Rochester Hills Legistar System

A. Rochester College Ordinance Amendment

B. Smart Growth Tactics from the Association of Planning

Chairperson Kilpatrick called for any comments or additional announcements or

communications.

Ms. Sieffert asked if Rochester College was going to be asked to maintain its

historic buildings before the winter. Mr. Dzuirman noted that the Study

Committee had been advised that Rochester College had begun some renovation

work, such as a new roof and had painted some windows.

Mr. Miller said it was his understanding that the Ordinance Amendment had

removed Rochester College's Historic District as a non-contiguous site. Mr.

Delacourt explained that the new designated parcel had been given a tax

identification number. He explained that the parcel had not been given an

address because there was not a main structure on it. Mr. Miller clarified that

the parcel would remain non-contiguous site #56.

property. Mr. Kilpatrick asked for any questions or comments from the

Commission.

Mr. Miller asked if it was necessary for the applicant to file for a Certificate of

Appropriateness to relocate a split rail fence that was not listed anywhere on the

intensive survey. He added that the house was non-contributing.

Mr. Delacourt said that the parcel, not its features, was designated. The

Ordinance required that site features, including fences, driveways, walls and

other features, be listed, whether the parcel was contributing or not, if they fell

within the district. He acknowledged that it was close to the gray area, but Staff

wanted to be cautious, so there were no problems down the road. Mr. Dzuirman

said that previously, they had a difficult decision with fences that ended up being

argued in Lansing. He felt it was very much appropriate to review the fence.

Mr. Miller said he found it surprising that, since the applicant was not removing

the fence entirely, but was simply moving it to the rear, the City would make

him come before the Commission. He remarked that if Detroit Edison was

changing poles in the front of the house it could double the size and add a triple

transformer to the front without any question. Mr. Delacourt stated that utility

companies function outside of City Ordinances and that the City had no purview.

Mr. Dzuirman asked if the fence went along the entire length of the property.

Mr. Cooper said that it went about three-quarters across the back and was 25 feet

from the property line. Mr. Dzuirman asked if he would keep it the same length,

and Mr. Cooper advised that he would like to take it all the way across the back.

Mr. Dzuirman assumed he would use the same material, which was confirmed

by the applicant.

Dr. Stamps thanked the applicant for keeping the fence in the context and

putting it back "where it belonged." He thought it would be a positive addition

and would fit in with the historic nature. He indicated that it was the kind of

thing the Commission liked seeing people do, rather than putting up chain link

or plastic fences.

Mr. Miller clarified that the applicant would be extending the sides of the fence

back to the rear of the property, and if new material were used, it would be

similar to the existing. Mr. Cooper indicated that was correct.

Mr. Kilpatrick clarified that the request before the Commission was that the

applicant planned to move the fence from where it was. He was not asking to

add to it. Mr. Cooper indicated the fence was three-quarters across the back and

he might move it all the way across the back.

Ms. Sieffert questioned whether the applicant was splitting the property. Mr.

Delacourt explained the property split had occurred many years ago.

a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. The fence relocation will not have a negative impact on the integrity of the

Stoney Creek Historic District.

2. The fence relocation will more properly define the boundary of the site, which

is more historically correct.

Conditions:

1. The fence relocation shall be consistent with the proposed location identified

on the plot plan dated received by the Planning Department October 13, 2005.

2. Any extensions to the fence covering the width of the property would follow

the character and type of materials that would match the existing.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Present for the applicant was Howard Elandt, 3420 Cornerstone, Rochester Hills,

Michigan 48306.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Mr. Elandt and Winkler Mill, LLC owned the subject

property and that the City was currently reviewing a proposed land division for

the site. Mr. Elandt had asked to appear before the HDC, aware that the property

was within the Historic District and that any new construction would require a

Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Elandt submitted floor plans and elevations

for a home he wished to build on one of the lots, if the division is approved, and

wanted the HDC's input prior to making a formal submittal. Mr. Delacourt

stated that there would be no official decisions made at this meeting. Mr.

Kilpatrick added that this would be a discussion only to let the applicant know if

he was going in the right direction.

Mr. Elandt apologized that the architect and builder could not be present and

was available to answer any questions.

Ms. Sieffert asked why the HDC received such elaborate blueprints, noting that

they only needed the exterior elevations. Mr. Kilpatrick explained that it would

be better to have the extra information in case someone requested that

information.

Mr. Dzuirman asked the applicant about the proposed lot splits. Mr. Elandt

advised that the entire piece was 10.25 acres and they were proposing a simple

land division, which would result in the creation of four parcels. Parcels one and

two would each be approximately two acres. The proposed new home

construction would be on parcel two. Parcels three and four would be about

three acres each. Mr. Dzuirman asked to see how the parcels would look after

the split and Mr. Elandt passed out copies of the Site Plan.

Mr. Dunphy asked if the other three houses on the property would be of different

designs. Mr. Elandt replied that they would, and stated that he primarily

featured French Country and New England classic designs. The proposal was

New England classic, and all the homes would be traditional and

historic-looking. Mr. Dunphy felt that kind of variety was important within the

confines of the Historic District. Mr. Elandt noted there were only four parcels

and added that no two homes would look alike. He stated his clients were

interested in other designs and styles, and one wanted a cape cod style, and he

always informed them that they had to have home plans approved by the HDC.

Ms. Sieffert said she had seen a representation of a newer cape cod style home

on Tienken Road, in the center of the historic district.

Mr. Dunphy said that regarding structures that were not contributing resources to

the Historic District, the HDC tended to be fairly tolerant about approvals. They

did not want to create a false sense of history - new construction mimicking

authentic construction - because that was confusing to some people. Also, they

would not want something jarringly out of place with the character of the

existing historical homes of the district and they tried to achieve a balance.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if there were any unique features, such as fencing, on the

property. Mr. Elandt did not believe so as it was a vacant parcel. He thought it

might have been a tree farm at one time because the trees were in perfect rows.

Mr. Delacourt said he was not aware of any construction on the site.

Ms. Sieffert said that when speaking to the clients, Mr. Elandt should tell them

that new construction should not strive to imitate the old, but it should be

compatible. She explained that there was a lot of neo-traditional in the Historic

District, and although cape cod was not historically accurate to the Rochester

Hills area, it was compatible because it was historic architecture.

Mr. Kilpatrick asked if anyone was concerned about the size of the home or if

there were any other issues to address. He noted many of the homes in that part

of the District were fairly large homes.

Mr. Dunphy noted that the size of a parcel affected what was appropriate to put

on it and based on that, he was comfortable with a large structure. Mr.

Dzuirman did not think parcels like that should be included in the Historic

District, but he acknowledged that from the developer's point of view, it was

probably a very good marketing tool. Even being next to the Historic District

was a very positive thing. As long as the homes were compatible, that was what

they were interested in, and he stated that he had no particular problems with the

proposal.

Mr. Miller said he had a slight concern with the size of the homes, which had

more to do with long-term impact of the truly contributing sites and their sizes.

There could be homes surrounding an 1840-style farmhouse that became Million

Dollar homes, so he could see long-term problems. He did not have a specific

concern with Mr. Elandt's plans, but he reiterated that the homes were very large.

In general, he was in favor of larger lots, and he understood the situation in the

area and the City as a whole.

Mr. Elandt observed the Weinberger mansion located on Mill Race, which was

8,000 square feet in size and that was presently on the market for sale with an

asking price of $3,000,000.00. He said he understood Mr. Miller's concern, but

said that since the parcel was so heavily wooded, none of the homes would be

visible from the road.

Mr. Kilpatrick summarized that the Commission would like to see homes that

were compatible with the District, and it appeared preliminarily that the

applicant was pointing in that direction. He reminded the Commissioners that

they would see the proposed plans for all four homes.

Mr. Elandt asked the Commission's reaction to the color scheme for the exterior

of the proposed home. His clients were considering white with black and gray

trim and an asphalt driveway. Mr. Kilpatrick indicated that the Commission did

not get as concerned about the colors, absent chartreuse or something that would

really stand out. He did not think the colors Mr. Elandt mentioned seemed

offensive on the surface.

Dr. Stamps said they were pleased Mr. Elandt was concerned about the issues

and colors, and he thought the driveway sounded appropriate. He thanked them

for being good neighbors.

Mr. Elandt thanked the Commissioners for their responses, relating that it gave

him a sense of what they needed to do.

Mr. Delacourt advised that the Study Committee and Staff had discussed it.

Ordinance Enforcement had been to the home issuing warnings from the

Building Department and in relation to demolition by neglect. He suggested that

if the Commission felt it was appropriate, it would be a good idea to issue a

violation regarding demolition by neglect - something stronger than a warning -

that could be done through a motion.

Dr. Stamps indicated that he watched two buildings on the Oakland University

campus destroyed a few weeks ago because of neglect and because they were

health hazards. He explained that two buildings that used to be the garages

located behind the worker's homes on Adams Road were gone. No one acted

quickly enough to protect them and they were demolished. For that reason, he

believed they should notify the owner at 1841 Crooks Road and do what it took

to get him to fix his property.

Ms. Sieffert was under the impression that the Commission had notified him.

Mr. Delacourt said the owner had been issued warnings, but there should be a

clear indication from the Commission to issue a violation.

Mr. Miller clarified that the owner was not still the O'Neill family. He also

clarified that warnings had been issued and not responded to appropriately. Mr.

Delacourt stated the warnings were issued by the Building Department and he

was not aware if the warnings had been ignored or not responded to

appropriately. Mr. Miller asked if there was an expiration to the warnings. Mr.

Delacourt did not know. Mr. Miller thought they needed those answers before

they began demolition by neglect. He agreed they should have something ready

if needed, but he felt they should make sure that before they delivered the

violation to the owner they were doing the proper follow-through.

Mr. Thompson agreed with Dr. Stamps, stating that they could not wait and that

too much time had passed. He commented that the building could be in the

ground soon. They had already ignored City notices, and the worst they could do

would be to ignore the Commission.

Mr. Delacourt read from the Ordinance, Section 118-33: "Duty to maintain and

repair. (a) Prevention of deterioration. Every resource in any historic district

shall be maintained by the owner or person in control thereof so as to: (1)

Prevent deterioration of exterior walls or vertical supports, roofs, or horizontal

members, exterior chimneys, exterior plaster or mortar, any documented exterior

architectural feature; and (b) Demolition by neglect: Upon a finding by the

historic districts commission that a historic resource within a historic district or a

proposed historic district subject to its review and approval is threatened with

demolition by neglect, the commission may (1) Require repair. Require the

owner of the resource to repair all conditions contributing to demolition by

neglect; or (2) Repair by city." He suggested that the Commission would be

initiating Staff to pursue the first - requiring repair through a violation notice.

Staff felt that it would be appropriate to do before another winter.

Ms. Sieffert responded to Mr. Miller's comments, noting a previous

Commissioner had purchased the house from Helen O'Neill, and when he moved

out of state, he sold it to the current owner, who came before the Commission

with development plans. The Commission approved numerous suggestions of

how the house would be redone. The current owner had to be aware, because

there were caution tapes and netting put up, which she believed had been done

by the current owner. She agreed with Dr. Stamps and Mr. Thompson, and she

did not feel the owner deserved any more time.

Mr. Dunphy clarified that they had not put a demolition by neglect finding on the

property yet. Mr. Delacourt said they talked about having Staff look into it, and

he reiterated that violation warnings had been issued. He did not recall if there

was a motion ever made, but he felt that, because it was something allowed in

the Ordinance, the Commission should pursue the act and make a motion to that

effect.

Mr. Dzuirman advised that there was a resolution passed similar to this for the

Pruitt house about ten years ago. He felt they absolutely should pass the motion,

because if they did not, it would be shameful.

Dr. Stamps said that after reviewing the Ordinance, he felt it was time to move,

since it had been several years that the property owner had been working on the

house and because the Commission already met with the owner. He stated that it

appeared to warrant demolition by neglect, and that they wanted the City to take

appropriate action. Mr. Kilpatrick said that they would make the request, and if

the homeowner did not act on the request, they would move on to the section

whereby the City would make the necessary repairs, which would require Circuit

Court action. He was not sure about fines and costs, but it would involve the

legal system. Mr. Delacourt said a response and work plan would be required

within a certain amount of time. He thought the HDC could suggest a time

period, although the Ordinance did not specify a time period in which the work

had to be done. Mr. Kilpatrick believed the court would review it to see if it was

a reasonable amount of time.

Ms. Sieffert suggested the Commission could direct City Staff to send a letter to

the current property owner and issue a violation.

Mr. Dzuirman suggested an inspector from the City should make a formal

review of the structure. He thought they needed that finding before they could

move a motion. He would like to protect it by mothballing it, eventually, but

they had to take it one step at a time. They needed a legal determination from

the City that confirmed it was in a certain condition, and then they could insist

that the building be mothballed.

Mr. Kilpatrick said that if they issued a violation stating that they believed the

property was in a state of disrepair, the homeowner would have a period of time

to respond. They might dispute it, and if there was further disagreement, the

Commission could ask for the inspection. He felt they needed to take the first

step and outline their concern. The City would need some way to be able to

access the property if the homeowner was not going to allow it.

Mr. Dzuirman stated that if they made the suggestion and then had to go to

court, they would need to show that they had made a good faith effort to

reference the problems. He suggested a City Inspector should take a good look

at it to support the finding and then send the violation.

Mr. Miller agreed that an inspection of the property was needed. He noted that

after hearing about the history and owner changes, he believed that when the

present owners bought the house they knew the shape it was in. He commented

that it could be a very time consuming endeavor, and he agreed they should pass

a motion directing Staff to follow through on enforcement.

Mr. Dzuirman reminded the Commissioners that they did that for the Pruitt

house and it meant nothing and the neglect continued. He stated if he were the

homeowner and got the notice, he would wonder what was wrong with the house

and how they made their determination. Mr. Kilpatrick referred to the Pruitt

home, and stated he felt that the Commission had kept it's fiduciary duty with

respect to trying to move that forward with the powers the Commission had;

unfortunately, they had to go to other agencies for help. He agreed the outcome

had not been good, but hoped the subject situation might be different.

Mr. Dzuirman mentioned that the term of Ms. Melinda Hill, City Council

President, was ending because of a term limit, and he believed she was the

longest serving Council member in the history of the City. He thought the

Commission should consider some type of thank you resolution for her

continued support of historical preservation by serving the community as a

member of City Council. He stated that she certainly had helped the

Commission, previously as a member of the Commission, and as a public

official.

Dr. Stamps said he strongly supported that idea and agreed that Ms. Hill's

long-term service and attention to detail warranted a forum to thank and honor

her service rendered. Ms. Sieffert said it was too bad she could not receive

another Earl Borden award, and Mr. Kilpatrick said he did not see a reason she

could not be recognized at that award ceremony.

Mr. Dunphy advised that they had done a resolution of support for the elevator

project in the City of Rochester. He thought they could do something along that

line.

MOTION by Dzuirman, seconded by Stamps, that the Historic Districts

Commission and Staff prepare a thank you resolution to Melinda Hill, for

her continuous support of historic preservation by serving the community

as a member of the City Council from November 1995 to November

2005, and that it be presented to Ms. Hill at the appropriate time to be

determined.

Ayes: All

Nays: None

Absent: Szantner MOTION CARRIED

Chairperson Kilpatrick called for any other business.

Dr. Stamps indicated that he thought the previous applicant's plans for a new

multi-million dollar structure to be built in the Historic District was a waste of

everyone's time and money. He felt they needed to prioritize the suggestion of

reviewing the boundaries for the Stony Creek District. He stated that the

boundaries needed to be "shrunk," and if they were reduced, it would eliminate

frustration for applicants. If there was a way to move that forward, he felt they

should.

Mr. Kilpatrick said that the proper forum would be to request the Study

Committee to study that issue, and City Council would have to approve any

change. Dr. Stamps suggested that if they put the matter high on the priority list,

maybe the City could help fund it. Mr. Kilpatrick did not think the new Council

members would object to some reconfiguration of that historic district. Mr.

Dzuirman noted that they had been talking about it for quite awhile, and he felt

something had to be done.

Mr. Miller recalled discussion with the Building Department about surveying

and delineating the boundaries and a recent presentation before the Community

Development & Viability Committee, and he felt it would be a good time to ask.

Mr. Delacourt noted that recommended boundaries had been received from the

consultant during the intensive level survey, and reminded the Commissioners

that the Study Committee was a volunteer group, and that the amount of time

involved to study just an individual property was extensive. For an entire

redistricting of a National Registered District, it would be an enormous task.

The City had considered applying for Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG) or other monies on behalf of the Study Committee to allow some of the

work they had prioritized, including the redistricting. Staff would continue to

look into it, and he suggested that perhaps it could be put on the Agenda for the

next Study Committee meeting.

Dr. Stamps stated that beginning in January, he would be required to work on

Thursday nights, and he would have to resign from the Commission when his

term is finished. He added that he would be out of the country during the

summer and fall also. He would like to recruit an appropriate replacement, but

noted he would be happy to come back after a year. He tried to find an

archaeologist to fill the seat, because he would still like the City to receive the

Certified Local Government recognition to get funding. He suggested a few

people who would be good replacements, including Ms. Hill. Mr. Kilpatrick

noted that City Council appointed the replacements.

Mr. Dunphy suggested that if the members knew of someone they felt would be

good on the Commission, they should encourage them to apply.

Ms. Sieffert referred to 1100 Mead Road, noting that she had visited the

previous owner in connection with the Earl Borden Awards. She stated that the

current owner was in the process of refurbishing the home, and she was invited

to see what they were doing but the road was impassable at the time. She asked

if the Commission ever sent letters to new owners of historic property reminding

them of the designation, and that any exterior changes needed approval by the

HDC. She was concerned because they have had issues in the past when owners

claimed they did not know what they could or could not do.

Mr. Kilpatrick did not believe the Commission sent such a letter. Mr. Dzuirman

wondered how they would know of a new owner or how to track when a home

changed hands. He suggested that most realtors did not want to bring up the fact

that someone was buying a historic home. Mr. Delacourt said that there was an

Affidavit filed in Oakland County that appeared on the title, but new owners

were not always aware what that meant. Mr. McKay from the Rochester Hills

Museum made telephone calls and introduced himself and gave out Mr.

Delacourt's number if anyone had questions. Mr. Delacourt believed he had

received a call from the homeowner at 1100 Mead, asking what type of work

they were able to do without approval from the HDC. Staff put together a packet

of information for them. He did not believe there was an automatic way of

knowing when property changed hands, but he stated that Staff did their best

when they found out.

Ms. Sieffert asked that the Commissioners be made aware of changes in

ownership if there was a way to track it. Mr. Miller reminded that a new

homeowner had to go through the Assessing Department and file an exemption.

Mr. Dzuirman thought it would be a good idea to flag something on the

computer when they did. Mr. Delacourt said he would check with the Assessing

Department to see if it could be tracked, and also prepare a letter that would

automatically be sent, which Ms. Sieffert agreed was part of the Commission's

mandate.

Ms. Sieffert mentioned the Earl Borden awards, noting that the Commission did

not always hold regular meetings and that time to nominate was going by

quickly. She wanted the Commission to think about people and places in the

community that might be worthy, and noted that the trails were becoming

important, and that there might be someone who had worked on the historic

trailways project that benefited the whole community.

Mr. Miller advised that the Clinton River Trail was in the process of being

improved, and it was recently updated behind Rochester College. He said he

would think about what they could consider as a prospect. Ms. Sieffert asked if

there were three different people in charge of the three trails. Mr. Miller was not

sure, and said that the administration of the Clinton River Trail was overseen by

each municipality's portion. Ms. Sieffert reminded that someone outside of

Rochester Hills could not be considered, and she mentioned cultural landscapes,

such as the waterways, as a consideration.