be coming from. Some residential areas are located in the Study area, which are also

in the SmartZone designation, which is a State designation. The City has one of 14

SmartZones designated in the State of Michigan. The designated area includes a

mobile home park, industrial areas, and older homes on bigger lots.

Being considered is what might happen over the next 15 to 20 years. Developers will

begin looking at the available property for residential; commercial; light industrial or

office and high-tech uses. Economic development considers how the City will

transition over the next 20 year period within those boundaries and what could occur

in those areas.

Dr. Stamps stated that the economic point of view and the Committee's point of view

should find a way to work together. He pointed out there was a list of designated

historical structures and a list of potential properties, although the Committee was still

working on the potential list.

Mr. Dziurman referred to the Twist Drill property noting it had a rich history with the

Community. Dr. Stamps referred to is as the "arsenal of democracy". Mr. Casey

stated he had been to the property and toured the site.

Mr. Dziurman commented if the Study Committee tried to get that property

designated, it probably would not happen, and the Committee realized they had to do

things differently to save some of it. He noted retail was not necessarily desirable on

that site, and stated he had suggested the Rochester Community Schools turn it into an

art design center. He also thought the building might be used as a movie studio. He

noted the buildings in the back might have to be torn down, but the building in front

was very special. The availability of tax credits might save a resource.

The Committee discussed the fact the current property owners do not want to

designate the property, but were leaving that option available for a future purchaser.

A creative approach between the Study Committee, the City and a future developer

might be necessary.

Mr. Casey commented that particular property was a good example of competing

goals. The site is currently underperforming and old. The property owners did not

purchase the property because it was historic. In speaking with developers or real

estate agents about the site, they were very much aware of the past industrial use of

the property.

Some developers are looking at greenfield sites, and find that site less desirable

because of its historical background, wetland issues, and the zoning. Encumbered

properties will require more dollars, more time and if considered too difficult,

developers will walk away and look for a clean site.

The Committee noted that as fewer sites are available in the City, those developers

will come back to those sites. Mr. Casey agreed, noting that some retailers

specifically want to be in that area because they want to tap that market area; it is

within 5 miles of their other stores, or they want access to the Oakland Township

market.

The Committee discussed the preservation of sites that have meaning to the

Community, and whether they could be adaptively reused.

Dr. Stamps relayed the success story with the Rochester College Farmstead, noting

Mr. Delacourt had been the first to ask the college what the City could do to make

things work. He commented that solution was creative and allowed the City and the

College to work together and enhanced the value of that site.

Mr. Dziurman stated that the Committee was facing a dilemma in that nothing was

being designated. It appeared that City Council wanted the Committee to become

more proactive and give them a reason to designate a property.

Mr. Delacourt stated that some developers had worked with the historic designation,

such as the Lorna Stone project. Developers were always advised of all the options

available to them.

The Committee discussed the new medical school being built by Oakland University

and whether there was an opportunity for the University to incorporate a site on the

potential list. It was noted the University was building the school on their own

property.

Mr. Hannick discussed the recent trend of doctors building their own facilities and

supporting each other practices, such as the UniSource facility in Troy and the

WellPointe facility on South Boulevard. He pointed out there was no facility like that

in the north end of the City, and asked whether the Twist Drill site might lend itself to a

similar facility. He noted it was also close to Oakland Township. Mr. Casey stated

that the property adjacent to the Twist Drill had been considered for such a facility,

but did not materialize because the partnership considering the proposal fell apart.

Discussion continued regarding potential uses of properties based on their current

zoning, and other factors such as accessibility, wetlands, environmental issues, and

adjacent properties. It was determined that a mixed use type of development would

be the most likely proposal for the NE corner of Rochester and Tienken Roads.

Whether or not the site is designated will be a conversation with any potential

purchaser, and the potential use of the site will also be a contributing factor.

Mr. Dziurman stated the Committee was trying to be creative, and commented he

thought the potential adaptive reuses of the Ferry Court property had been creative.

He stated the Committee wanted to help preserve the heritage of the City and did not

want to be a bottleneck.

Mr. Casey stated that consideration was given to what a site did for the Community

and will it have a positive affect on the quality of life. He noted that also meant looking

ahead over the next 20 years and if a site will maintain the quality of life 20 years from

now. He commented that any commercial development on the north side of the City

proposed in a residentially zoned area would not be considered as favorably. That

area is part of what makes the City unique because of its larger lots, which is part of

the image of Rochester Hills. The MLUP is not a document set in stone, and does try

to assist those areas and not change things.

Mr. Delacourt stated that economic development is not just about tax abatements. It

also includes placemaking, parks and historic districts. Cities give tax abatements, but

that does not always make them desirable places to relocate. Offering amenities such

as walkable communities and downtown areas are big assets because people like to

see those amenities in their communities. Sometimes it might be hard to balance

planning and economic development, but the two work hand-in-hand.

Dr. Stamps asked what the Study Committee should be doing to maintain the quality

of life, noting that 20 years from there will still be historic structures around.

Mr. Casey noted it was important for the Committee to establish their goals. They

have a list of potential properties and should determine which ones are their Class A

properties, those that should not be touched under any circumstances, understanding

they may have to give on another one. They could consider the competing goals of

City Council, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, noting that the

historic character is only one part of the decision. There may be some properties that

are absolutely critical to be maintained, while others it might be acceptable to lose to

win something else down the road.

Mr. Casey discussed a historic property that the City of Southfield felt was significant

enough to purchase the structure and move it to another historical location to preserve

it. The City of Southfield wanted the proposed development to occur on the original

site, but also felt strongly about preserving the structure. He suggested there may be

similar opportunities with the Van Hoosen Museum.

Dr. Stamps pointed out that the Van Hoosen Museum was real and had not been

created by moving structures to the site. He noted other local communities had

followed Southfield's approach, which was a good fallback position

Mr. Casey pointed out that at the end of the day the average person did not know the

history of any particular structure, person or place. Many visited museums, toured the

site, and enjoyed it.

The Committee commented that was the Greenfield Village mindset - take structures

and move them to one place. With the City's designated resources, the City can say

this house on this property is 150 years old.

Mr. Delacourt stated that students are taken on fieldtrips to Greenfield Village and that

is the impression they have of preservation. He commented it took him some time to

adjust that mindset because that it what he grew up with.

Dr. Stamps stated that it appeared the Committee and the Planning Department were

on the same page and going in the same direction. As the City is approached by

developers, the developers should be made aware the City wants development but

also wants to preserve what's here.

The Committee discussed that fact that it was a perpetual myth that neighbors should

be right next door as that was not a true representation of what the City was. There

should be open space. The comment was made that at one time a golf course was

planned for the property around the Van Hoosen Museum, which would have been a

better representation of the pasture land that originally existed around the farm.

Mr. Hannick asked if developers were currently looking at farms or houses. Mr.

Casey responded it was not the end of residential-type projects, but there was no

clear yes or no answer. He noted part of his job was to try to retain companies in the

City and help them grow. The other part of his time was spent trying to attract

companies to the City. He noted he spent very little time on residential development.

Chairperson Thompson thanked Mr. Casey for taking the time to meet with the

Committee.

This matter was Discussed

Chairperson Thompson stated that the Committee would return to Agenda Item 7

(Unfinished Business).

7.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7A.

2005-0537

Stiles School (3976 S. Livernois)

- Discussion

Chairperson Thompson stated that this matter had been discussed by City Council at

their June 1, 2009 meeting and referred back to the Committee for additional

information and research.

Mr. Delacourt provided some aerial photographs of the site dating back to 1963,

which were reviewed by the Committee. He stated he had not been able to locate

any of the old Sanborn maps, which were old insurance maps, as it was hard to find

them. He had tried to get copies of them from both Oakland County and the Oakland

County Pioneer Society, but neither entity had them for that section of the City.

In reviewing the aerial photographs, the Committee noted the building footprint had

remained the same, although the sidewalk leading to the school had changed over the

years.

The Committee discussed the concept of designating just the original school building.

Mr. Dziurman stated he was not sure the property would qualify for tax credits if the

designation was done wrong. He suggested that was something that should be

discussed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Mr. Delacourt stated

he had spoken with Amy Arnold of SHPO and there was not a good answer to that

question.

Mr. Dziurman suggested starting a dialog with all the Historic Districts Commissions

throughout the State because all were faced with the same type of situation and find

out how they worked it out.

Dr. Stamps suggested this property could become a test case. The Committee had

made its recommendation by following the guidelines; took the recommendation to

City Council, and City Council tabled the matter. The question was asked: Could the

building be designated without additions B or C? The property owner might be willing

to designate only portion A. The question to ask the State was if the City designated

just a portion of the building, would that designated portion be eligible for tax credits.

He noted this could be the same scenario for the Twist Drill property.

It was noted that SHPO was aware of the Stiles School site and what had happened.

The Committee discussed whether a smaller district qualified, or if the Study

Committee had met the criteria. It would not meet the National Register criteria. It

was noted that the additions had become part of the site over time as they had been

there for 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out the current property owner (Steiner School) did not seem

to be worried about tax credits. Mr. Dziurman noted that could change. He stated

they could take advantage of the tax credits, explaining the parents whose children

attended the school could create a process to obtain the tax credits.

Mr. Delacourt noted that the school did not pay taxes, and commented he believed a

person or entity had to pay taxes in order to obtain the credits. Mr. Dziurman stated

the school could sell the tax credits. Discussion ensued regarding the various methods

whereby the Steiner School could help their contractors take advantage of the tax

credits. The discussion continued regarding whether a contractor could take

advantage of tax credits if the Steiner School as the owner of the property that was in

the historic district did not actually pay taxes. Mr. Dziurman believed if the property

had been designated, the contractor used by the Steiner School to repair the fire

damage might have been able to take advantage of the tax credits.

The Committee agreed they needed same clarification on this matter. Dr. Stamps

suggested a letter be sent to SHPO asking if just a portion of a building can be

designated, and if so, would it qualify for tax credits. The Committee noted that it did

not appear City Council would be willing to designate more than the property owner

was willing to have designated. The letter could include a description of what would

be designated so SHPO would see exactly what was proposed. There was some

brief discussion about how the original school building had been heated and whether

the boiler room portion would be included in the designated portion.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Thompson called for any other business.

The Committee noted there were many road projects underway throughout the City,

and asked whether there was anything that could be done to protect the Bib Oak Tree

located on Livernois, just south of Auburn. Dr. Busch had previously stated that a

tree cannot be designated just because it is old, it has to meet the criteria for

significance in the Community.

2007-0576

1585 S. Rochester Road

- Discussion

Mr. Delacourt advised the Committee that City Council had received a formal

delisting request for the historic district located at 1585 S. Rochester Road. He

explained the property owner had been sent notices of demolition by neglect from the

Historic Districts Commission. The attorney for the property owner had submitted a

package directly to City Council requesting delisting or elimination of the historic

district. He understood the request would be scheduled for the September 28, 2009

City Council Agenda.

Mr. Delacourt reviewed the process for elimination of a district outlined in the

Ordinance. City Council could refer the matter to the Study Committee to follow the

process and to see if it meets any of the criteria for delisting.

The Committee noted that property was part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Agreement and asked whether the PUD would be revised. Mr. Delacourt noted

those were two separate issues. The request for delisting had been made, and the

applicant could ask to revise the PUD Agreement. He noted the property owner had

asked to be scheduled as a discussion item with the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Thompson stated that the next regular meeting was scheduled for

Thursday, October 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Chairperson Thompson asked if there was

any other business. No other business was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Thompson adjourned the

meeting at 6:40 PM.

___________________________________

Jason Thompson, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Study Committee

___________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

{Approved as presented at the September 10, 2009 Regular Historic Districts Study Committee

Meeting}