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, September 10, 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.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that Agenda Item 8A (1046 E. Tienken Road) had been

withdrawn by the applicant. The remainder of the Agenda would remain the same.

ROLL CALL

2.

John Dziurman, Paul Miller, Richard Stamps, Micheal Kilpatrick, Brian

Dunphy, Jason Thompson, Nicole Franey and Melissa Luginski

Present

8 -

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino

Absent

1 -

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

Department

Kristine Kidorf, Kidorf Preservation Consulting

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Dunphy stated for the record that Ms. Cozzolino provided notice she

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.

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

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

Ordinance Section 118-164(a).

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

5A.

2009-0359

Minutes of the August 13, 2009 Rescheduled Regular Meeting

Chairperson Dunphy asked for any comments or corrections to the August 13, 2009

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

A motion was made by Thompson, seconded by Miller, that the Minutes be

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

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the August 13, 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 reminded 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

- Discussion by Historic Districts Commission

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

Agenda at the request of the applicant.

This matter was Withdrawn

8B.

2008-0678

Stoney Creek Village (Tienken Road Bridge) (HDC #09-002)

Applicant: Road Commission for Oakland County

Sidwell: N/A - Tienken Road Right-of-Way

District: Stoney Creek

Request: 1) Certificate of Appropriateness

- Removal of Existing Bridge

2) Certificate of Appropriateness

- Construction of New Replacement Bridge

Chairperson Dunphy thanked the representatives from the Road Commission for

attending the meeting, and noted the Commission had received an Application for

review. He called for a brief summary from Staff.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the packet information included a letter from the City

Attorney regarding weight restrictions and truck loads that was part of the discussion

at previous meetings. The packet also included a letter from Kristine Kidorf, Kidorf

Preservation Consulting, who is the City's Preservation Consultant, noting she was

requested to review the project as it moved forward. He introduced Ms. Kidorf, who

was present, and stated Ms. Kidorf had worked with the City on a number of issues

related to preservation.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Road Commission had been requested to provide an update

regarding the changes that had been made since the August 20, 2009 Historic Districts

Commission (HDC) meeting.

Chairperson Dunphy asked for an update from the Road Commission representatives.

Jeff O'Brien, Design Engineer, Road Commission for Oakland County, was present

and introduced Bill McIntee, Director of Permits and Environmental Concerns, Road

Commission for Oakland County.

Mr. O'Brien stated the bridge width was reduced due to a reduction in shoulder width

to 2-feet with two 12-foot lanes, along with a reduction in the pedestrian width to

approximately 7-1/2-feet, for an overall width of approximately 40-1/2 to 41-feet in

total width for the structure.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission had submitted its application on August 20,

2009 as that was the three-week window requirement to be scheduled for the

September 10, 2009 HDC meeting. Based on comments received at the August 20,

2009 HDC meeting, the Road Commission had submitted some additional

amendments and information for review by the Commission.

Mr. O'Brien stated that since the last HDC Meeting, both he and Mr. McIntee had

the opportunity to meet with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Environmental to review what was

contained in the application to garner any feedback or comments those agencies might

have from a cursory review perspective.

Mr. O'Brien stated the agencies reviewed the reduced width of the structure and the

inclusion of a vintage rail pending cost participation with the City. Based on that

cursory review, those agencies were happy with what they saw and indicated they

looked at this project as having no adverse impact from a project perspective.

Mr. O'Brien stated that on September 2, 2009 the Road Commission met with City

Staff to review requests for the inclusion of a mid-block crossing between Clear

Creek and the bridge. Since then, the Road Commission had been busy preparing a

plan for the mid-block crossing which was included with the supplemental information

provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Delacourt clarified that the supplemental

information was provided to the Commissioners.

Mr. O'Brien stated that from an overall plan perspective, not much had changed, but

the Road Commission had made some adjustments to the cross-section proposed

bridge elevation, which was revised to show the steel posts that were part of the

vintage railing. There was no change in width or dimensions, but was more of a

schematic change. The Road Commission had also included the change in the actual

cross-section, which was provided in 12-1/2-foot increments from the east side of the

bridge to the east end of the proposed wall. The original application reflected a more

sloped vegetated block retaining wall. Several concerns were expressed at the last

HDC Meeting - one being that it increased the amount of vegetation disruption as well

as put the toe of that wall too close to, if not on top of, the existing watermain. Mr.

O'Brien explained the depiction showed the clearances from the existing watermain to

the proposed wall throughout the length. He explained this had been submitted to the

City for review, and the City Engineer had indicated that while it was not ideal, it was

acceptable because it included as much separation from the watermain as possible.

Mr. O'Brien stated at the last meeting several pictures were requested by the

Commission. He referred to the first two photographs depicting what the standard

MDOT two-tube railing looked like. He stated there were not many examples of that

railing in the Metropolitan region. He explained the photograph had been provided by

the Road Commission’s consultant who happened to be travelling on M-131 in Kent

County, Michigan, and stopped on the side of the road to take the photographs.

Mr. O'Brien referred to the discussion at the August 20, 2009 HDC Meeting about

the concrete end connections which were partially shown in the second photograph.

He explained where the guardrail connected, noting it was a transition area between

the guardrail ending the actual bridge barrier.

Mr. O'Brien referred to the next photograph which depicted the vintage railing,

although that particular bridge included concrete posts; was located in Pontiac, and

was scheduled for replacement. The vintage railing proposed for the Tienken Road

Bridge would be similar except steel posts would be used rather than concrete.

Mr. O'Brien stated the next three photographs depicted the salvaged pieces that

MDOT has in storage and which are proposed to be used on the Tienken Road

Bridge. He pointed out that the existing panels were galvanized and while some were

in better conditions that others, there appeared to be a sufficient quantity in good

condition that were available for this bridge project.

Mr. O'Brien stated the next photographs depicted a flat-faced block keystone

retaining wall that was recently constructed at 14 Mile Road and Farmington Road.

He explained that while the photographs did not depict the shade or color that was

proposed for the Tienken Road Bridge, it was what the wall would like. He noted it

was not the sculpted face seen on Livernois Road.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission proposed to leave the railings as a

galvanized coating. He stated MDOT Environmental had contacts at the State

regarding coatings and various paints that have been used in the past. He referred to

the powder coating aspect, and explained that the welded joints of the railings would

not take the power coating and over time those areas deteriorate the quickest because

they rust. He stated that paint also created a maintenance problem, noting the Road

Commission had several communities that had painted mast arms and signal posts that

within a short period of time had the paint flaking off and became unsightly. He stated

a galvanized coating was fairly durable and would fade to a weathered gray look.

They proposed to coat the concrete with a gray architectural finish so that the

structure would be fairly uniform and unobtrusive to the District on entry.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission prepared a plan for the location of the

mid-block crossing for consideration as part of the project. He explained the

mid-block crossing depended on cost participation with the City. He described the

zigzag island, pointing out the location of Clear Creek Road. He explained the

crossing would look similar to the trail crossing refuge island located on Avon Road,

east of Livernois Road, with overhead cross-walk signs which had to be lighted. He

stated it would be similar to the trail crossings currently seen throughout Rochester

Hills. He pointed out the proposed island was smaller than the standard used for the

trails, simply because of space constraints with the ingress for the Clear Creek

Subdivision. Pushing the mid-block crossing farther away from Clear Creek, it would

end up in the turn-lane taper which was fairly narrow. The proposed location was as

good as they could do given those constraints.

Mr. Delacourt added the only additions to the packet information provided to the

Commissioners last week Friday were the cross sections of the retaining wall and the

mid-block crossing detail. Everything else was the same as the information included in

the packet distributed on Friday, September 4, 2009.

Mr. Delacourt added he had included a separate motion for the mid-block crossing

for the Commission to consider. He explained the mid-block crossing was something

that the City Planning and Engineering Staff had been working on with the Road

Commission and wanted to thank the Road Commission because although it was an

acceptable standard, it was not what the Road Commission normally built. He stated

that both the Planning and Engineering Staff believed this was a very, very important

element with the bridge project; pedestrian safety and traffic calming for the District.

The island would work with the bridge to help keep the narrow focus and aesthetic as

traffic enters the Village and will work as a safe, pedestrian refuge, and hopefully also

act as a traffic calming island, which everyone has agreed is the most important aspect

associated with the bridge project.

Mr. Delacourt stated the reason the mid-block crossing was so important was

because there was a pathway on the north side of Tienken that just came to a dead

end. City Staff believed the addition of any type of pedestrian facility associated with

the bridge would be an attraction and generator for pedestrian movement. City Staff

thought it was very, very important to give pedestrians a safe place to cross. The area

would not meet warrants for a lighted intersection, and the mid-block crossing would

give pedestrians the best opportunity to move from that pathway on the north side of

Tienken to the south side of Tienken. He explained City Staff had requested the

mid-block crossing far into the Road Commission's design process, and appreciated

their assistance. He reminded the Commissioners there was a participatory cost that

would have to be approved by City Council, but there would be a cost savings to the

City to have it designed, incorporated and built as part of the project rather than being

done separately. Staff hoped the Commission could take action on the mid-block

crossing at this meeting if the bridge is approved so Staff could move forward with a

cost estimate to City Council and incorporate it into the Road Commission’s design on

the same time table as the bridge project.

Chairperson Dunphy called for discussion by the Commission.

Ms. Franey asked where the mid-block crossing would be located. Mr. O'Brien

referred to the drawing and explained it lined up with the ingress right side of Clear

Creek, noting the location of the Clear Creek inbound/outbound approach. He stated

the nose of that island was about 40-feet to the east of the intersection of Clear Creek

and Tienken Road.

Ms. Franey asked if visually it was at the tail end of the center lane. Mr. O'Brien

concurred it was and referred to the drawing, noting the heavy dark lines depicting

how the center lane tapered before they reached the bridge in order to minimize the

width of the bridge.

Mr. Dziurman stated he was sorry he could not attend the August 20th meeting. He

stated he personally felt he was like a congressman that just received a 1,000 page

situation and had to pass it without even reading it. He stated he had not read all the

information, and in addition to that the Preliminary Report of the Mayor's Advisory

Committee related to the Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill Pond Districts that the

Oakland County Planning and Economic Development group put together had just

come out. He thought they had some wonderful recommendations in the report and

they related to the bridge. In his opinion, he thought that any motion for the bridge

should incorporate those recommendations. He just got this material last night and

personally did not want to vote on it at this meeting. He wanted to be able to digest

all the information he received, noting the Commissioners had received more this

evening, and then put together an appropriate recommendation. He stated the bridge

had come a long way since they started and he thought he could support the bridge

with his vote but he would want to have certain conditions attached to that, which is

what he was talking about right now. He was not prepared and could not by any

stretch of the imagination put all this together with just the information he just got in the

last couple of days. He wanted to pass that on.

Dr. Stamps agreed and stated he thought they were miles ahead and it was looking

good. He asked about the Mayor's Advisory Committee Report, noting he could not

find that in his packet.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified it was a draft report that had not been approved yet. It

is available on the Planning and Development page of the City's website. There are

still sections missing and it is not complete at this time. He noted it did have some

recommendations that relate to the bridge, which he had read. He was not convinced

personally that it changed much in terms of what the Commission was trying to do in

their process. Whether it was something the Commission needed to include in their

deliberations or delay any further consideration until the Commission had a chance to

absorb the report, he personally was not convinced. It was something that was

currently a work in process and was labeled as such on the website. To the extent

that report should drive the Commission's process he had some reservations about.

Dr. Stamps asked when the report would go from draft to a finished report.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if Mr. Delacourt had some idea of when that would

happen. Mr. Delacourt expected it would be sometime in October.

Dr. Stamps thought if the Mayor had been gracious enough to put together an

Advisory Committee and gather information, it would be useful to look at it. He

asked if there were some deadlines such that if the Commission did not make a

decision at this meeting, that would endanger something. Mr. O'Brien stated the Road

Commission had bid letting deadlines to meet. He explained they were looking at a

February bid letting and were trying to let both the Parkdale and the Tienken bridges

at the same in order to better coordinate traffic control in the area, as well as school

scheduling. As the process is delayed, they could potentially end up with two

separate contractors and having more roads closed at the same time, which is not

desirable for the City from a mobility perspective. The Road Commission is trying to

keep everything on track at this time.

Mr. Dziurman appreciated what the Mr. O'Brien was saying, but commented he

remembered when this project started and stated he did not think the Commission had

delayed anything. He will not vote in favor of the project if he had to vote at this

meeting because he had too much information in front of him that he had not read and

he refused to vote on something he did not have all the information for. He got the

attitude the Commission was trying to delay the project for the Road Commission and

he did not accept that.

Mr. O'Brien stated he did not mean to imply that. Mr. Dziurman stated he would like

to work with the Road Commission and wanted to work with them, and noted

everything was starting to look more "approvable" and they had all come a long way.

He thought another month, if that is what it took, as he was not prepared until he had

all the material. He commented "we criticized our own Congress about this" and the

Commission would do the same thing and he did not accept that.

Mr. Delacourt pointed out that the full application package and all the information

supporting the applicant’s request was almost identical to what was provided for the

August 20, 2009 HDC meeting. There has been no change to that information other

than the retaining wall and the addition of the mid-block crossing. He stated he had

been a part of the Mayor's Advisory Committee and noted Ms. Luginski attended the

presentation of the draft recommendations and the subsequent discussion. Those

recommendations did not play any role in the Commission's decision. That being said,

the Advisory Committee's recommendations supported the exact bridge; did not ask

for any changes, and does not propose any changes. The only thing that was different

between the Advisory Committee's recommendations and the initial discussion of the

bridge last August was that the Advisory Committee supported the addition of the

mid-block crossing. He reiterated that the only difference between the information

submitted for the August 20th HDC meeting and the information submitted for this

meeting was that the submittal was more in conformance with the Advisory

Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the applicant had submitted a full request and had appeared

by request in front of the HDC three other times when they were not required to do

so. The Road Commission did that at the request of the HDC. Whether or not

members of the HDC feel that was enough or not was irrelevant. The applicant has

submitted a full packet and was requesting that the HDC act on it at this meeting,

unless he misunderstood the request. All of the information was available last Friday

(September 4, 2009) for review by the HDC, the same as any other meeting packet

information is available. He wanted to clarify for the record that the changes have

been detailed and pages and pages of different information had not been provided for

this meeting. There was new cross-section detail dealing with the retaining wall and

the addition of the mid-block crossing provided for this meeting.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Mayor's Advisory Committee Preliminary Report was a

draft and was outside of the HDC process. He noted that projects contained in that

report would require HDC review and approval if they went forward. There was

nothing additional in that report that was not supportive of what was being presented

at this meeting or what was presented for the August 20th HDC Meeting, and what

was available in the packet last Friday. There was no difference and he thought he

would state that for the record.

Dr. Stamps stated that typically when the Commission made a motion they had a list

of conditions regarding things such as colors and paint samples, and noted he was not

sure he had all that material. He liked the recycling of bridge pieces, and liked the

galvanized as he thought that was fine. He asked what it would be welded with and

what color those would be. He supposed the Commission could make an exception

to the rule, but that would be opening a slippery path. He apologized as he was out of

town and missed the last meeting, and commented perhaps the rest of the

Commissioners understood the material better.

Mr. Delacourt stated that all proposed colors had been identified in the plans and

proposed motions had been included in the packet material. The conditions indicate

the railing will be galvanized and the plans indicate the rest of the bridge would be

galvanized steel posts or concrete material. He stated more information had been

included in this packet than any request he had seen submitted to the HDC since he

had been involved with the Commission. He did not see where the packet lacked any

information related to what the Ordinance required for the HDC's review and

approval. In addition, the applicant had provided pictures showing the materials and

was willing to listen to any requirements as far as colors, which the applicant had just

presented. He noted the pictures were not required by the Ordinance, but

supplemented based on the request of the Commission at the last meeting. He wanted

to be clear that the packet was complete and was available last Friday for review in

relation to this applicant's request.

Mr. Miller thought everyone had come a long way on the bridge, and he was not sure

what was left in terms of questions. He commented there were questions about a

separate pedestrian bridge, and while the Commission had not received drawings or

proposed engineering plans for that, it was discussed at the last meeting with the City

Engineer, including the ballpark figures for a separate pedestrian bridge. He was not

sure under the current circumstances with the proposed bridge drawings that had been

submitted, that he would be willing to vote against the bridge because it included a

pedestrian bridge.

Mr. Miller stated he took exception to the comment about the Mayor's Advisory

Committee report. He acknowledged it did not have any veto power or authority

over the Commission's decision, but it was put together with this project in mind. The

report discussed the Stoney Creek Bridge and discussed the approach, and indicated

it was the most important part of what they were discussing. He thought it was

appropriate to take even draft recommendations into consideration. The Advisory

Committee listed a number of specific recommendations for the bridge replacement,

and he hoped in the future information like that would be included with the packet

material. He commented he understood the information just came out yesterday or

early this morning and there was not much time to give the Commissioners a heads up

it was available.

Mr. Delacourt stated it had been available on-line for a considerably longer time. Mr.

Miller stated he hoped the Commission would be made aware that information was

available.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he had received some requests for public comment, which

he would take at this time.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated that last May she addressed City Council

during Michigan Preservation Week indicating that "we deserve better because this

place, referring to the Stoney Creek Historic District and our National Register

Historic Village, deserves our fullest attention". She was here with the same message:

"we deserve better". It was interesting that almost a year ago the Road Commission

for Oakland County knew they were going to replace the bridge over Stoney Creek,

yet it was only publicly presented at the May HDC meeting. Interesting that the

Mayor formed an Advisory Committee almost a year ago in his words "to help protect

and improve two of the greatest resources the City enjoys", the Stoney Creek and the

Winkler Mill Historic Districts. Yet, the Preliminary Recommendations presented two

weeks ago were not included in the Commissioner's packets this evening. The

Committee provided recommendations under six topics: vehicular speed, truck traffic,

Washington Road, Stoney Creek bridge and approaches, pedestrian connectivity and

safety, and design elements. The most critical goal being to reduce the travel speeds

through the Districts, yet no one seems to be willing to really address the issue. The

importance of the Stoney Creek Bridge "historically serving as the gateway to the

Village" was heavily emphasized. Eight very doable recommendations were provided

and would enhance the proposed replacement bridge. These recommendations were

made by a Committee composed of City Staff, Oakland County Planning and

Economic Development and the Road Commission for Oakland County, with a great

deal of input from the public. Yet, very few of these recommendations being

proposed are implemented in the request before the HDC. The Federal government,

the Governor of Michigan and MDOT all openly embrace providing an extensive

amount of public information, context sensitive solutions for road building. AASHTO

allows a great deal of flexibility for context sensitive solutions, yet the Road

Commission has shown resistance in embracing and implementing such processes.

Other parts of Michigan and this Country are creating better places for the future by

implementing context sensitive solutions, "why shouldn't we". What could be more

sensitive than our heritage. The present narrow bridge acts as a traffic calming device,

one of many needs in this area. It is a natural gateway to the Stoney Creek Village,

the place of this Community's beginnings and primary component to help enhance the

Community's economic and development future, even the Mayor is saying so. There

is no reason why a separated cantilevered pathway cannot be created for this

crossing, one that would be considered part of the bridge structure, meet safety

requirements, receive funding, and be creative looking, exciting and preservation

minded. Other places are doing it, it’s our money, and "all of you work for us".

Instead of excuses why we cannot, let's provide solutions that show we can. It is our

bridge and we ("the Community"), this place ("the Village") deserve better.

David Tripp, 960 E. Tienken Road, sincerely thanked Mr. O'Brien, Mr. McIntee

and the Road Commission for working with them. He realized what they were doing

was out of the box for what they normally did, and a number of residents truly

appreciated the extent to which they worked with the residents to make this project

more palatable to the residents. He stated some would argue that this is where we

should have started had we had some public input prior to the initial design, but he

understood this was outside the realm of what the Road Commission normally dealt

with and appreciated their efforts. He was concerned there were a couple significant

resources that were not taken advantage of, such as the Mayor's Advisory Committee

which was put together precisely for projects like this in the Stoney Creek and

Winkler Mill Historic Districts. He found it interesting that a number of the

Commissioners were not aware of that process or the Preliminary Report that had

been on the website since the 26th or 27th of August. He thought it was remiss not to

use the output from that process. He noted the Oakland County Planning and

Economic Development Department was asked by the Mayor to assist in the project

and included many very talented people with input from the public. He stated a

Section 106 review had not been taken advantage of, and he had been arguing since

January that review should have been initiated by now. He had been told no Federal

funds were being used for the bridge; however, his research pointed to the contrary.

He had an MDOT office memorandum on a local bridge program report dated 2008

that specifically discussed a combination of State and Federal funds being used in the

local bridge program. He also had a State of Michigan presentation that talked about

House Bill 5319 funding which clearly states that the local bridge program was a

combination of State and Federal funds. He commented that a Section 106 review

did not have to be long and drawn out and did not have to delay things. If it had been

started, it might have been completed by now. It would bring additional resources in

to help look at the potential impacts of such a significant project, and other impacts to

the Village that might not have been thought about. With such a significant project as

the bridge project, he did not think anyone wanted to look back on it after it is

completed and say "we should have thought of that".

Mr. Delacourt stated he had participated in the Mayor's Advisory Committee, and

had made the Commission aware of the August 26th presentation. He stated he

announced at the end of the last HDC meeting that the recommendations were being

presented and that the results would be made available on the City's website. It was

not accurate to say that the HDC had not been made aware of that.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Mayor's Advisory Committee consisted of City Staff,

members of the Road Commission for Oakland County, Oakland County Planning

and Economic Development, and the Mayor. The Committee met with residents of

both Historic Districts and came up with a series of recommendations, which

coincided with the review of the bridge project by the HDC. When he said the

Mayor's Advisory Committee's report was not relevant to the HDC, it was relevant to

the entire District. It did not impact the Commission's formal review of this applicant's

request. The applicant has a right to submit a project and have it reviewed against the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the guidelines outlined in the City's Historical

Preservation Ordinance.

2008-0678

Mr. Delacourt noted that the Mayor's Advisory Committee supported the proposed

bridge and recommended approval of the bridge. The Committee actually put the

rendering of this bridge on the screen during the presentation of its recommendations

and said it felt the bridge accomplished all of the statements that were the purpose of

the Committee. The Committee made other recommendations or proposals, none of

which were part of this applicant's submission, and noted the applicant was not asking

approval of those recommendations. The Committee appreciated the fact that the

applicant included an additional recommendation of the Committee as part of its

submittal, which the Road Commission was not required to do, but did so in response

to the Committee. He explained the mid-block crossing was included based on that

recommendation.

Mr. Delacourt stated the applicant was not responsible to include other pieces of the

Advisory Committee's Preliminary Report in its request. The rest of the report was

not relevant to the applicant's request.

Mr. Delacourt explained when the bridge was reduced to 40-feet, the Advisory

Committee agreed that the bridge with the attached pedestrian pathway did less

damage to the integrity of the District, the vegetation east of the installation, than any

separated pathway could ever do.

In relation to what the City Engineer proposed, Mr. Delacourt explained the City

Engineer presented two detailed cost estimates at the August 20th meeting. Those

detailed cost estimates utilized the old King's Cove pedestrian bridge. The City

Engineer also displayed site plans on the overhead projector showing the exact

location of that bridge eleven feet separated from the motor bridge. There were also

cost estimates presented for a separate pedestrian bridge separated by more than

30-feet from the motor bridge. Detailed plans and detailed costs estimates associated

with that bridge were presented to the HDC at the last meeting, of which no additional

requests for information were made. Since then, and since the packets were given out

last Friday, Staff had not received any additional comments, questions or requests for

clarification. He was surprised by the comments tonight regarding that. He stated he

would be happy to meet with any Commissioner after this meeting to review any of

those plans related to a separated pedestrian bridge. The cost was well in excess of

$200,000.00. With respect to the pedestrian bridge separated by eleven feet, it was

the City's recommendation that it would cause more damage to the property east of

the bridge, and the pedestrian bridge separated by over 30 feet did the same. That

information was presented at the last meeting and there were no requests or concerns

or questions at that meeting. He wanted to clarify those points, especially in relation to

the Mayor's Advisory Committee.

Mr. Miller stated he heard Mr. O'Brien say he was told by the SHPO office that

although it had not been submitted for the Section 106 review, they had advised Mr.

O'Brien accordingly. Mr. O'Brien stated SHPO indicated they would have looked at

the plans as proposed and found no adverse impacts. He noted that was a direct

statement from the SHPO representative.

Mr. Miller asked if that included the use of the vintage railing. Mr. O'Brien stated

what was presented to SHPO and discussed at the meeting, was exactly what the

Commissioners received in their packet, including the vintage railings and the two-tube

open barriers. SHPO saw the vegetative wall, and the Road Commission made it

clear at the meeting they would be looking at more of a vertical wall because of the

separation to the watermain and to minimize vegetation impacts adjacent to that wall.

Mr. Miller commented it had also been made clear to the Commission that the Road

Commission was planning on the vertical wall.

Mr. Miller stated he was aware of the Mayor's Advisory Committee meeting on

August 26th, but was not aware the Preliminary Report had been issued. He referred

to the bridge project and agreed the Road Commission was entitled to a decision. He

noted the Commission only had one opportunity to approve the project, and asked if

changes could be made after the approval was granted. Mr. O'Brien stated the Road

Commission consistently adjusted plans up until a final plan date. He explained if a

change was something minor, such as an aesthetic treatment that required some other

cost participation necessary from a City perspective that would need to be included,

the Road Commission would submit that to the City for inclusion, provided it was not

a monumental change such as increasing the bridge from 41-feet to 46-feet or some

scenario like that. From the Road Commission's perspective, minor adjustments can

be made, depending on size and scope.

Mr. Miller commented he had seen some projects adjusted even after they were built.

Mr. O'Brien stated the Road Commission was agreeable to considering additional

requests depending on the scope of the change and the cost implications.

Mr. Miller asked if a decision was not made until October, if that would prevent the

Road Commission from putting the project out to bid, or if that additional month

would cost the Road Commission putting both projects out to bid at the same time.

Mr. O'Brien stated that from a State-funded project perspective, the Road

Commission does not let the projects internally. They are let through MDOT and the

Road Commission follows MDOT's schedule. At this time they were looking at a

February bid letting, if they submitted plans tomorrow. For bids let in February, the

contractors have up to 60 days to sign contracts and get underway - taking the

projects to April. At that point they would encounter stream restrictions due to the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) because of the fish spawning

period, and other restrictions.

Mr. Miller understood those matters, and asked if the Road Commission did not

receive the Commission's approval for another 30 days, whether that would prevent

the Road Commission from meeting the timeline required for that February bid letting

through the State. Mr. O'Brien responded it would.

Mr. Kilpatrick referred to the comments made by Mr. Tripp during Public Comment,

and noted the Road Commission had satisfactorily answered his own questions

regarding the Federal funding, but asked if Mr. O'Brien could clarify again there was

no Federal funding involved with this project and no Section 106 review.

Mr. O'Brien stated there was no Federal funding included with the Tienken Road

Bridge replacement. Mr. Kilpatrick asked how Mr. O'Brien's response changed from

Mr. Tripp's comments with respect to the letters and memorandums he had. Mr.

Kilpatrick asked if there had been a change or what had happened with respect to

that matter. He noted Mr. Tripp indicated bridges included joint Federal and State

funding, but that had changed on this bridge project.

Mr. O'Brien explained the local bridge program as a whole does contain both Federal

and State funds. Out of that program, this bridge is funded wholly with State funds.

Therefore, the Section 106 review process does not apply.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked why this bridge project was taken out of that Federal funding.

Mr. O'Brien responded it was up to the State as to how they allocate the funds to

particular projects. He explained it depended what was left in the pots, noting the

State can mix funds for a particular project; they solely fund them with State funding,

or they wholly fund them with Federal funds. This particular bridge project was

wholly funded through State funds.

Mr. Kilpatrick clarified it was not up to the Road Commission or the County had

nothing to do with the funding, rather it was presented to the Road Commission that

"this was how the bridge was funded". Mr. O'Brien responded "yes".

Mr. McIntee added the Section 106 is a process and pointed out the Road

Commission followed the process without having to file the letters that mirrored the

process. He explained the Road Commission met extensively with the SHPO Office

and asked them the questions that the Commission had asked. He stated they met

with SHPO just two weeks ago and asked questions such as "if this were Federally

funded, would SHPO's comments be any different". The answers were "no". In

SHPO's determination, there was no adverse affect as a result of the proposed plan.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if SHPO seemed to indicate they wanted a Section 106 review.

Mr. McIntee stated the Road Commission mirrored what a Section 106 review would

encompass, noting they probably went well beyond the minimum requirements for a

Section 106 review. Since it was not Federally funded, SHPO (in their minds) did not

have formal authority to comment on the project. Mr. Kilpatrick commented that was

fair enough.

Mr. McIntee further explained the Road Commission had asked extensively about the

colors of the railings and if SHPO had any viewpoint or perspective on the railings, the

answer was "no". According to the SHPO office, any color would be fine as there

was no historic color to use on the railings. That would be an aesthetic question, and

the Road Commission was open to the Commission's comments. He noted if the

Commission had a position they wanted to communicate to the Road Commission in

the next month or two, the Road Commission could include that, and presuming there

was a way to fund it, the Road Commission would be happy to accommodate that.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated Mr. O'Brien had been before the Commission several times and

he thought Mr. O'Brien had been thoroughly prepared and given everything the

Commission had asked for with respect to the packet, and thought he was entitled to

a decision. He thought the Ordinance required the Commission give the Road

Commission a decision. If the Commission was concerned about the report that came

from the Mayor's Advisory Committee in the sense it would make a difference in the

Commission's decision such as requesting different railings or other features to the

bridge, he might be open. But if the Commission was looking for that report just to

delay the decision another month, he did not think it was fair to the applicant. He

thought out of all the applicants that have come before the Commission, this applicant

would rate fairly high with respect to how he had been prepared; how he had treated

some tough questions from the Commission, and had gone beyond his responsibility of

providing information and trying to be cooperative, and he was entitled to a decision.

He asked if the Advisory Committee report would be used because it would make a

difference on what the Commission recommends, perhaps he might entertain holding

the vote another month, but if it was just being done to delay the project another

month, that was not the purpose of this Commission.

Ms. Luginski stated she wanted to agree with Mr. Kilpatrick. She did not think any

Commissioner wanted to delay things. She thought the Commissioners were pleased

with the progress that had been made and they could acknowledge the Road

Commission had heard and had listened. She wanted to acknowledge the #1 issue in

this was the Historic District. She appreciated the professionalism and responsiveness

of the Road Commission, but the most important thing was the Historic District. She

thought they were getting very close. She asked for a detailed understanding of the

timeline specific to this applicant and this situation.

Mr. Delacourt asked for clarification on what timeline Ms. Luginski was referring to.

Ms. Luginski asked when a Commission decision was due. Mr. Delacourt explained

the decision was due when the applicant requested review and approval. He stated

the Ordinance required that if no action was taken within 60 days, it was an automatic

approval. He stated the submittal of the application controlled the timeline for the

request.

Ms. Luginski asked how far the Commission was from that, and asked if it had been

three weeks since the submittal of the application. Mr. Delacourt stated it had been

just over 21 days.

Ms. Luginski stated the Commission technically had a considerable amount of time left

to make this decision. Mr. Delacourt stated the applicant could request a vote at this

meeting.

Ms. Luginski stated she recalled Mr. O'Brien had mentioned at the last meeting that he

hoped for a decision at this meeting. She did not realize he was serious. She stated it

was not a problem, but she personally did not feel a lot of pressure to make a decision

at this meeting. Because it had been three weeks, they had more time, and she was

hearing the Commissioners had questions about the recommendations from the

Oakland County Planning and Economic Development group as they were

professionals and had some things to say about the bridge.

Ms. Luginski referred to the comment about things being added to the Advisory

Committee's Preliminary Report, but that was not how she read the report. She

stated the items specific to the bridge, such as the component about wooden posts

with corded railings as opposed to a guardrail, was in the report and was something

she personally would prefer. Those were the things the Commission wanted to have

time to look at to see if that was what they preferred, rather than coming back in four

weeks or a couple of months and asking for something to be added. She wanted to

know if that could be worked out before they finalized things.

Ms. Luginski stated that traffic calming seemed to be the issue and she greatly

appreciated the mid-block island crossing. If the Commission could review some of

the traffic calming recommendations to determine if they applied to this situation or

not, or if there were some components recommended by the Advisory Committee that

the Commission could put in place now.

Mr. O'Brien stated he had reviewed a copy of the Preliminary Report from the

Mayor's Advisory Committee. In reviewing the recommendations as they related to

the bridge and its approaches, he believed the Road Commission had complied with

every one of them except for one. The Report suggested using something else other

than the standard steel guardrail approaches. He explained the post and cable rails

were not appropriate for a bridge ending or a crash barrier when coming into a fixed

object such as the concrete endings. It has to be the beam guardrail from a safety

perspective. He stated there was no give on that one. He noted from an aesthetic

perspective relating to traffic calming, such as a fieldstone wall off the path or some

other suggestion, became a non-participating cost from the bridge project perspective.

The Road Commission would look to the City to wholly fund those types of requests.

He explained those types of requests, if aesthetic in nature, can be added at a future

date providing there is funding identified. He stated in reviewing the Advisory

Committee's draft recommendations as they relate to the bridge, he believed the Road

Commission had complied with seven out of the eight recommendations, other than

the beamed guardrail which the Road Commission cannot do.

Ms. Luginski stated she was disappointed to hear that because she thought it sounded

nice. Mr. O'Brien explained that if they did not use a progressively more rigid barrier

as they approach the bridge railings, when a car strikes that, a car will deflect and snag

the end of that bridge barrier and create catastrophic damage to both the vehicle

passenger compartment and the passengers in that compartment. From a crash

worthiness perspective, those were the restrictions the Road Commission had to

operate under.

Ms. Luginski added there were opportunities upon entering the bridge or on the

bridge or just before and after to install a strip of cobbled roadway that would provide

an audible or physical feeling of entering something. She stated those were some of

the things the residents had discussed with the Mayor's Advisory Committee. She

thought those things the Commission might want to address, although she did not see

that in the Preliminary Report.

Ms. Luginski asked if Staff was going to provide the Commission with a "decision

trail" on the Section 106. She stated that had been discussed during the meetings

between the residents and the Advisory Committee. She wondered if some document

had been produced that could be shared with the Commission.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was no document. He explained both the Road

Commission and MDOT had been contacted, and both indicated they had no trail of

Federal funding being used for this bridge. He did not have any documentation that

said that and stated he had spoken to a representative at MDOT associated with the

bridge projects. There was no indication that anything the Road Commission

provided or anything they said about funding was inaccurate. No one expressed

concern to Staff that Federal funding was being used or a shell game being played with

the funding.

Ms. Luginski stated she did not think anyone was suggesting that, but just wanted a

black and white answer on how the funding happened. For her edification, she was

curious because she was not clear about what group made the decision on whether

local or Federal funds would be used for a project. Mr. O'Brien responded MDOT.

Ms. Luginski stated she thought she had asked that question before and thought it was

the Road Commission. Mr. O'Brien explained that MDOT controlled both the State

and Federal funds that come to the State as they are the clearinghouse and had the

authority.

Ms. Luginski stated that according to her notes, October 5th was supposed to be the

Road Commission's target date for something. Mr. O'Brien suggested it was the date

for the grade inspection (GI). Ms. Luginski thought that was probably it. She stated it

was mentioned in her discussion with Mr. O'Brien after the last meeting. She noted

the Commission would not meet again until October 8th.

Mr. O'Brien did not recall as that conversation occurred back in May or June. He

stated if the Road Commission was targeting an October 5th GI, they would submit

plans three weeks in advance of that. He explained MDOT needed time to review,

then there was a grade inspection, and they progressed to final plans. He stated they

had to submit final plans for a February bid letting in the early part of December. He

mentioned they still had right-of-way to acquire for the project and there were many

wheels in motion.

Mr. Thompson echoed Mr. Kilpatrick's comments, noting he had an opportunity to

review the Advisory Committee's recommendations and did not see anything in that

report that would delay the Commission. He stated he was prepared to move the

motions when the Chair was ready.

Mr. Kilpatrick noted that the Road Commission was proposing a different retaining

wall with a different design that did not slope as much. Mr. O'Brien stated it was a

near vertical wall, because the blocks were slightly offset, noting he believed it was

about an inch or half an inch offset on a block. Mr. Kilpatrick asked if there would be

the opportunity for vegetation. Mr. O'Brien stated on those particular blocks there

was not. He explained when the blocks were placed in an unkempt area, essentially

vines climbed up the face of the wall and encompass the wall. He stated there was no

provision to plant anything in the wall. Mr. Kilpatrick stated it would take longer for

the vegetation to take root. Mr. O'Brien concurred. Mr. Kilpatrick indicated he was

prepared to vote on this matter whenever the Chair was prepared for the motions to

be made.

Mr. Dziurman asked for clarification about the lights for the mid-block crossing. Mr.

O'Brien stated the crossing had to be lit. Mr. Dziurman asked how it would be lit.

Mr. O'Brien indicated street lights would be used. He clarified the responsibility of the

lights and the maintenance of the lights was a City responsibility. If there was a

request for a particular light standard, it would be up to the City to cover the costs

over and above a normal street light. He explained Detroit Edison had a set of stock

light fixtures.

Mr. Dziurman asked if there were any pictures of the lights. Mr. Delacourt explained

the City would have to come before the Road Commission for approval of the lighting.

He stated any approvals made by the Commission regarding the mid-block crossing

would be conditioned on the City bringing that back before the Commission for

review and approval. Mr. O'Brien stated he did not know what the City’s policies

were regarding street lights. He noted the City of Farmington Hills had a particular

light standard they use throughout the community for purposes of uniformity. He

stated if the City wanted a different street light fixture versus a standard cobra head, it

would have to be discussed with the City as they were ultimately the funding party.

Chairperson Dunphy asked if the mid-block crossing would also require signage,

similar to the standard yellow and black caution-type signage. Mr. O'Brien stated that

was correct and explained it was typically mounted on a span wire across the crossing

itself to alert motorists it is a marked mid-block crossing.

Mr. Delacourt referred to the timing questions discussed earlier. He stated if the

Commission wanted to see specific changes to the applicant's request based on the

Advisory Committee’s Preliminary Report, or changes because the proposed bridge

did not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, he suggested those changes be

proposed at this meeting. He explained if they are not proposed until the next

meeting, there was no time to change the plan and come back with a revised request

by the following meeting. He noted the Commission would bump up against the

60-day timeframe outlined in the Ordinance, if those specific changes were not

suggested at this meeting.

Mr. Delacourt referred to the mid-block crossing noting if any lighting was involved, it

would be the City's responsibility and cost. He suggested if the Commission was

comfortable with the mid-block crossing and decided to move on it, the motion

include a condition that any lighting, signage or anything else under the purview of the

Commission be brought back for a separate approval. He explained before the City

could go to City Council with those costs estimates, the City wanted to know the

Commission supported the mid-block crossing, and would like to know any

conditions or additional information the Commission wanted. He explained the City

would bring that detail back at a separate date. A motion from the Commission

would be helpful to allow the City to go before the City Council with the cost

estimates to incorporate them into this package. Alternatively, the Commission could

acknowledge they would like to see the mid-block crossing included.

Ms. Franey stated the Advisory Committee Preliminary Report contained notes

regarding weight limits, speed and those types of things. She asked how she would

address those issues as she did not believe they were included with the project before

the Commission. She did not feel she could say yes until those issues were addressed.

She thought the Road Commission presented exactly what the Commission wanted as

far as the aesthetic point of view, the size, the width, but she was not comfortable

approving based on what the Commission was trying to salvage and save.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified the Commissioners had received a letter in their packet

from the City Attorney that indicated what the Commission can and cannot do within

the powers of the Commission. Specifically, that involves putting in weight

restrictions. That was the reason the Commission was not being asked to address that

because it was outside the Commission’s purview.

Mr. Delacourt stated there was action that Commission could take outside of the

applicant's request for review. He stated the Commission could request City Council

to pursue certain Traffic Control Orders (TCOs). He thought it was within the

Commission's prerogative to make a motion requesting TCOs be pursued by City

Council through the Road Commission for Oakland County that try to either control

speeds; reduce speeds; restrict trucks or posting the Districts for no trucks. He

explained that was the appropriate avenue separate from the applicant's request. He

noted those motions could be made at this meeting or he could provide motions for

the Commission's consideration at another meeting.

Ms. Franey asked if those motions were proposed at this meeting, whether they

would be discussed at the next City Council meeting, which would give the

Commission some answer from City Council by the Commission’s October 8th

meeting and still be within the 60-day timeframe.

Mr. Delacourt reminded the Commission those requests are separate from the review

of the applicant's request. He explained the motions would go to City Council as

quickly as possible, and City Council would act on them as Council felt was

appropriate. He pointed out that City Council might request additional information

from the City's Traffic Engineer before acting. The two issues are separate.

Mr. Dziurman stated there was a purpose for asking about the weight limits on the

bridge. He explained it was because the homes were being affected by traffic, and did

not have anything to do with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The

Commission was required by Ordinance to try to protect designated properties. The

whole point was to protect the properties. He did not care what the weight limits are

if it can be shown it will not harm the properties. What is there now is harming the

properties, and if it is increased, it will harm it even more. He said the Commission

was demolishing its own structures that they were supposed to protect by approving

the applicant's request. That is why he wanted another month to make sure the

Commission had all the conditions they could have. He did not care what anyone

said, if the decision was to say yes, it was a done deal. He stated the Commission

could come back and ask for changes and might get one thing, but if the Commission

had serious reservations and wanted certain things, now was the time. He was not

prepared to make that motion and he would not vote for it at this meeting even though

he could support this bridge. If he got the right motions, he would support it, but

could not do that at this meeting because he did not have all his information in front of

him and he wanted to read it. He took this very seriously and would not do it

haphazardly.

Dr. Stamps asked if Ms. Kidorf had some additional insight knowing the concerns and

issues. He appreciated her written letter and asked if she might have some additional

thoughts.

Ms. Kidorf cautioned the Commission to be very careful they were justifying the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards. She understood the other concerns such as

traffic calming and protecting the historic properties in the Village, but the

Commission's job as a Historic Districts Commission in Michigan was to react to

applications as they are presented; evaluate whether those applications meet the

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and if they do, issue a

Certificate of Appropriateness. The other concerns about protecting properties in the

Village, the Commission needed to go another route. Those concerns fell under the

Commission's purview, but not as that relates to this application. The Commission

would petition City Council to do something about the problem in the Historic District,

noting the bridge was not the cause or solution to that problem of truck traffic or traffic

calming. She thought there were two separate issues, and again cautioned the

Commission to be sure when reviewing applications, they were doing that review in

accordance with State Law.

Mr. Miller stated it was helpful to keep that in mind. The issue of speed, the amount

of traffic, the size of the bridge, and the width of the bridge had been much of his

concern. He did not feel good about the existing bridge that traffic travels over at 45

or 55 mph. He stated if the lanes were made wider and the bridge approach was

made wider, traffic would only continue what it did now and perhaps speed up.

Hence, the importance of the guardrails before the bridge abutments. He commented

hitting one at 25 mph was nasty; however, hitting one at 55 mph was a tragedy.

Mr. Miller stated that the historic part of the Village from 1830 to 1950 was all gravel

roads and the bridge was probably a small, wood bridge. Bringing in a two or three

lane asphalt highway, with 80-foot rights of way, with wide concrete bridges, lost sight

of the historic nature of the Village itself. Especially when the roads and bridges are

right through the Village. That has been his concern from the beginning. He was

aware he could not convince the City nor the residents nor the Road Commission to

tear up the asphalt and take the road back to gravel and make it narrow and curvy

which would slow the cars down but would create other issues and problems.

Mr. Miller understood the Road Commission's job was not to calm traffic down, but

to move it through as quickly and safely as possible in overall traffic patterns. He

stated that hearing everything he had heard at this meeting, he did not think the

Commission was going to get better than this bridge. Personally, he knew if the lanes

were 8-feet wide with 4-foot abutments on either side, traffic would slow down. He

did not think he could get that.

2008-0678

Mr. Miller stated that none of the Commissioners were road experts nor road or

bridge designers. Hearing what the Commissioners had said about wanting to visually

slow traffic, he thought the mid-block pedestrian island was a start. He thought some

traffic calming might be incorporated in the road itself, but noted that was not within

the Commission's purview.

Mr. Miller agreed if time was of the essence in moving this project forward, there was

a lot of time available to the Road Commission and the City to bring the project

before the Commission much earlier. He thought it was helpful for the Road

Commission to receive feedback from the Commission and there had been good

progress. He commented it was too bad there was not a bit more time just so the

Commissioners could feel good they had done everything they could do, including City

Staff, the Mayor, and the residents who would be most impacted by this decision.

Mr. O'Brien referred to the pedestrian island, and noted they were extending the curb

on the inbound side for eastbound traffic approaching the bridge. Currently, there is a

small bit of curb on the west side of the bridge; however, it is primarily open shoulder.

With the addition of the curb, it pulled in the narrowness feeling approaching the

District, probably more so than what exists today. He stated they did add that to the

plans.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if there was anything that could be put on the surface of the road

on the bridge such as cobblestone or grading. Mr. McIntee stated that was very noisy

and was not done in a residential area. He stated it would be removed within a week.

Mr. O'Brien stated that while it may give an aesthetic look, you would not want to be

the homeowner immediately adjacent to the bridge. He noted stamped concrete

crosswalks had been used at Farmington Road and Grand River Avenue, and traffic

travelling the posted speeds over them was very loud. The residents living adjacent to

that, even at a 25 mph speed limit, would be kept up at night.

Chairperson Dunphy called for additional discussion from the Commissioners.

Hearing no further discussion, he asked if the Commission was ready to move the

motions. Mr. Miller preferred the motion regarding the mid-block crossing be kept

separate from the bridge motions.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified the Staff Report contained in the packet contained

sample motions for the Commissioners consideration, including a motion for the

removal of the existing bridge, and a motion approving the new construction of the

replacement bridge.

Mr. Thompson indicated he would move the following motion for approval as

presented in the packet. Mr. Kilpatrick seconded the motion. Chairperson Dunphy

called for discussion on the motion on the floor. Upon hearing none, he called for a

roll call vote.

Motion regarding Removal of Existing Bridge:

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

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 09-002 (Tienken Road Bridge over Stoney

Creek) regarding the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the

existing Tienken Road Bridge over Stoney Creek, the Historic Districts Commission

APPROVES a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following Findings:

Findings:

1. The existing bridge is a noncontributing resource in the Stoney Creek District.

2. The bridge does not contribute to the character of the District and is not eligible for the

National Register.

2008-0678

Motion regarding New Construction of Replacement Bridge:

Mr. Thompson proposed the following motion to approve the new construction of the

replacement bridge, seconded by Mr. Kilpatrick.

Chairperson Dunphy suggested that Condition #1 be amended to include the date of

the plans submitted for this meeting as follows:

1. The proposed bridge construction and associated improvements shall be

consistent with plans dated received from the Planning Department

August 20, 2009 and September 10, 2009.

Both the motion maker and seconded agreed to amend Condition #1 as stated above.

Ms. Franey referred to Finding #5 and asked if a sentence should be added that if the

bridge were to be removed, it would have to be approved by the Commission. Mr.

Delacourt explained a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for removal if

the new bridge was constructed and at some point in the future someone wanted to

remove it. It would follow the same process as the current existing bridge and would

require a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove it. He stated that condition

identified the criteria contained in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that

indicates that new features or features that are removed will not have a damaging

affect to the integrity of the resource or this instance, the District.

Mr. Delacourt suggested one additional condition should be included indicating that if

the bridge design were to be changed in any way, shape or form, or converted from

what is proposed, an additional approval from the Commission would be required.

Mr. Thompson suggested the following condition #9, seconded by Mr. Kilpatrick:

9. If the bridge design is changed in way whatsoever from what has been

proposed, an additional approval would be required from the Historic

Districts Commission.

Mr. Miller stated he could have serious questions about whether or not the plans

actually fully comply with Standard #9. Specifically, when stating "it is compatible

with the massing, size, scale, architectural features" which is not an objective question

that falls under algebraic equations and is a scientific answer. He noted it was

subjective and he had made it clear where he fell on the subjective point. He wanted

to clarify that a "no" vote from a Commissioner may not be a vote that the Road

Commission was the evil empire playing games with the Federal and State money and

conspiring to destroy the historic nature of the Village; it could simply be a desire to

see a better plan than the one presented so far. He wanted to make that point.

Chairperson Dunphy stated that any decisions made by the Commission were

subjective for the most part. That was the nature of the work the Commission did and

why there were nine members on the Commission, to provide that variety of opinion

and perception and interpretations of the Standards and how best to apply them, they

arrive at a consensus of the best way to approach the requests. He agreed it was not

a formula, and pointed out if was a formula, the Commission would not be necessary

because the formula could simply be applied. He stated it was the Commission's job

to exercise that type of discretion and use their best judgment to make those

decisions. He added if Mr. Miller was concerned about the wording of the motion, he

could tweak the wording to make the motion more palatable. Mr. Miller indicated he

was comfortable with the wording as proposed.

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

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

Complete Motion as revised and voted:

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

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Miller, Stamps, Kilpatrick, Dunphy, Thompson and Franey

6 -

Nay

Dziurman and Luginski

2 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 09-002 (Tienken Road Bridge over Stoney

Creek) regarding the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new bridge addition,

the Historic Districts Commission APPROVES a Certificate of Appropriateness with the

following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

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

District located in the City of Rochester Hills.

2. The architectural features, design, arrangement, texture and materials proposed are

consistent with those of the Stoney Creek Historic District, and do not have a

negative impact on the District.

3. The proposed bridge replacement is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Rehabilitation Numbers 9 and 10.

4. The new bridge does not destroy historic materials that characterize the District. The

new bridge is different from the old and is compatible with the massing, size,

scale, and architectural features of the District. The design of the bridge protects

the historic integrity of the District and its environment.

5. The new bridge is designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the

essential form and integrity of the Historic District and its environment would be

unimpaired.

Conditions:

1. The proposed bridge construction and associated improvements shall be consistent

with plans dated received from the Planning Department August 20, 2009 and

September 10, 2009.

2. The bridge shall be two 12-foot motor vehicle travel lanes only.

3. Paved shoulders for the bridge shall be a maximum of two feet in width.

4. The attached pedestrian facility shall be a maximum of 8 feet in width.

5. The total bridge improvements shall be a maximum of 41 feet in width, as identified in

the submitted plans.

6. Bridge guard rail shall be the two tube type, attached to eight foot concrete endings

with standard type-B rail approach endings as identified on the submitted plans

and details. All railing and posts shall be galvanized.

7. Pedestrian rail shall be consistent with the vintage R-4 railing details included in the

project submittal. The railing shall be galvanized.

8. The plans shall be revised to relocate the foot of the proposed retaining wall to a

distance to be approved by the City Engineer.

9. If the bridge design is changed in way whatsoever from what has been proposed, an

additional approval would be required from the Historic Districts Commission.

2008-0678

Motion regarding New Construction - Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing:

Mr. Thompson proposed the motion included in the packet regarding the new

construction of the mid-block crossing, seconded by Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Thompson

suggested the addition of the following condition #4:

4. The City Planning and Development Department will return for approval

of any signage, lighting and other aesthetic mandatory physical

elements associated with the mid-block pedestrian crossing.

Mr. Dziurman thought that Condition #4 conflicted with Condition #2, and stated he

thought Condition #4 should be used because the Commission should review those

items. Mr. Thompson agreed that Condition #2 could be removed, and the

Conditions renumbered 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Kilpatrick agreed with that comment as the

seconder on the motion.

Mr. Dziurman stated that information should be brought before the Commission for

final approval.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified whether all of Condition #2 was being removed, or just

the last sentence, noting the last sentence specified the materials. Mr. Thompson

thought Condition #2 should be removed as Condition #4 indicated all materials and

proposed materials be provided for approval.

Mr. Dziurman suggested Condition #2 be reworded as follows:

2. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is planned to include a

refuge island, lighting and overhead crosswalk signs, subject to formal

approval by the Historic Districts Commission.

Mr. Dziurman thought that would provide the final oversight to avoid glaring lights, yet

at the same time there had to be safety. He stated that would be the gateway into the

Village and he was concerned about that.

Mr. Thompson stated he would leave Condition #2 in the motion and add "subject to

final approval by the Historic Districts Commission".

Chairperson Dunphy clarified the wording of Condition #2 would read:

2. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is planned to include a

refuge island, lighting and overhead crosswalk signs, subject to formal

approval by the Historic Districts Commission.

Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kilpatrick agreed to the change in Condition #2. He called

for any further discussion on the motion. Upon hearing none, he called for a roll call

vote.

Complete motion as amended and voted:

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

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 09-002 (Tienken Road Bridge over Stoney

Creek Replacement) regarding the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the

construction of a mid-block pedestrian crossing on Tienken Road, west of the Tienken

Road Bridge over Stoney Creek, the Historic Districts Commission APPROVES of a

Certificate of Appropriateness with the following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing will be a noncontributing resource within

the Stoney Creek Historic District located in the City of Rochester Hills.

2. The architectural features, design, arrangement, texture and materials proposed are

consistent with those of the Stoney Creek Historic District, and do not have a negative

impact on the District.

3. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is consistent with the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Numbers 9 and 10.

4. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing does not destroy historic materials that

characterize the District.

5. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is designed in such a manner that if

removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Historic District and its

environment would be unimpaired.

6. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing will provide a major pedestrian

improvement.

7. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing will serve as an additional traffic calming

element reducing traffic speeds in the District.

8. Funding for the proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing requires approval of the

Rochester Hills City Council prior to construction.

Conditions:

1. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated improvements shall be

consistent with plans dated received from the Planning Department September 9, 2009.

2. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is planned to include a refuge island,

lighting and overhead crosswalk signs, subject to formal approval by the Historic Districts

Commission.

3. The proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is necessary to provide a safe route for

pedestrian and other non-motorized traffic across Tienken Road to allow access to the

pedestrian bridge located on the south side of Tienken Road. Due to topographic

concerns and other constraints, no other pedestrian route exists on the north side of

Tienken Road that can provide a safe pathway for non-motorized traffic.

4. The City Planning and Development Department will return for approval of any signage,

lighting and other aesthetic mandatory physical elements associated with the mid-block

pedestrian crossing.

2008-0678

Chairperson Dunphy thanked the Road Commission for their collaboration on this

project and working with the Commission through an arduous process. Mr. O'Brien

thanked the Commission.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the Commission would take a short recess.

(Recess: 8:53 PM to 9:05 PM)

Chairperson Dunphy called the meeting back to order to 9:05 PM. He stated the

Commission would continue with Agenda Item #9 (1841 Crooks Road).

NEW BUSINESS

9.

9A.

2006-0105

1841 Crooks Road (HDC File #99-011)

Applicant: Fred Dunn

Sidwell: 15-20-428-003

District: Non-Contiguous

Request: Notice to Proceed (Demolition of House)

Chairperson Dunphy asked Mr. Delacourt for a brief summary regarding the request.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Historic Districts Commission (HDC) was familiar with Mr.

Dunn and his property. He noted Mr. Dunn had been before the Commission several

times over the last several years for review of applications pertaining to 1841 Crooks

Road, which was a non-contiguous designated Historic District within the City. The

site consists of a single family house and a barn, noting the survey sheets were

included in the packet.

Mr. Delacourt stated the last time Mr. Dunn was before the Commission was for

approval of an addition and renovation to the existing structure, which the Commission

approved. Since that time, Demolition by Neglect notices had been issued by the

Commission. Upon receipt of the first notice, Mr. Dunn complied by securing the

structure and it was inspected by the Building Department. He noted the structure

was not completely "mothballed" but it was protected against the elements and met the

intent of Commission's notice.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the second Demolition by Neglect notice led to a discussion

between he and Mr. Dunn regarding the structure. Mr. Dunn requested that he take a

look at the property. Subsequently, he and Kelly Winters, the Deputy Director of the

City’s Building Department, walked through the property. Mr. Dunn felt that since he

had been issued a Building Permit and started the work, new information had come to

light and he wanted the City to take a look at it. He stated Mr. Dunn indicated at a

subsequent meeting he wished to make a request to demolish the structure.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Staff Report detailed the Notice to Proceed section of the

Ordinance, and Mr. Dunn submitted information related to that request. He stated he

and Mr. Winters were present to answer any questions the Commissioners might

have.

Jennifer Hill, Booth Patterson, P.C., 1090 W. Huron, Waterford, Michigan, was

present and stated she represented Mr. Dunn in this proceeding. Fred Dunn, 1104

Maple Leaf Drive, was also present.

Ms. Hill stated they were seeking a demolition permit in order to remove the home

located at 1841 Crooks Road. Her understanding of the history of the home and the

reason it was in the Historic District was because it is an example of an upright and

wing old American farmhouse that represents the history of Avon Township, now

Rochester Hills. It represents the reason why the Township was formed because of

the fertile soil, which bought immigrants to the area.

Ms. Hill stated the current condition of the home was beyond repair and noted they

had received estimates that it would cost approximately $90,000.00 to repair the

structural integrity of the home so the outside structure of the home can be maintained.

Ms. Hill stated Mr. Dunn did receive a Certificate of Appropriateness on July 7, 2006

after he had appeared before the Commission multiple times. She stated Mr. Dunn

had paid $5,500.00 in permit fees as of this point to complete the work. When Mr.

Dunn began tearing off the drywall on the inside of the home, he discovered it was

completely destroyed. She stated they had photographs of the interior, which Mr.

Dunn would explain.

Ms. Hill stated that when the Historic Districts Commission was originally formed, the

Township Supervisor suggested at the organizational meeting that the Commission

administer the Ordinance in a very reasonable fashion and encouraged the

Commission to be flexible and work with the residents of the City. She stated they

were asking for some real consideration of their request to demolish and consideration

of whether $90,000.00 was reasonable to require a citizen to restore this home. She

stated even if the house was destroyed, there were still items on the property that

show the agrarian nature of the property, such as the barn. She pointed out it was

also a 3-acre property which was open property.

Ms. Hill stated the Standard by which this matter was being reviewed is set forth in the

City Code, which states: "retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to

the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the

owner's control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the

financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market

value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the Historic District, have been

attempted and exhausted by the owner" and under the second part which states:

"retaining of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the Community". Ms.

Hill believed only one of the above prongs was necessary for the Commission to grant

the Notice to Proceed to allow Mr. Dunn to demolish the home.

Ms. Hill stated they had submitted a letter from Usztan, LLC, who is a builder and

who provided bids to Mr. Dunn. She explained Mr. Dunn was acting as the General

Contractor in this matter; however, Mr. Usztan would be doing some of the work.

The letter indicates the existing foundations are leaking and have become

compromised in certain areas. They are not below the current requirements of

42-inches, and since the structure is not heated, frost damage to the footings has

occurred. The letter also indicates that several structural components have been cut

or removed; a portion of the framing has been exposed to significant water damage

and needs replacement; the roof structure is in need of complete removal as the

existing shingles/shakes and plywood underlay require replacement, while the extent of

the roof truss damage cannot be determined, the condition is suspect. The letter also

stated there is significant mold growth. The exterior siding is not original and does not

meet historic requirements; and the windows and doors cannot be salvaged. The

letter further states that the existing plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems are

completely removed or destroyed beyond repair.

Ms. Hill stated that in Mr. Usztan's opinion it was not feasible or reasonable to bring

the structure up to the condition it needed to be to maintain the outside structure at this

point. She stated Mr. Dunn would explain the photographs that were submitted.

Mr. Dunn explained that after he got his approval for building, he got a demolition

permit from the Building Department and he started to remove those items a former

owner had put on the building without a permit and without any instructions from

anyone.

Mr. Dziurman asked if Mr. Dunn had a time line because the work covered a long

period of time.

Mr. Dunn stated the former owner did that work before he purchased the property,

noting he did not know it was a designated Historic District when he purchased it. It

was not in his paperwork nor was it on his Deed. He found that out after the fact, and

noted he had owned old homes before so it did not surprise him and he decided to

work with that.

Mr. Dunn stated he came with his original architect and received an approval, but that

architect never showed the plans to he and Mrs. Dunn before he showed them to the

Commission. He and his wife did not like those plans and did not build that house.

He stated they waited a year and came back with a different architect and received an

approval in 2007. After he received the permit to build, he obtained a demolition

permit from the Building Department and started to do the demolition work. As he

started to do the demolition work and started to remove things from the house, both

inside and outside, they started to see what had been done by a previous owner. It

became very apparent there was nothing he could do, and explained he had to prop

the building up after he took some of the drywall off because that was all that was

holding up the walls. He stated beams had been cut, walls removed, and sections of

the foundation had been removed. One room was built over a cistern and no

foundation was installed. However, the existing foundation behind that room was torn

out (he provided photographs of these areas).

Mr. Dunn stated that a door had been installed to the upstairs and had an apartment

upstairs, which was illegal, and required walking across the roof. Walking across the

roof wore out the shingles and rotted all the studs and beams. On that wall there is

nothing left. He provided photographs of areas where the water came down through

where the roof was destroyed. He stated he also had photographs of where studs

and beams were cut, where stairwells were moved, and where fireplaces were

moved.

Mr. Dunn described a photograph of a room that had been added that contained a

heater and pointed out where the foundation had been cut, and instead of the beams

holding up the floors on the foundation, the beams were now on pieces of 2x4's. That

was what was holding up the whole basement.

Mr. Dunn described a photograph of the cistern he found underneath one room, and

pointed out the foundation to that room was missing, which he subsequently boarded

up. He noted an area where the roof had leaked where the occupants were walking

across the roof to get to the apartment. He pointed out where the roof had leaked

and where the studs were pieced back together, compromising that room. He stated

he had to install support beams after he removed the drywall.

Mr. Dunn discussed a photograph of the wall opposite the wall where the foundation

had been removed. He explained that wall had originally contained a window, which

had been filled in so the other room could be added. He described an area where

studs had been installed to hold the rafters up in the second story of the original

portion of the house. He noted the house had been pieced together twice. He stated

the original house was only the two-story building with the lower section added on as

the first add-on. Subsequently, three different rooms were added on.

Mr. Dunn discussed a photograph of a beam where a wall had been removed which

was a support wall for the upstairs bedroom. The wall was removed to extend the

living area into a one-room living area, which was being held up by a 1x6 - the whole

upstairs facility. He pointed out it was bowing.

Mr. Dunn explained a photograph of the back of the room that was over the cistern.

He pointed out where the ceiling had been lowered and rotted and noted a fake ceiling

had been installed because it had already rotted the ceiling out. He noted the lower

2x4s holding up the drywall that had been installed by a previous owner.

Mr. Dunn described a photograph depicting the original ventilation for a kettle stove,

which had been removed. He discussed a photograph depicting the area where the

kitchen had been knocked out and an addition added. He noted where the beams

had been cut, and when the rafters were put back, they were put on top of drywall.

He noted that was how the previous owner had leveled the house, it was not done

with beams, it was done with drywall. The beam was split three different times and

was no longer a solid beam, but was just pieces. He stated the beam was about

30-feet long on an outside wall.

Mr. Dunn discussed a photograph depicting where a staircase had gone up to a

second story, and where the beams had been cut. The beams are no longer holding

anything, but are just there and were behind the drywall. He pointed out photographs

depicting where a second ceiling was applied and pointed out where wood had rotted

because of roof problems.

Mr. Dunn pointed out a photograph depicting an area from the south wall to the north

section of the building (the lower section of the house over to the two-story section),

showing that the studs had been cut to install a wall. He noted a photograph depicting

the extra bracing he had to install after removing the drywall. He discussed a

photograph depicting more cut rafters, noting he did not know why the rafters were

cut as nothing was there except drywall.

Mr. Dunn stated when he finished with the demolition work, he felt that about 75% of

the construction of the building had been compromised. He explained with the

windows alone previous owners had replaced 52% with Plexiglas. Of the remaining

windows, about 20% were rotten and needed to be taken totally out of the house. He

stated less than 30% of the original windows would be left, noting 50% were already

gone.

Mr. Dunn referred to the structural components of the house, and stated he thought at

least 80% had been compromised. That is why he felt all he was doing was putting

brand new construction into the house, and it would not be the original house, it would

be new. He stated if he was going to do that, he thought he should just tear it down

and build it new. He commented that would be cheaper.

Ms. Hill pointed out that as could be seen from the pictures, the house was severely

damaged, noting the structural integrity and the foundation, and stated they were

looking at real problems. She stated Mr. Usztan had experience building in historic

districts, as he had built two historic homes and also done a city hall, police station and

fire station as well as a wide range of homes having been a builder for 30 years, from

small-end homes to five million dollar homes. She stated Mr. Dunn was previously a

builder before owning his own steel company. He was a builder back in the 1960s for

approximately seven years.

Ms. Hill stated the estimate to repair the foundation was $25,000; to redo the

structural integrity of the home was approximately $15,000, and the roof structure

would cost $35,000. She stated the repairs would cost approximately $75,000, and

noted she had previously given the Commissioners a different number, and clarified the

repairs would amount to around $75,000.

Ms. Hill stated this was clearly outside of Mr. Dunn's control, and it was not just

because there was an issue with the title insurance and it was never placed on the

record. She stated all of the structural damage was caused by previous owners, of

which Mr. Dunn had no knowledge when he was before the Commission to obtain the

Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. Hill stated she had reviewed the City files relating to this property. She stated

back in August of 1985, the City took action against Ms. O'Neill-Pottery because she

had not pulled permits for electrical work she was doing. Ms. O'Neill-Pottery also

did heating and cooling work without obtaining permits. The work done on the inside

of the property was done without permits being pulled. Ms. Hill stated Mr. Dunn had

absolutely no way of knowing the damage that had been done, such as removing a

support wall and band-aiding that removal by placing a 1x6 board which would not

hold up the home.

Ms. Hill referred to "interest to the Community" and stated she and Mr. Dunn had

asked neighbors to attend the meeting, but they did not. She explained Mr. Dunn had

spoken extensively with numerous residents in the Christian Hills Subdivision, which is

adjacent to the property, and those neighbors said they would attend the meeting to

request that the property be taken down and that they supported his application for

demolition, but they did not attend this meeting. She did want to present that to the

Commission. She indicated she would answer any questions the Commissioners might

have.

Chairperson Dunphy noted that a representative from the City's Building Department

was present and asked if he had any information for the Commission. Mr. Delacourt

stated he had asked Mr. Winters to attend the meeting to answer any questions the

Commissioners might have about what he saw when he walked the site, or to answer

any other questions. Mr. Winters was not asked to present any material regarding this

matter.

Dr. Stamps asked if Mr. Winters could share what he observed at the site.

Kelly Winters, Deputy Director, Building Department, introduced himself to the

Commissioners. He stated that Mr. Dunn's pictures did not do justice. He explained

when he went to the site with Mr. Delacourt, Mr. Delacourt did not even enter the

building because it was that scary. He acknowledged it was in pretty rough shape.

Mr. Miller asked if having seen what he saw going through the building, if it was not a

historic structure, would he recommend it be demolished. Mr. Winters replied

absolutely.

Mr. Miller stated the fact it was a historic structure was why it was before the

Commission. He referred to the letter from Mr. Usztan and his comments about the

structure, and stated he would like to present the other side. The beams that were cut

could now be replaced with new beams, and what Mr. Dunn would have was new

beams alongside old lumber. He noted Mr. Dunn had not said the old lumber was

totally rotted and decrepit although it looked old and had nail holes and drywall

marks, but it was still solid. Mr. Dunn responded "some of it".

Mr. Miller stated when he read that the structural integrity had totally been

compromised, he commented on a house this age, what the Commission was seeing in

terms of what had been cut out and not cut out, he had seen before and it was not that

uncommon, or in terms of where a stairway had been run up or where the heat shield

was regarding the heating and cooling. He stated he had been at the house when Ms.

O'Neill-Pottery lived there and he saw where they just walked across the roof. He

pointed out Mr. Dunn had also seen then when he looked at the house before he

bought it. He was a little surprised Mr. Dunn waited to do any investigation inside of

the house until he removed the additions connected to it. He disagreed with the fact it

would be cheaper to redo it, although it might be easier for the contractor, and Mr.

Dunn might be happier with the end result, but that was often true of old houses. He

stated to find contractors who knew how do that work was not the same as finding a

competent carpenter or contractor. He noted the contractors who did that work did

charge more. He stated any foundation would cost $20,000, especially for the size of

the house being discussed.

Mr. Miller stated he was also disappointed that for the length of the time Mr. Dunn

held the house, he was not surprised to hear about water deterioration and weather

deterioration, because with a house that age, if it is let sit it will deteriorate and will

continue to deteriorate. Hence the action taken by the Commission earlier regarding

the house.

Mr. Miller referred to the windows and stated that whenever possible on a historic

structure, the windows should be retained. He commented that was not a make or

break, nor were the doors. If there was a historic structure that had all the windows

broken out, the Commission would not approve a notice to proceed with demolition.

Rather, the Commission would require them to be replaced.

Mr. Miller stated his own personal feeling was that the house needed a lot of work,

but he knew that without ever having seen Mr. Dunn's pictures. Having seen the

pictures, if there was going to be any protection of the investment of the house, some

of the outside work needed to be done right away. He knew the previous owner did

many things, but when Mr. Dunn purchased the home, he assumed a home inspection

was done as that was quite common because it provided a degree of separation for

any liability in events like this. He believed Mr. Dunn was not quite as stunned to find

some of the things he did find. He hoped Mr. Dunn had been aware of that or he

should be disappointed in the home inspector that did the report for him.

Mr. Miller stated that the fact the house was old and messed up does not make it any

less historic. In fact, in some ways it made it more precious. With a house built at this

age, it was not uncommon for the roof rafters to be 2x4s; it was not uncommon for the

floor joists to be 2x4s or 2x6s; for there to be large bows and large problems with

settling. He stated the foundation on old houses oftentimes is not what it looks like

above the ground with nice dress stone. Underneath the ground, sometimes all there

is some cobble thrown in which is what the stones were set on top of. He

acknowledged the current Building Codes were much different and there was a good

reason for that. That still did not make this house less valuable.

Mr. Miller understood there was a lot of damage and the house needed some work,

but that did not mean it was completely irreparable. He noted the question was

whether there was enough historic value to the building "as is" to make it worthy of

trying to save or whether it should be demolished, which was the question the

applicant was asking the Commission to consider. He personally did not see anything

that would cause him to approve demolition.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if the Building Department had inspected the home recently.

Mr. Winters stated he was at the site about two months ago. Mr. Delacourt stated

the original application had been submitted for the August meeting, but had been

postponed at the request of the applicant to the September meeting. He thought the

inspection might have taken place about 90 days prior to this meeting.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked when the last inspection occurred, prior to the one done 90 days

ago. Mr. Winters stated he did not have that information.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if Mr. Winters could ascertain what damage had been done

from the time Mr. Dunn submitted his application request in 2006 until now. Mr.

Winters stated he became involved in the project when the building permit was moving

along in 2008, and did not have any previous history prior to when he started working

with the City in 2006.

Mr. Kilpatrick clarified Mr. Winters did not know what damage may or may not have

not occurred through the acts of the applicant or lack thereof. Mr. Winters responded

he did not.

Mr. Thompson asked what the total rehabilitation costs for the home would be. Mr.

Dunn stated he had quotes between $270,000 and $410,000. Ms. Hill added that

the damage done on the inside of the home added an extra $75,000 to any cost.

Mr. Thompson asked if the applicant had an idea of what the property would be

worth after the rehabilitation work was completed. Mr. Dunn shook his head no.

Mr. Thompson asked how long Mr. Dunn had owned the property. Mr. Dunn

thought he purchased the property in 2002.

Mr. Thompson stated the Commission had issued demolition by neglect motions, and

stated he was having trouble deciphering what damage was there and what was

caused by the structure being left in the condition it was. He had no doubt some

interior damage was there, but did not know what had occurred since Mr. Dunn

purchased the property. He noted the property had been neglected for quite a while,

and he was struggling with what damage had been done since then. He asked Mr.

Winters if the house was considered a hazard in its present condition. Mr. Winters

responded he had to say he did.

Dr. Stamps asked what it meant if the house was a hazard. Mr. Winters explained his

concern was with the structure noting some of the structural items had been removed

or destroyed. He stated there were headers that in no way, shape or form would

meet Code requirements for spans or loading. He referred to the picture with the log

with the steel beam under it that was now being supported by a 2x4 that made him

nervous. In walking across the floor, it creaked and groaned and moved a bit. He

noted there were holes in the floor, and commented Mr. Dunn referred to a header

that was installed that was furred on top with drywall, that was something he had

never seen. Those concerns made him nervous about the stability of the house.

Dr. Stamps apologized that Mr. Dunn was not informed or aware that the house was

listed on the historic register of the City when he purchased it. He thought that was a

serious problem the Commission needed to correct by putting signs on the designated

resources so potential purchasers can be flagged and be aware of that.

Dr. Stamps reminded the Commission that the house was designated in part because it

was an example of one of the original farms and farmhouses upon which the City was

founded. He asked if this one was lost, how many were left. He was not sure if there

was another one left.

Ms. Hill stated she had asked that question and believed there was one on Avon

Road just west of the City Municipal Building. She did not know how many were left.

Dr. Stamps stated it was one of just a few remaining, which is why the Commission

was concerned. He stated it could be replaced with a new building that looked the

same, but noted the City liked to have the original structures. He had some concern

about the current condition of the house. He stated he walked through it when a

previous owner held an estate sale, and commented the floors creaked then; it was

kind of a patched on place; the addition on the south side was an added on piece; but

it was not in nearly the shape when Mr. Dunn purchased it that it is presently. He

stated a house had to have a roof to prevent it from going down, and roofs only lasted

so long. He asked when the roof had last been replaced. He thought Mr. Dunn

would have realized it was an old roof. If a house is not heated, frost will get into it;

and if there were openings, animals would get in and dig around the foundation.

Dr. Stamps agreed that a previous owner had done some rebuilding, changing and

cutting, but he was not sure the Commission could put all the blame on the previous

owner(s). He commented the fact the house has stood for over a hundred years, said

there was something structurally okay about it. He thought some of the damage had

been more recent. He agreed it needed work and some tender loving care, but he

thought it still had potential to be rehabilitated.

Mr. Dziurman commented that Mr. Dunn stated he was a builder in the 1960s, and

had had two architectural firms go through the building, and now seven years later he

discovered these problems. He thought there was something wrong because someone

did not do their job. During that period, Mr. Dunn spent a lot of time and money, and

the Commission had spent a lot of time working with him. Now Mr. Dunn wanted to

demolish the house. He asked if Mr. Dunn built a new home, how large it would be.

He commented the price given by Mr. Dunn of $270,000 to $410,000 amounted to a

price range of about $100 to $200 a square foot which was not out of line for new

homes. Mr. Dunn stated those prices were for the work to the home that was

approved by the Commission. Mr. Dziurman thought the rehabilitation of the existing

house might still be cheaper than constructing a new house.

Mr. Dziurman stated that demolition by neglect was a real issue for the Commission

because it was seven years later; after two professional firms had been through, and

the applicant had a building background, now a problem had been discovered. He

stated he had heard all the rumors about what went on in the house, but it was still

standing. He found it difficult to approve a demolition because he thought the

applicant could rehabilitate the existing house at the same price it would cost to build a

new house. He commented the applicant would end up with basically a new house as

well.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he had received a request for public comment.

Melinda Hill, 1481 Mill Race, stated the applicant actually purchased the house in

2000, and in 2002 was before the Commission requesting approval of work to be

done, including removal of the portions that have been removed, and a new addition.

Certificates of Appropriateness were given at that time; however, no action happened

and they expired. He also appeared before the Commission in February, March,

May of 2006, and in June of 2006, a Certificate of Appropriateness was given to

remove the additions that were not pertinent and to construct new additions to create

the new home. One of the conditions on the Certificate of Approval said removal

should not happen prior to the plans being approved by the Building Department for

the new addition. Unfortunately, the pieces were removed and no action had been

taken since then. She truly believed the applicant did not meet the requirements for a

Notice to Proceed. She commented the Commission had seen other historic

structures that were in worse condition. This was truly caused by inaction on the

applicant's part. There was a great deal of discussion about problems with the

foundation, the cistern and other things. She clarified Ms. O'Neill-Pottery did not sell

the home to this applicant, as she sold it to Mr. Root who owned it about a year, and

did some interior work. She stated there was discussion about how the interior

looked and things that were going to be removed, noting the whole house was going

to be gutted. She noted the applicant stated it would cost him extra money to

reinforce the structure, which was correct, but that was not a reason to require a

demolition permit. There was no reason that fits the requirements to issue a Notice to

Proceed for that permit. She agreed there was an additional cost, but that was all part

of creating this new structure. She thought it was self-imposed and provided pictures

for the Commission's review of the home in 2002 depicting how the exterior looked at

that time. She stated this property carried a lot of significance for the Community and

she begged the Commission to deny the request before them. She believed the last

Certificate of Appropriateness that had been issued had expired and it would have to

come back before the Commission before any new work was done. She thought this

matter should go to Circuit Court to request stabilization of the property because it

was truly demolition by neglect over nine years.

Dr. Stamps asked if Ms. Kidorf had any insight or expertise she could share with the

Commission.

Ms. Kidorf stated it was a difficult case. It sounded like there had been some

demolition by neglect, although it was difficult for her because she had not been

provided with all the materials or the experience the Commission had. She pointed to

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) document on economic hardship, since

that is what the applicant appeared to be requesting. She suggested the Commission

make sure it asks all the questions it wanted to ask to determine if this was a case of

economic hardship or not, including the questions about the total cost of rehabilitation,

and what the property would be worth after that. She thought it was a good point

already discussed by the Commission about the cost of new construction versus

rehabilitation. She stated she would review the SHPO economic hardship

documentation if the Commission requested her to do so.

2006-0105

Mr. Delacourt pointed out he had not asked Ms. Kidorf to review this application

prior to the meeting. He had asked her to stay knowing some questions might be

asked that her expertise could assist with.

Dr. Stamps stated the Commission loved Mr. Dunn's house and did recognize it had

problems. He felt this was becoming a confrontational situation between the applicant

and the Commission and he did not want that to exist. He asked the applicant not to

take this personally, and pointed out the Commission was trying to save what limited

historic resources the City had and were trying to fulfill their responsibility to preserve

the Community's historic resources because there were so few. The Commission

became concerned when they received a request to demolish a resource. He hoped

they could reach a resolution other than a negative one.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if it was the applicant's intention to add the other additions to the

home, noting he agreed the Certificate of Appropriateness for that work had expired.

He asked if it was a fair statement that the applicant intended to add the additions to

the home. Mr. Dunn responded he did not know about that right now.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if Mr. Dunn had intended to present a new plan. Mr. Dunn

stated he did not have any plans until after this meeting, noting if the house was

demolished, he would not have to worry about it.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated he had read that it was Mr. Dunn's intention to use the prior

plan. Ms. Hill clarified there was a mistake in the original application. She thought the

old plan would be built, and noted she made that correction in her supplemental

information. The supplemental information indicated that if approved, the house would

be demolished and plans for a new house would be presented to the Commission for

review and approval.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated there was a lot of compromise when the rehabilitation plans

were approved in 2006. From what he recalled, the plans were quite large compared

to the size of the existing resource. He commented it stretched the sensibilities of the

Commission to allow the additions to take place, and at that point in time, it appeared

it would cost a lot of money for that plan in and of itself as the additions would be

quite substantial. When Mr. Dunn came before the Commission in 2006, he was left

with the impression that he was prepared to spend a lot of money on the new

additions, not taking in to account the rehabilitation of the house. He asked if he was

correct in that assessment. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Kilpatrick was referring to the

plans approved in 2006. Mr. Kilpatrick indicated that was correct. Mr. Dunn stated

the pricing on that had gone from $270,000 to $410,000, noting he had four different

quotes for that proposed work.

Mr. Kilpatrick stated he was referring to the additions itself. Mr. Dunn stated that

was for the whole project. Mr. Kilpatrick clarified it went from $270,000 to

$410,000. Mr. Dunn stated that was the range of quotes, and explained $100,000 of

that was just to pick up the old house to fix the foundation. With the $410,000 quote

it was $100,000; with the $270,000 quote it was about $66,000. Mr. Kilpatrick

asked if those were the figures Mr. Dunn received in 2006 or if that had changed

recently. Mr. Dunn responded yes, just to get the house up so the foundation work

could be done. Mr. Kilpatrick clarified that was in 2006. Mr. Dunn stated in 2006.

Mr. Kilpatrick clarified that Mr. Dunn had indicated that price has increased

substantially since that point in time. Mr. Dunn state "no, now that I've got it

demolished". He thought he was not allowed to touch it before and reminded the

Commissioners when he purchased the house he did not know it was historic and he

was going to tear it down and was stopped. When he found it was historic, he

thought he would make it work and get it done. The first architect he hired just kept

giving the Commission different plans and never asked, but just did it. Finally he got

rid of that architect because he was not listening to anybody. When he got the permit

for the second set of plans was when he started the demolition. In the meantime, the

house was sinking and stated he had invested $55,000 in just leveling the floors,

jacking up the back of the house where it had dropped 38 inches, and leveled it up.

He did that prior to getting the permit because he did not know he was not allowed to

keep it from falling in. That money was spent prior to getting the Commission's

approval to put the additions on. He reiterated he had invested $55,000 for just the

way it was sitting now. For someone to tell him he had to spend another $100,000 to

improve it, plus he would have 60% to 70% of the building new, and asked how that

it would still be an old house.

Mr. Kilpatrick understood but noted that was why Mr. Dunn had come before the

Commission. At that time, Mr. Dunn had told the Commission the house was like a

beacon or a welcoming center to the Community. He remembered the comment

because of the house being situated at the top of the hill. That was part of the

compromise on the part of the Commission because part of the old house would be

intact. The Commission was concerned about the additions and where they would be

located, and determined that traffic driving by would still see the original farmhouse.

The barn, lilacs and the size of the property added to that picture. The picture was

that someone had added additions for a house that met 2006 living conveniences, but

the flavor of the mid-1800s home would remain. He struggled with this because it

appeared the applicant was prepared to spend a lot of money back in 2006, and he

did not see where there was a substantial hardship that made a difference now. He

understood the $55,000 already spent, and asked if the $55,000 was the total money

that had been put into the home, absent what was going to be placed on this project.

Mr. Dunn responded "right".

Mr. Thompson asked if the structure was demolished, whether the remaining structure

would be enough to justify the historic designation. Ms. Kidorf stated that based on

the survey conducted in 2002, she did not think so, but noted that would be up to the

Study Committee to decide.

Mr. Thompson stated that if the house was demolished, the property would still

remain a designated historic district. Any new building would have to be approved by

the Commission, unless or until the process was followed and the property was

delisted. He wanted to clarify that just tearing down the house did not mean the

designation would disappear.

Mr. Miller asked about the statement in Mr. Usztan's letter that the siding was not

original and non-historic. He asked if that referred to the original clapboard siding on

most of the house. Mr. Dunn stated it was new wood siding, noting that 100 years

ago you could not buy that type of siding. He did not know when that siding was put

on the house.

Mr. Miller asked what was between that and the studs on the outside walls of the

house. Mr. Dunn responded "nothing". Mr. Miller asked how Mr. Dunn knew it was

put on later. Mr. Dunn stated it was new siding. Mr. Miller asked if that meant the

whole house, not just a portion next to an addition. Mr. Dunn stated he originally

thought it was just the addition, but it was the whole house.

Mr. Miller inquired about the entire roof needing to the stripped. He noted that was

not uncommon and was more of a maintenance issue on many houses, and that point

was not a reason to tear down a house because it needed a new roof.

Mr. Miller wondered why it was going to be so expensive for the house to be restored

to some sort of structural solidity. He thought that would be a legitimate argument if it

could not be made safe and livable. He did not think anyone would require the

applicant to hold on to a not safe and unlivable house that could not be made to do so.

On the other hand, the Commission would not let it be torn down just because it

would cost some money.

Mr. Dunn acknowledged anything could be made safe and livable, all it required was

enough money. Mr. Miller understood that because he lived in a historic house.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other questions or discussion by the Commission.

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

Mr. Thompson stated he was ready to make a motion.

Chairperson Dunphy stated if the Commissioner's wanted additional time to consider

this matter, they should be very clear about what additional information they needed to

receive.

Mr. Thompson asked if the Commissioners had more questions or required additional

information. If not, he would move the motion. No more questions were asked and

no additional information was requested.

Mr. Thompson made the following motion:

MOTION in the matter of HDC File No. 99-011 (1841 Crooks Road) regarding the

request to allow the removal (demolition) of the house located at 1841 Crooks Road,

the Historic Districts Commission DENIES a Notice to Proceed with the following

Findings:

1. The subject site is a locally designated non-contiguous Historic District located in

the City of Rochester Hills.

2. The resource (house) is an Early American Farmhouse of wood frame

construction. The structure was identified for local designation in 1978.

3. An Intensive Level Survey conducted in 2002 identified this historic resource as

significant in both the areas of architecture and agriculture. The home was described

as a good, intact example of the upright and wing house type popular in Avon

Township (now Rochester Hills) and Oakland County in the 19th Century.

4. The resource (house) has not become deteriorated to the point it is no longer

feasible to restore or rehabilitate the structure. Over the years, prior owners of the

resource made many improper renovations to the interior of the house, contributing to

its structural deficiency and deterioration.

5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource has not become

burdensome and unreasonable and will not cause undue financial hardship.

Chairperson Dunphy called for a second to the proposed motion on the floor. Mr.

Kilpatrick seconded the proposed motion. Chairperson Dunphy then called for

discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Mr. Miller asked that some of the statements in the Findings be deleted. He referred

to Finding #4 and suggested the second sentence be deleted. He suggested Finding

#5 be deleted in its entirety. He did not know that the Commission could make that

Finding.

Mr. Thompson agreed to remove the second sentence of Finding #4. Mr. Miller

stated the Commission did not have accurate information about the cost to rehabilitate

or restore to decide whether that was burdensome or unreasonable as stated in

Finding #5.

Mr. Thompson stated he would strike Finding #5, and proposed a new Finding #5 as

follows:

5. The applicant has not met the burden of proof.

Dr. Stamps asked if the applicant's legal counsel had something to add.

Ms. Hill pointed out that Section 118-168 regarding the demolition or removal of

resources states that applications to demolish a resource shall include a detailed

explanation of why the resource needs to be demolished, and what will occur on the

site after the demolition. She thought the applicant had met that burden. She

explained they had told the Commission it would cost another $75,000, which is the

undue financial hardship. She asked if it was reasonable to require a citizen to pay an

extra $75,000 to rehabilitate a home when some of the characteristics that

represented the agricultural history of the City would still be reflected on the property.

She stated no application had been submitted to tear down the barn, nor an

application to divide the lot in any fashion.

Ms. Hill referred to the discussion about the roof and whether or not it would have to

be replaced. It was not just a matter of whether the roof had to be replaced, the

contractor believed that the truss damage could not be determined at this point. She

thought it was more than just the replacement of shingles, there was suspected

structural damage to the roof.

Ms. Hill stated she had spoken to the Road Commission for Oakland County and had

spoken to City Staff, and no one could actually confirm or deny, but it was her

understanding that a project was slated to be completed by the Road Commission in

2020 to widen the road. If the road is widened, it would put the road approximately

six feet from the home as it stands now. She thought that factor should be considered.

Mr. Dunn referred to the comments made about the demolition by neglect. He stated

the roof does not leak, and he had leveled the house and kept the house clean and

there were no animals in it. He stated that if the Commission could prove he neglected

it, he would leave and build the house the Commission had approved previously. He

stated there was no neglect since he purchased the house, and commented the house

was in the same condition it was when he purchased it. He would have torn it down

had it not been historic. He stated he would have put a new house up, but not in the

same location because he knew the road would be widened. That was why he said

he needed to do something else.

Chairperson Dunphy stated he had heard the Crooks Road Project was scheduled to

end at Hamlin Road. The last version he heard involved putting up the second bridge

over M-59 when funds are available, and continuing the divided highway that currently

ends at M-59 past the Hamlin Road intersection. He was not aware it was intended

to go any further.

Chairperson Dunphy did not agree that the applicant had made the case or met the

criteria at this point. The Commission had heard many statements made but had seen

very little in the way of documentation. He was not comfortable the case had been

made. He stated he has been on the Commission for a number of years and was

involved in both of the decisions when the applicant received his two previous

Certificates of Appropriateness. He was disappointed they had reached this point in

the process. He explained the reason he asked for additional information was

because the Commission could make a decision at this meeting, or could ask the

applicant to provide more detailed information about the financial impact and other

things that were germane to the discussion, or the Commission could go forward as

the motion stands on the floor.

Mr. Kilpatrick referred to the demolition, and stated the Commission did not know

what would be built on the property if the demolition occurred. No plans had been

submitted to indicate what the house would be replaced with. That initial burden was

not met. He understood the applicant's desire to demolish, but the Commission had

received incomplete information. He stated the applicant indicated there was a

misunderstanding with respect to the Certificate of Appropriateness and the new

home, but that would still have to be brought before the Commission for review and

approval. He would also like more about the finances, such as what it would cost to

do the project the way the applicant wanted to. He felt the application was

incomplete at this point.

Ms. Franey stated that based upon the information provided to the Commission she

assumed that the applicant's intent when he purchased the property was to enjoy the

property and put up a new house on the property. She asked if that was correct. Mr.

Dunn responded yes.

Ms. Franey stated it was obvious what everyone would like to see was to keep the

historical structure intact if at all possible, which she believed Mr. Dunn tried to do

previously when he was before the Commission. She asked if there were structural

pieces of the house that were salvageable based on what the Commission was trying

to do and what Mr. Dunn was trying to do.

Mr. Winters responded as a carpenter, the answer would be yes. He noted he was

not a historic architect, but having been a carpenter for almost 40 years, yes parts

could be saved. He could not say what could be saved. He explained siding

probably would have to be removed; there were references to the roofing that would

have to be removed, and stated he could answer as to what he saw on the inside

where the structure had been compromised. He referred to the comment that enough

money can fix anything. Could it be fixed - absolutely, but it depended on how much

time, money and effort someone wanted to put into it.

Ms. Franey did not believe it was her decision to say how much the applicant can or

cannot afford for this house, especially in today’s economy. She was sure he had a

budget. If the Commission knew what the potential plans were, it might be easier if

the Commission knew what the applicant was proposing, and if possible, if the

applicant was proposing something that was salvageable. She wondered if there was

some portion of the structure of the house that could be saved, or whether a carpenter

could install the necessary beams to hold the structure.

Mr. Dunn stated it was his understanding that if he was given a demolition permit, he

was not permitted to put back up a house similar to the one being removed. He was

told it would never be permitted to put a similar house up. He was going to build a

farmhouse and explained both he and his wife were from farmland and they had

owned the second oldest house in Ohio, although they no longer owned that home.

They knew what old houses were and what historic houses were. There was so much

damage to this house that he did not feel the money was properly appropriated to

repair it and end up with 20% of an old house and 80% of a new house. He stated

that was not an old house anymore, it was a new house that looked like an old house.

He did not have plans for the farmhouse they wanted to build because he did not

know what was going to happen at this meeting.

Chairperson Dunphy stated there was a motion on the floor, which was in the process

of being amended. He asked if the amendments were resolved. He understood that

Finding #4 was revised to remove the second sentence, and asked if Finding #5 had

been removed.

Mr. Thompson suggested he would read the entire motion again for the Commission's

clarification.

MOTION in the matter of HDC File No. 99-011 (1841 Crooks Road) regarding the

request to allow the removal (demolition) of the house located at 1841 Crooks Road,

the Historic Districts Commission DENIES a Notice to Proceed with the following

Findings:

1. The subject site is a locally designated non-contiguous Historic District located in

the City of Rochester Hills.

2. The resource (house) is an Early American Farmhouse of wood frame

construction. The structure was identified for local designation in 1978.

3. An Intensive Level Survey conducted in 2002 identified this historic resource as

significant in both the areas of architecture and agriculture. The home was described

as a good, intact example of the upright and wing house type popular in Avon

Township (now Rochester Hills) and Oakland County in the 19th Century.

4. The resource (house) has not become deteriorated to the point it is no longer

feasible to restore or rehabilitate the structure.

5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource has not met the burden

of proof and will not cause undue financial hardship.

Mr. Thompson stated if the Commissioners required additional information, he would

withdraw his motion in order for that information to be provided.

Mr. Dziurman recommended that Finding #5 be revised to include the following:

"based on the figures provided to the Commission by the applicant of

$270,000 to $410,00, the cost would be $100 to $200 per square foot which

is comparable to construction in the area".

Mr. Dziurman stated the Finding was trying to show there was not a burden because if

the applicant was building new, he would be building the same thing, which was his

point.

Mr. Thompson agreed he would revise Finding #5. Mr. Dziurman pointed out those

were the only figures provided by the applicant.

Mr. Thompson suggested Finding #5 be reworded as follows:

"5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource has not met

the burden of proof and will not cause undue financial hardship.

Based on the financial figures provided by the applicant, the cost to

rehabilitate and/or restore the structure will not exceed current new

construction costs."

Chairperson Dunphy clarified the sentence was added to the end of Finding #5. Mr.

Thompson stated it was added to the end.

Mr. Dziurman asked if the actual figures should be included in the Finding. Dr.

Stamps suggested the numbers be inserted in parentheses. Mr. Thompson agreed the

numbers could be included, as follows:

"…Based on the financial figures provided by the applicant

($270,000.00 to $410,000.00), the cost to rehabilitate and/or restore

the structure will not exceed current new construction costs."

Mr. Kilpatrick was concerned about the burden of proof because the statute asked if

that has become burdensome and unreasonable. He thought the original language was

better language. Mr. Dziurman explained all he wanted to do was include the

numbers. Mr. Kilpatrick stated as seconder of the motion that was the language he

would like to see. Chairperson Dunphy asked if Mr. Kilpatrick wanted to strike the

first sentence of Finding #5. Mr. Kilpatrick stated the first sentence was fine, but the

wording stated "he has not meet the burden of proof" and the reason why it has not

become burdensome and unreasonable is based on the costs.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified that Finding #5 would read:

"5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource will not cause

undue financial hardship. Based on the financial figures provided by

the applicant ($270,000.00 to $410,000.00), the cost to rehabilitate

and/or restore the structure will not exceed current new construction

costs."

Mr. Thompson stated that the phrase "burdensome or unreasonable" should be

included. He clarified the Finding should read:

"5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource has not

become burdensome and unreasonable and will not cause undue

financial hardship. Based on the financial figures provided by the

applicant ($270,000.00 to $410,000.00), the cost to rehabilitate

and/or restore the structure will not exceed current new construction

costs. "

Mr. Kilpatrick agreed to the wording as the seconder of the motion.

Mr. Thompson advised the applicant that if the Notice to Proceed was denied, there

was an appeal process through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Mr. Dziurman advised the applicant that he appeared to have been using the wrong

people. He suggested the applicant take at look at the information available through

the Michigan Historic Preservation Network that has a Resource Directory listing

qualified individuals, contractors and professional consultants. He stated the people

listed in that Directory were qualified to handle this type of job. It appeared to him

that the applicant had not received good feedback from the architects he worked with,

which was wrong. He stated the applicant might save money in the process because

the professionals listed in the Directory should understand the Secretary of the

Interior's Standards and how to make this work. He indicated he was familiar with

Usztan Construction and thought they were a good firm, but he did not consider them

a historic firm. He stated he knew Boris Usztan and knew his father, Andy, and knew

they were good people but in his opinion they were not experts in historic restoration,

but agreed they were good contractors. He suggested the applicant contact the

Michigan Historic Preservation Network located in Lansing and request a copy of the

Resource Directory.

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

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

Complete Motion (as amended and voted):

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

Denied. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

RESOLVED in the matter of HDC File No. 99-011 (1841 Crooks Road) regarding the

request to allow the removal (demolition) of the house located at 1841 Crooks Road, the

Historic Districts Commission DENIES a Notice to Proceed with the following Findings

and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The subject site is a locally designated non-contiguous Historic District located in the

City of Rochester Hills.

2. The resource (house) is an Early American Farmhouse of wood frame construction.

The structure was identified for local designation in 1978.

3. An Intensive Level Survey conducted in 2002 identified this historic resource as

significant in both the areas of architecture and agriculture. The home was described as a

good, intact example of the upright and wing house type popular in Avon Township (now

Rochester Hills) and Oakland County in the 19th Century.

4. The resource (house) has not become deteriorated to the point it is no longer feasible

to restore or rehabilitate the structure.

5. The cost to rehabilitate and/or restore the existing resource has not become

burdensome and unreasonable and will not cause undue financial hardship. Based on the

financial figures provided by the applicant ($270,000.00 to $410,000.00), the cost to

rehabilitate and/or restore the structure will not exceed current new construction costs.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

Mr. Miller stated he was appalled at the fact that a person could purchase a

designated property in a real estate transaction and not know it is designated. He

stated more needed to be done so that did not happen. Also, perhaps there was an

avenue the applicant could have taken on his end.

Chairperson Dunphy agreed that anything the Commission could do to regarding that

issue should be considered. He stated that had occurred with other applicants in the

past, and it was always disappointing to hear that was not made clear at the time of

purchase. He stated the Commission had made outreach to some of the local real

estate firms. He suggested the Commission could discuss it at their next meeting to

see if there is anything more specific they want to do.

2008-0678

Stoney Creek Village (Tienken Road Bridge)

- Speed Limit in Historic Districts

Chairperson Dunphy stated something the Commission might also want to consider for

the next meeting was asking City Council to review the weight limits and speed limits

for the bridge area on Tienken Road.

Ms. Luginski stated she had prepared a motion addressing the speed limits. She read

the following motion, noting the matter had been discussed at several meetings and she

felt it was time for the Commission to do something formally.

Mr. Dziurman stated he would second the motion.

Chairperson Dunphy stated the motion had been duly made and seconded and called

for discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Dr. Stamps inquired about the 25 mph speed limit and asked if most school districts

were 25 mph, noting the speed limit posted by the Brewster School said slow to 35

mph. He asked if Ms. Luginski wanted the motion to say 25 mph. Ms. Luginski

indicated she did noting in her experience most school districts were 25 mph. She

stated that was the speed limit the residents in the area had discussed.

Mr. Delacourt believed Old Perch was posted at 25 mph during school hours, and

then reposted to 35 mph outside of school hours.

Dr. Stamps thought the problem was that there was no school in that area. The

Stoney Creek School was mentioned. Dr. Stamps pointed out that school was further

up the road. Chairperson Dunphy clarified the Commission was not referring to the

high school, but the original one-room school by Washington Road.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the proposed motion did not request City Council to take

any specific action, such as requesting a Traffic Control Order (TCO) from the Road

Commission, and asked if that was the intent, or whether the intent was to ask City

Council to take some specific action.

Ms. Luginski stated she was aware of the option of the TCO, but did not want to limit

it to that. Dr. Stamps asked if City Council would get the message that the

Commission wanted some action taken. The Commission thought that would be

clear.

Chairperson Dunphy suggested when the matter was scheduled for a City Council

meeting, it would behoove the Commissioners to attend that meeting.

Ms. Franey asked if it would be scheduled for the September 14, 2009 City Council

meeting. Mr. Delacourt stated the City Council Agenda was set by the Council

President. He thought the Commission would like the motion to include the Minutes

and the discussion regarding the bridge. He stated the motion would be forwarded to

the Clerk's Office, and then it would be up to the Council President to schedule it on

an agenda.

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

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

A motion was made by Luginski, seconded by Dziurman, that this request be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Luginski

8 -

Absent

Cozzolino

1 -

Regarding the matter of the speed limit throughout the Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill

Pond Historic Districts:

WHEREAS, the residents of the Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill Pond Historic Districts

have for more than twenty years been concerned over the speed of vehicular traffic in these

Districts; and

WHEREAS, numerous requests for reduced travel speeds have been made to the City,

County and State; and

WHEREAS, the residents and the Historic Districts Commission believe travel speed

must be reduced in the Districts in order to provide a safe environment for visitors and area

residents and school children to preserve the integrity of the Historic Districts for future

generations and enhance the Districts’ economic development potential for the

Community,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Historic Districts Commission requests the Mayor and the City

Council of Rochester Hills to work with the Districts’ residents, Oakland County, the Road

Commission for Oakland County, the Rochester Community School District and the State

of Michigan in order to implement a reduced travel speed (25 mph) throughout the Stoney

Creek and Winkler Mill Pond Historic Districts prior to the opening of the new replacement

bridge.

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

Chairperson Dunphy called for any other business.

2009-0335

1046 E. Tienken Road

- Discussion by Historic Districts Commission

Mr. Dziurman stated that the 1046 E. Tienken Road item had been delayed; however,

he had looked at the drawing that was submitted and wanted the Commission to be

aware that the columns shown were not appropriate for a Greek Revival home. He

stated that what was shown was a Crafstman style. He did not know how it would

affect the project or whether there should be some contact with the applicant prior to

his returning to the Commission.

Chairperson Dunphy clarified Mr. Dziurman was referring to the front rendering of the

porch. Mr. Dziurman stated that was correct, and stated he did not have an

opportunity to look at the historic photographs, but what was depicted was typically

Craftsman style.

Ms. Luginski asked if Mr. Dziurman could be more specific because there was some

confusion about whether it was the style of the posts or the length of the posts. Mr.

Dziurman stated that was not typical for a Greek Revival house. He explained a

Greek Revival house would have columns going all the way down to the porch. Until

he had an opportunity to look at the existing columns, he wanted the Commission to

know there appeared to be a problem.

Mr. Delacourt believed the posts were the existing posts. Mr. Dziurman stated it was

hard for him to believe that, and wanted to look at them as it appeared to him that

there was a problem.

Mr. Delacourt believed those were the posts that held the existing windows and the

only thing the applicant requested to do was remove the windows and replace them

with screens. He stated he would check with the applicant because he did not think

the applicant was changing the posts.

Mr. Dziurman stated the renderings indicated a post would be removed. He stated he

had never seen a Greek Revival house with Craftsman style posts.

Mr. Delacourt understood and clarified he thought the posts were the existing and the

applicant was not proposing any changes. He would ask the applicant to clarify

because that was not represented at the last meeting.

Mr. Dziurman stated the applicant should be made aware of that. Ms. Franey stated

the drawing for the east elevation stated remove column from porch.

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

10:50 PM.

_______________________________

Brian Dunphy, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

_______________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

(Approved as presented at the October 8, 2009 Regular Historic Districts Commission

Meeting)