HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman berg, John McCauley, Herman
Ratelle and Donald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn Curtis and Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Country Club and'c committee: Barbara EppelMarie
Thorpe, Mary Thibeau
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Herman Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the
December 19, 2000, meeting. Member Donald Wray seconded the motion. All
voted aye. The motion carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT:
Planner Joyce Repya advised the Board that a Country Club Tra
ffic
Committee consisting of representatives from the district has approached the
City Council regarding issues they have with the speed and volume of traffic
traveling through their neighborhood. The Council has given approval for the
City to hire traffic engineers to research the issues and provide traffic calming
solutions. The Heritage Preservation Board is included in the decision making
process because of the National Register designation of the District.
Ms. Repya reminded the Board that 1993 was the last time the traffic in
the Country Club District was addressed. At that time, traffic engineers
evaluated the volume of traffic traveling through the District, and as a result of
their findings, additional stop signs were added, and changes to some traffic
triangle were implemented. All the changes
rd time were subject to review
and approval from the Heritage Preservation Boa
Ms. Repya then introduced Marie Thorpe, Mary Thibeau and Barbara
Eppel, representing the Country Club District Traffic Committee who had asked
to address the HPB regarding the traffic concerns in their neighborhood.
Ms. Thorpe explained that the primary concerns of the committee include
the excessive speeds, the large volume of traffic and the lack of stop sign
compliance. She pointed out that most recently a survey had been distributed
soliciting feedback from all of the Country Club residents. Of the 538 surveys
distributed, 274 were returned exhibiting a 50% response rate. The results of the
survey indicated that 87% of the respondents agreed that speed was a problem;
79% agreed that the amount of traffic was problematic and 76% agreed a
problem existed with stop sign compliance.
Ms. Thorpe pointed out that upon reviewing the survey results, the
committee had established the following goals:
1. Reduce speeds to 25 mph
2. Reduce the amount of traffic:
Less than 1,000 trips per day on Arden, Drexel,
Wooddale, Edina, Browndale, and Sunnyside.
Maintain the status quo (No Increases) on
Bruce, Casco and Moorland.
3. Raise level of stop sign awareness and compliance.
4. Follow-up on 1993 traffic study.
Member Ratelle asked if the committee knew how many children resided
in the District, pointing out that demonstrating the large number of youth in the
neighborhood would help the committee drive home the need for addressing
their safety issues. Ms. Thorpe stated that they did not know the exact number
of children in the District, but agreed that identifying the large number would be
beneficial to their cause.
Ms. Thorpe stated that the purpose for the committee meeting with the
HPB was to alert them of the ongoing traffic study, advise the Board of the
committee's goals and objectives, and to give the Board a heads -up that the
committee will be coming back with proposals to address their traffic calming and
safety issues.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible traffic calming proposals being
considered. Ms. Thorpe explained that some options being considered include
district entrance monuments, defined crosswalks, and traffic diverters to name a
few. She stressed that the traffic committee wants to work closely with the HPB
to ensure that the historic integrity of the neighborhood is not compromised by
the changes proposed.
is
2
Ms. Thorpe then thanked the Board for their time and expressed a desire
to work closely with them in the coming months to relieve the traffic pressures in
the District. Member Ratelle thanked the members of the committee for
presenting their concerns and goals in such a concise fashion. No formal action
was taken.
III. CLG GRANT APPLICATION:
Chairman Nyberg left the meeting - 8:05 p.m.
Ms. Repya presented the draft copy of a Certified Local Government grant
request to fund a Master Preservation Plan for the Country Club District. She
pointed out that the focus of the project has changed from design review
guidelines to a master preservation plan. This shift in focus was suggested by
Robert Vogel, who wrote the Historic Context Study and is familiar with the
District. Mr. Vogel indicated that design review guidelines work well for individual
homes or districts in need of very strict controls. However, guidelines that define
specific architectural styles tend to stifle creativity. The question that needs to be
asked is "What do you want to control?" The suggested approach of defining a
vision and establishing policies and procedures to support the vision appeared to
better meet the needs of Edina's Country Club District.
Board members agreed that the proposed Master Preservation Plan does
a good job of addressing the need to identify the significance of the District and
establish policies to protect the historic integrity. Member Ratelle then moved to
approve the submittal of the draft CLG grant application to fund a Master
Preservation Plan for the Country Club District to the Minnesota Historical
Society. Member McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS: None
V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
K
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 23, 2001
II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS: William Crawford
Peggy Jennings
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: CLG Application
V. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Marilyn Curtis
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 27, 2001
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
John McCauley, Lois Wilder and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Lois Wilder moved approval of the minutes from the January 23,
2001, meeting. Member John McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS:
Chair Gary Nyberg welcomed Bill Crawford and Peggy Jennings, the new
members of the board. Board members each introduced themselves and shared
their backgrounds and interests.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Member Wilder moved to re-elect the current officers to the Heritage
Preservation Board: Chair - Gary Nyberg
Vice -Chair - Donald Wray.
Member McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: CLG Application
Planner Repya explained that the Minnesota Historical Society had
reviewed a draft copy of the CLG grant application to fund a Master Preservation
Plan for the Country Club and indicated that they did not believe that the project
would achieve the goal of defining a unified vision for the Country Club District.
They pointed out that the best and most practical method to protect the district
would be to locally zone the area Heritage Preservation District. Furthermore,
they indicated that because there is an increase in federal funds for CLG grants
this year, the number of applications has doubled; and while they did not say
"We won't accept this application", they certainly discouraged pursuing the
project.
Board members discussed the need to protect the historic integrity of the
district while at the same time, maintaining certain individual property rights, and
agreed that providing the Heritage Preservation Overlay zoning designation
would enable an element of control that does not currently exist.
Planner Repya pointed out that she had discussed the State's response
to the CLG grant application with Mr. Robert Vogel, the consultant who wrote
Edina's Historic Context Study. Mr. Vogel has always been very supportive of
Edina's preservation efforts and understands the concerns of the Board
regarding the Country Club District . Mr. Vogel did not agree with the comments
from the State, however agreed that to pursue the application any further would
probably be a waste of time during this grant cycle. Mr. Vogel did offer his
services to the Board as a consultant to provide advice and direction if the
Board chooses to pursue the HPD rezoning of the district.
Board members discussed Mr. Vogel's offer to serve as a consultant.
Planner Repya stated that Mr. Vogel is under contract with several cities to
provide consulting services for their heritage preservation commissions. He had
indicated that he charges a base $2,400 for one years service to include
advising the HPB and staff on issues pertaining to historic preservation planning,
assisting in the preparation of grant applications and attending meetings of the
HPB and Planning Commission.
Board members agreed that Mr. Vogel's expertise would be valuable to
them as they move forward to provide more protection to the Country Club
District. Member Wray then moved the Board pursue a contract for professional
services with Mr. Vogel in which he would provide advice relative to the
protection of the Country Club District. Member McCauley seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
•
2
V. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Marilyn Curtis
Chair Nyberg presented the resolution for Mrs. Curtis's service to the
Board. Board members agreed that Mrs. Curtis has been a great asset to the
Board and a pleasure to work with. Member Jennings moved approval of the
resolution. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
■ Country Club Traffic Committee:
In an effort to update the newest members of the Board to the Country
Club traffic issue, Chair Nyberg explained that at last months meeting, several
members of the Country Club Traffic Committee addressed the Board to explain
traffic concerns they have in their neighborhood. Since the District is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and the HPB is advisory to the City
Council, the advise of the Board relative to traffic calming measures proposed
will be requested. The committee is still in the information gathering stage,
working with a traffic consultant hired by the City. The main issues of concern
center around traffic volume (particularly cut -thorough traffic) and speeds. Once
the consultant provides some traffic diversion alternatives, the Board will be
asked to comment as to the impact upon the historic integrity of the District. A
brief discussion followed. No formal action was taken
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 27, 2001
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
J yce Repya
3
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
GEORGE BAIRD HOUSE
4400 WEST 50TH STREET
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 27, 2001
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING CONSULTANT: Robert Vogel
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Heritage Preservation District Rezoning
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 22, 2001
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
GEORGE BAIRD HOUSE
4400 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings, John McCauley,
Herman Ratelle, Lois Wilder, and Vice Chair Don
Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Gary Nyberg
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Jack and Marilyn Curtis, 4400 W. 50`h Street
Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Prior to the meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Curtis treated board members to a tour of both
the interior and exterior of the George Baird House, 4400 W. 50th Street (their
home).
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Herman Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the
February 27, 2001, meeting. Member John McCauley seconded the motion. All
voted aye. The motion carried.
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING CONSULTANT: &
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their February meeting they
approved the hiring of Robert Vogel & Associates to serve as consultants to the
HPB specifically to address the possible rezoning of the Country Club District to
Heritage Preservation District. Mr. Vogel was present to discuss the scope of
the project and the support he will provide to the Board.
Mr. Vogel explained to the Board that the National Register designation of
the District is honorary and recognizes the history and planning of the
neighborhood, however there are no regulations enforced by the National Park
1
Service. The Park Service depends upon the local government to establish their
priorities and protection for the historic integrity of the designated area.
Planner Repya pointed out that for the past 20 years, the City has
depended upon the voluntary cooperation of the District residents to ensure that
changes to the homes are in keeping with the character of the historic
neighborhood. With the exception of changes that have required variances, the
city codes do not provide for Heritage Preservation Board review because the
District does not have the Heritage Preservation District overlay zoning
In the early 1990's, concern was raised about the lack of control the HPB
had with respect to changes in the District. At that time, the Board agreed that a
brochure explaining the history of the District and requesting homeowners to
consider the original architectural style of their homes when contemplating
changes would best serve the goals of the Board at that time.
Board members agreed that the educational brochure did a great job of
enlightening District residents about the unique character of their neighborhood.
Furthermore, they pointed out that for the most part, there haven't been any
glaring problems constructed in the neighborhood. However, within the past
year, two homes have been demolished with new homes built on their sites,
raising concern among some of the residents regarding the lack of control the
City has to protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Wray reminded the Board that at the joint meeting the Heritage
Preservation Board had with the City Council, the Council expressed interest in
the District, and suggested that the HPB survey the District residents to
determine their attitudes about their neighborhood and the changes which have
been occurring. Working toward that end, Vice Chair Wray suggested that the
Board commence with the development of the survey by first identifying the
objectives they hoped to achieve.
Following a brief discussion, Board members concurred that ensuring that
changes occurring in the District maintain the historic integrity of the area is a
primary concern. Board members stressed that the focus should remain on the
entire district and not to begin focusing on each of the 550 homes. From the
standpoint that homes are removed from a lots, the Board indicated that it would
be important that another home would be constructed on the site, in lieu of a
tennis court, swimming pool or other amenity that would have a most detrimental
effect upon the streetscape.
Member Peggy Jennings suggested that a cover letter introducing the
survey should explain the history of the District and the reasons the Board is
requesting the opinions of the residents. Mrs. Curtis suggested that the history
be presented in a contrast format comparing the District of the 1920's with the
2
District as it exists today (Where You Live, Then and Now). All Board members
agreed that would be a great approach.
Regarding the survey itself, the Board members agreed that there should
not bee too many questions, because people would be less likely to respond if
the survey was too lengthy. During a short brainstorming session, some of the
proposed questions for the survey included:
1. Do you feel there is a problem with changes occurring in the District?
If Yes, please define the areas of concern.
2. How would you regulate changes occurring in the District?
3. What could the City do that would best enhance the investment in
your property?
4. What vision do you have for your neighborhood in the future (2020
and beyond)?
Member Ratelle warned that the Board be careful with the wording of
the survey so as not to stir up a hornets nest where one currently doesn't exist.
All agreed that was sound advice.
Planner Repya advised the Board that she would work with Jennifer
Wilkinson, the City's Communications Coordinator to ensure that the cover letter
and survey are consistent with the standards established for all City
correspondence. She further indicated that she would have a draft copy for
them to review at the May meeting, and if approved, the letter and survey could
be ready to mail by the beginning of June.
Discussion ensued about the possibility that a request for the tear -
down of a home in the District might arise during this period of time that the
Board is working on this project. Member Jennings suggested that a moratorium
be put into place to suspend all requests for homes to be torn down in the district
for a period of six months or one year to enable the HPB to come up with a plan.
Board members agreed that would be an excellent idea, thus Member Jennings
moved that the HPB recommend to the Planning Commission that a moratorium
on all tear down requests in the Country Club District be enacted for a one year
period of time to enable the Board to research the issue and come up with a
plan. Member Bill Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
3
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Vogel advised the Board that May 13 - 19 is recognized as National
Heritage Preservation Week, and asked if Edina had any festivities planned.
Planner Repya explained that in the past posters identifying the week, have
been displayed in City Hall and the two history books about Edina have been
advertised for sale. Mr. Vogel suggested that next year the Board might want to
work with the Edina Historical Society and offer the walking tour for interested
parties. Board members agreed that would be an excellent idea. No formal
action was taken.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE:
May 22, 2001
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
•�1
Respectfully submitted,
91
Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
0
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: APRIL 24, 2001
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT STUDY
III. OTHER BUSINESS
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: JUNE 26, 2001
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings, John McCauley,
Herman Ratelle, Lois Wilder and Donald Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Crawford
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Donald Wray moved approval of the minutes from the April 24, 2001,
meeting. Member Herman Ratelle seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT STUDY:
Planner Repya presented a draft copy of the survey which will be mailed to all
the Country Club District residents as well as the accompanying cover letter. The
Board discussed the content of the survey, suggested the addition of a few words and
agreed that the results should be beneficial to determine the mindset of the residents
relative to preservation of their neighborhood. No formal action was taken.
Mr. Robert Vogel presented a discussion outline to the Board in which he
outlined the two main issues confronting the Board with respect to the Country Club
District:
1. How to control changes in the historic character of the Country Club District
resulting from the demolition of houses more than 50 years old("teardowns").
2. How to regulate new construction so that new homes are compatible with the
character of the Country Club District.
The following policy goals were identified as germane to the preservation
issues of the District:
1. The historic architectural integrity of the Country Club District
should be preserved and protected.
2. New home construction should fit with the scale and character of
the historic neighborhood; and
3. Use the historic district overlay zoning as a tool for preserving the
architectural character of the Country Club District and Edina's
identity as a first -ring suburb.
Mr. Vogel further identified preservation factors, planning problems and possible
strategies and alternatives which could be implemented to successfully
address the Country Club District issues.
Board members agreed that an organized plan identifying goals and strategies
to achieve those goals would be excellent. Mr. Vogel then asked the Board to look
ahead for the next six months to a year to determine an outline of the work they would
like to accomplish regarding both the preservation of the Country Club District as well
as their heritage preservation priorities city wide. He asked the Board to consider how
much preservation authority the City wishes to undertake from both a regulatory and
financial standpoint.
Mr. Vogel indicated that he would provide a work plan for the Board to review at
the June meeting where the tasks for the coming year would be defined month by
month. Board members agreed they would appreciate a work schedule for the coming
year. No formal action was taken.
III. OTHER BUSINESS: NONE
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 26, 2001
V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 P.M.
Respectfully subm' d,
?byyIeR e p y
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 22, 2001
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT STUDY: Update
III. HPB WORK PLAN: June 2001 - May 2002
IV. EDINA THEATER SIGN
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 24, 2001
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
John McCauley, Lois Wilder and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Linda Masica, Council Member
Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Lois Wilder moved approval of the minutes from the May 22, 2001
meeting. Member Bill Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion
carried.
Board members introduced themselves and welcomed City Council member
Linda Masica to the meeting, thanking her for taking an interest in their work.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT STUDY: UPDATE
Planner Repya advised the Board that the City Council at their June 19, 2001
meeting voted to continue the request for a moratorium on demolition permits in the
Country Club District to await the results of the survey which was mailed to all the
Country Club District residents. Council members indicated that they wished to have
the results from the survey prior to making their decision to determine if a majority of
the residents are concerned with the tear -downs in the District.
The surveys were mailed to the residents on Tuesday, June 22nd with a July
10'h deadline for them to be returned which will enable Staff to compile the results in
time for the July 17`h City Council meeting when they will again address the
demolition moratorium request. No formal action was taken.
Ill. HPB WORK PLAN: June 2001 -May 2002
e
Planner Repya referred to the 12 month work plan which Preservation
Consultant Robert Vogel had created for the Board. She pointed out that the tasks
before the Board for June 2001 include adoption of a mission statement, defining
and prioritizing preservation issues, and identifying policy areas not addressed in the
current city codes #800 and #850.20.
Consultant Vogel recommended the following mission statement to the
Board: To protect and enhance Edina's significant heritage resources
for the benefit of present and future citizens.
The following philosophical underpinnings were also presented to support the
mission statement:
1. Historic buildings and archeological sites represent a set of scarce, non-
renewable cultural resources that are critical assets for community
development.
2. Historic preservation is an important public service and a legitimate
responsibility of city government.
3. To be effective, protective measures need to focus on the preservation of
significant resources (not everything old is worth preserving).
Board members discussed the content of the statement, agreeing that
specifying "significant" heritage resources would be very important; pointing out that
just because something is old doesn't mean that it is historically significant.
Planner Repya pointed out that the proposed mission statement is very
similar to the goal identified in the Heritage Preservation section of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) which reads, "To protect and preserve
Edina's cultural, historic and architectural heritage". Furthermore, Ms. Repya
suggested that as the Board pursues their work plan, they remain cognizant of the
objectives and policies identified in the Comp Plan.
Mr. Vogel observed that although the HPB currently oversees approximately
six historic properties, for a city the size of Edina, the protection of 12 to 50 historic
resources is not unreasonable. Board members were surprised with such large
numbers, however, Mr. Vogel opined that Edina could manage this number of
resources with the same level of investment in time and money that is currently
expended. He pointed out that the organization of the preservation plan will make
preservation in Edina less cumbersome and a lot more fun.
Chairman Nyberg stated that up until now, the HPB has really focused on the
Country Club District and areas of the City developed prior to World War II; however
'r:
we are now entering an era where a large section of Edina developed with 1950's
ramblers is now eligible for heritage preservation. The new preservation plan should
be much broader to include the suburbanization of the City.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that it is important to break out of the "old equals
historic" way of looking at the world and focus on the significant heritage resources.
After a brief discussion, member Don Wray moved that the Board adopt the
proposed mission statement which reads "To protect and enhance Edina's
significant heritage resources for the benefit of present and future citizens".
Member Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Continuing with the work plan for the evening, Mr. Vogel proceeded to identify
the following policy areas he has found lacking in Edina's current ordinances:
a) Although heritage preservation goals, policies and objectives are identified
in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan; there is not
comprehensive heritage plan. Such a document should be the
authoritative guide for city preservation program decisions.
b) The Heritage Preservation Board's role in policy making is not clear.
State law and city ordinances give the HPB and Planning Commission
overlapping responsibilities. The HPB should be the principal forum for
public participation in the historic preservation planning process. The
relationship between the Planning Commission and the HPB needs to be
strengthened and their policy making functions should be integrated.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that Edina and Cottage Grove are the only two
Heritage Preservation Commissions in the State that are advisory to
the city's Planning Commission.. The rest are independent and free
standing.
c) Historic preservation is too much a stand-alone function. The city needs
to integrate preservation policies with other city activities (planning,
zoning, code enforcement, parks and recreation, arts and economic
development).
Mr. Vogel suggested that perhaps a member of Edina's Planning
Commission could be appointed ex -officio to the HPB which would
address the policy integration issue.
d) There is no base line of data for making decisions about what is historic
and what is not. There should be a central historic resource inventory at
City Hall that is accessible to the public. This requirement should written
into the City codes.
3
e) There is no local equivalent to the National Register "determination of
eligibility." When the HPB determines that a property meets the ordinance
criteria for historical designation, it should issue a written finding. The
HPB needs to be objective and make all decisions only based upon the
guidance from the historic preservation plan and not let such issues as
economics enter into decisions that are made.
f) The National Register of Historic Places and the Heritage Preservation
Overlay District are not integrated. The City needs to have a single,
unified designation program. A prime example of this conflict is the
current status of the Country Club District; yes, it is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, however it does not carry the HPD overlay
zoning designation, thus there are really no way to deal with these
properties. The simplest resolution would be to go with a City historic
preservation program.
g) The HPB roll in community development planning is too narrow. The HPB
should be actively participating in planning for new development,
redevelopment projects and other community development matters that
affect historic properties.
Member Wray asked if the HPB should have more input with the Edina
Historical Society. He pointed out that he sits on the Historical Society
Board as a representative from the HPB and they often ask the HPB's
stance on certain issues. He observed that while the HPB and the
Historical Society are communicating, he asked if could they be more
effective. Chairman Nyberg stated that up until now, there hasn't been a
whole lot of activity on the part of the HPB to share; however as we move
forward with the historic preservation plan providing vision and focus we
should become more active.
h) The commitment to education needs to be strengthened. The City needs
to develop educational programs to assist historic property owners by
providing them with information, education and training. The Edina
Historical Society can take on the responsibility of educating the City
about it's history. The HPB should focus on educating the owners of
historic properties. The first step would appear to take a needs
assessment to determine where the education programs should be best
directed.
Chairman Nyberg asked if other cities have addressed the postwar
development a.k.a. "suburbanization" of their communities. Mr. Vogel explained that
Eden Prairie and Duluth are taking a look at the postwar era to determine what was
developed at that time and more importantly, what was significant among those
developments.
G!
4
Member Jennings observed that St. Peter's Lutheran Church, designed by
Ralph Rapson is a wonderful example of his work, and asked if the 50 year
benchmark was vital to determining what is historic. Mr. Vogel stated that the
National Register came up with the 50 year guideline back in 1966 because they felt
they needed some cut-off point. However, he advises cities to consider the
significance of the property and focus less on its age.
Chairman Nyberg opined that the Edina East High School, now the
Community Center, built in 1951, is another wonderful building and an excellent
example of a school built in that era.
Discussion ensued regarding the historic significance of the Southdale Mall.
Chairman Nyberg pointed out that in the early 1990's the HPB approached the mall
regarding the possibility of rezoning the property to HPD and they were not
interested. However, they did create a portable pictorial, mural displayed in the
center courtyard which told the story of the mall's development and growth. Mr.
Vogel observed that properties such as Southdale and industrial properties like the
3M complex, developed in the postwar era are very difficult to zone historic because
these resources were designed to be changed and adaptable to the times.
However, that does not mean that these properties are not significant or historic.
Planner Repya suggested that perhaps rather than zoning the property
historic, it would be more practical to identify significant original elements of the
property, such as the large clock , the bird cages and the center courtyard
sculptures, because these elements are what people associate with their past. Mr.
Vogel used the language of the National Register to define an object as something
which is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions which
are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed.
This language is for such things as statuary, monuments, sculptures and fountains.
Mr. Vogel added that cities are very good at memorializing and marking
significant properties which in no way inhibits the ability to make changes; perhaps
that is something Edina would want to pursue in some areas. A brief discussion
ensued; no further action was taken.
VI. EDINA THEATRE SIGN
Planner Repya advised the Board that the City has had inquiries from
individuals who have indicated that the Edina Theatre is for sale. Currently, the
Edina Theatre is the only theater operated by the Loews Group remaining in the
Twin Cities, the others have been sold to other operators. If the theater is sold and
it continues the use as a theater, the issue of the sign is not a concern. However, if
5
a new owner opts not to operate a theater, but convert the building to offices and/or
shops, the future of the sign could be in jeopardy. Board members discussed the
importance of the theater sign to identifying the 501h and France commercial area. It
was agreed that preservation of the sign would be important and would most likely
fall within the realm of preserving objects as was discussed earlier in the meeting.
Board members indicated that they would like to include the theater sign in their
preservation plan. Planner Repya promised to keep the Board informed of any
activity relative to the theater. Mr. Vogel stated that he would research examples of
similar "objects" which have been preserved and update the Board at the next
meeting. No formal action was taken.
V. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 24, 2001
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
0
N;
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: JUNE 26, 2001
II. PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: 5312 INTERLACHEN BLVD.
PETERSON HOUSE
REQUEST: RE -ROOF DUE TO HAIL DAMAGE
III. COUNTRY CLUB SURVEY: REVIEW RESULTS
IV. HPB WORK PLAN:
JULY: PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001
LOCATION: ARENSON ACRES
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Donald Wray, Bill Crawford and
Herman Ratelle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings, John McCauley, Gary Nyberg
and Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Mark & Nancy Winter, 5312 Interlachen Blvd.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Herman Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the June
26, 2001 meeting. Member Bill Crawford seconded the motion all voted aye.
The motion carried.
II. PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: 5312 INTERLACHEN BLVD.
Planner Joyce Repya explained that Mark and Nancy Winter, owners of
the Peterson House at 5312 Interlachen Boulevard are requesting approval of
their plans to re -roof their home and garage due to hail damage. The existing
roof has black asphalt shingles. The Winters are proposing to again use the
asphalt shingle, but would like to change the color to green.
Member Crawford asked if there were any records as to what the original
roof was made of. Robert Vogel explained that the original roof was most likely
wood, however the composition asphalt shingle was probably installed many
years ago; and to replace the existing roof with asphalt shingles makes sense
because it is a more efficient product that will last longer.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the color of shingle is not an area that the
Board should be overly concerned about because it is a reversible product that
can be changed. However, if the homeowner is proposing a change to the
shape of the roof, that would be an item that the Board should consider very
seriously. Mr. Vogel added that it would be a good idea for the homeowner to
provide a photo of the roof as it currently exists for the file.
Following a brief discussion Member Ratelle moved to approve the permit
to re -roof the house with the condition that the homeowner provide photos of the
existing roof. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB SURVEY: REVIEW RESULTS
Planner Repya reported that there was a strong response to the Country
Club Survey with a total return of 316 of the 556 surveys mailed fora 57% return
rate. Due to the high percentage of returns, the results appear to be pretty firm.
Eighty-three percent of the respondents agreed that large additions and
tear -downs should be subject to HPB review, regardless of variances.
Interestingly, 82% of the respondents also agreed that they would favor the HPB
having design review authority for additions and rebuilds or only rebuilds for their
own property.
It appears that the majority of the respondents feel the HPB should be
involved in protecting the character of their neighborhood. Deciding how that
should be done and to what degree is the next step for the Board. An important
issue to consider when deciding what would work best for the District is how the
HPB and City Staff will handle the additional design review responsibilities.
Planner Repya further advised the Board that on July 17' the City Council
passed an ordinance providing a six month moratorium on the issuance of
permits for demolition of principal structures in the Country Club District. If for
any reason six months is not enough time for the HPB to complete the study, it
would be possible to request up to a 12 month extension.
Board members expressed their surprise at such a high return rate and
level of concern. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the level of public consciousness
regarding preservation issues is significantly higher than it was 10 years ago,
due in part to the Home and Garden channel and shows like Bob Villa's "This
Old House".
Member Wray asked what the significance of the survey meant. Planner
Repya explained that the City Council requested the survey to determine if the
residents of the Districts were in favor of the City taking measures to preserve
their neighborhood. Upon receiving the results, the Council agreed that the HPB
2
should proceed to develop goals and policies to protect the historic integrity of
the District.
Member Ratelle opined that the survey establishes a clear consensus that
the District residents want the City to act to preserve their neighborhood. Board
members agreed. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the results of the survey are not far
from those of the national Gallop poll regarding the public perception toward
historic preservation.
Mr. Vogel explained that the Board should now proceed to address the
preservation of the Country Club District within the context of the citywide
preservation plan, and not as a separate, stand alone element. The plan that is
created should be one that could eventually protect other identified
neighborhoods in the City. Mr. Vogel elaborated on that point, stating that he
foresees a one size fits all historic preservation program. The key to doing that
is by finding a way to create a mechanism for the City recognizing things as
historic. Right now, there is an overlay district and a national register district,
which needs to be changed so there is only one kind of historic designation. The
outcome could be something like the Edina Registry of Historic Sites which
would have a categories for districts and individual properties, just like the
National Register program.
• A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken.
IV. HPB WORK PLAN: PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES
Planner Repya explained that the tasks identified in the HPB Work Plan
for the month of July include identifying program goals and policies. As Mr.
Vogel has indicated, once there is a consensus on the level of commitment to
preservation, the HPB needs to make a list of goals and expectations in the
areas of planning, historic resource identification and evaluation, registration,
permit review and treatment. Once the goals are written down, the Board can
develop abbreviated policy statements for key areas and discuss how these
policies relate to the City Code.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that in order for a successful historic preservation
program to work, a picture needs to be painted in broad strokes that illustrates
expectations for an area once the program is implemented. There needs to be a
measurable outcome to all of this; one being the success of the program on the
basis that no significant historic resources are lost, and everything should be
focused on that goal.
Member Wray pointed out that currently, not many historic resources have
been identified in Edina. He than asked if the Board should be concentrate on
3
gathering information. Mr. Vogel explained that there are many potential
resources worthy of consideration which will require inventories and registration.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the Country Club District is one historic site with
556 homes. The only other district in the City that has been identified thus far is
Morningside. However, since a Morningside inventory has not been done, the
number of homes has not been identified. The remaining resources in the City
would most likely be individual properties.
With a new property designation system, Mr. Vogel explained that the
Board will be able to specify the permits that will be reviewed, such as
demolition, moving buildings and doing big things; to do more than that can
become cumbersome. In the City of Edina, there are probably two to three
significant districts and 30 to 40 individual properties that could qualify for
designation, which would be manageable for the Board.
The Board then reviewed the following proposed goals, policies and
actions which if adopted, would become part of the new preservation plan:
GOALS:
a. Significant heritage resources (buildings, sites, structures, objects, and
districts) will be protected and enhanced through zoning, land use controls,
education. financial incentives.
b. Preservation planning will identify heritage resources, evaluate their
significance, and develop integrated heritage resource management
strategies for their preservation, protection and use ads functional parts of the
modern city.
c. Heritage preservation planning will be integrated with other city planning -for
community development, parks and recreation, public works and education.
d. The "Register of Edina Heritage Landmarks" (sic) will be the authoritative
guide used by the City in identifying heritage resources that are worthy of
preservation and consideration in community planning.
e. The City will consider the effects of development projects, new construction,
demolition, excavation and other work that requires City permits on heritage
resources included in or eligible for the "Register of Edina Heritage
Landmarks" and take steps to avoid adverse effects.
POLICIES/ACTIONS:
1. Develop a heritage preservationIp an within the framework of the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and amend the City Code as needed to
implement the preservation plan.
2. Conduct heritage preservation programs in the areas of planning, survey,
registration design review and education with clearly established priorities
and measurable outcomes ("benchmarks") for each area.
3. Identify all heritage resources (buildings, sites, structures, objects and
districts) more than 50 years old and evaluate their historical, architectural,
archeological and cultural significance.
4. Heritage resource evaluation and registration criteria shall be modeled after
-t#e National Register of Historic Places.
5. The HPB shall issue "findings of significance" whenever properties are
determined eligible for registration.
6. The City Council may designate significant heritage resources as "Edina
Heritage Landmarks" (sic) upon nomination by the HPB.
7. No city permit or development plan shall be issued in relation to an "Edina
Heritage Landmark" (sic) without a certificate of appropriateness (COA)
approved by the HPB.
8. When issuing COA's, the HPB shall apply recognized standards and
guidelines based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
9. The HPB will develop education programs to promote community -wide
awareness of the significant historical, architectural and cultural heritage
resources of Edina in addition to providing historic property owners with
information, education and training in heritage resource management.
10. Publicly owned heritage resources should be well maintained.
Board members discussed each of the goals, policies and actions and
agreed that they appear to provide structure and definition for the HPB that is
currently missing. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the preservation plan will serve as
a blue print for the Board. Annually the Board should prioritize and set goals for
the activities they would like to pursue for a coming year, rather than being
strictly reactionary to preservation planning issues that may crop up.
5
The Board agreed that Mr. Vogel had developed a very comprehensive
and well thought out blue print for the preservation plan. Member Ratelle
indicated that he would like to have some time to digest the information and
consider adoption at a later meeting when a full complement of the Board was
present. All members concurred.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that at next months meeting, he would like to
provide a demonstration of ways the Board should treat design review,
particularly as they pertain to tear downs.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
22ND Annual Historic Preservation Conference - September 20 - 21, 2001
Central Square - Glenwood, Minnesota
Planner Repya announced that the annual preservation conference will be
held in Glenwood, Minnesota on September 20-21. As a Certified Local
Government, the City is required to send at least one member of the Board to at
least one day of the conference. More information will be available at the August
meeting.
Vl. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
C:1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: JULY 24, 2001
II. PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION: BAIRD HOUSE
4400 WEST 50T" STREET
REQUEST: REMOVE FAMILY ROOM REPLACE WITH 2 -STORY
ADDITION
III. HPB WORK PLAN: - CONTINUE GOALS/POLICIES & ACTIONS
- CASE STUDIES
IV. 2002 CLG GRANT APPLICATION
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, John McCauley, Herman Ratelle,
Lois Wilder and Donald Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Brad and Arlene Forrest, 4400 West 501h Street
Mark and David Peterson, MA Peterson Design Build
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Herman Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the July 24,
2001 meeting. John McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. PERMIT FOR MODIFICATION REQUEST: 4400 WEST 50T" STREET
Planner Repya explained that the new owners of the Baird House, Brad and
Arlene Forrest are proposing to remove the family room that was added to the
house in 1969 and replace it with a 2 -story addition. The main level of the proposal
includes an attached double garage, family room, mud room and side entrance.
The existing kitchen is proposed to be remodeled. The new second story is
proposed to include a master bedroom suite and bathroom.
Brad and Arlene Forrest advised the Board that they are very excited to be
the new owners of the Baird House. They have researched the history of the home
with the National Park Service and are concerned with protecting the historic
integrity of their property. Mrs. Forrest has consulted with Charles Nelson, historic
architect for the Minnesota Historical Society regarding refurbishing the chimneys
and was advised that they should take photographs of the existing conditions to
is formally document what is there. She added that they are very concerned with
preserving their property and following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Mrs. Forrest pointed out that the existing kitchen and 1969 family room
addition is not a very functional space for their family. The proposed addition will
provide a master bedroom/bathroom suite on the upper level and a family/mud
room and attached garage in place of existing family room on the main level.
Additionally, within the existing floor plan of the house, they propose to remodel
their kitchen and side porch to better meet the needs of their family.
The Forrests explained that they chose MA Peterson Design/Build to
develop their plans because they have an excellent reputation and the Forrests
have worked with them in the past and been very pleased with the results.
Mark and Dave Peterson were present from MA Peterson Design/Build to
present their proposal for the Baird House. Mark Peterson explained that currently
the property does not have a garage which is a drawback for any home in
Minnesota. While it appears that the existing outbuilding is the garage, it is not
structurally sound; the floor can not support the weight of a vehicle. It was a
challenge to incorporate the homeowner's desires for an attached garage within the
family room/master suite addition.
Addressing the architecture of the addition, Dave Peterson presented
elevation drawings and explained that while they attempted to replicate the hip roof
and gable end extensions which are on the front of the house, they were also
cognizant of the need to keep a clear and graceful delineation between the original
residence and the new addition. The addition is proposed to have shake siding
painted to match the brick of the original house. Brick was not chosen as a
material because it would appear as if they were attempting to match the house,
which would be impossible since the brick and mortar are no longer available. The
shake siding will do a good job of delineating the addition from the historic house
which is a National Park Service requirement for additions to historic structures.
Elaborating on the proposal, Dave Peterson explained that the addition is
proposed to be 2/3 the size of the main house which they feel is proportionally
compatible. It was very important that nothing on the existing home would be
compromised to accommodate the addition. The addition was sited on the rear of
the home, barely visible from the front street; and what is visible appears more like
a carriage house.
Member Wray asked why the exterior material of the addition was shake
siding instead of brick. Mrs. Forrest explained that the brick of the main house is
no longer available, and rather than trying to make a close match, they wanted the
addition to clearly be delineated as an addition from the main house. She added
K
that the colors chosen for the shakes will compliment the main house with the trim
coloring of the addition matching the trim on the house.
Mark Peterson pointed out that the house sits up on knoll from W. 501h Street
and trails off to the rear of the lot. The addition will hardly be visible from the front
street, and actually appears more like a carriage house. Mr. Peterson added that
from the rear lot line, the addition will not look like an addition; it will blend well with
the main house.
Member McCauley asked if the cistern in the basement would remain. Dave
Peterson explained that the construction will not affect the portion of the basement
where the cistern is located. He added that the gutters on the proposed addition
will be concealed as they are on the main house, however the water run-off will not
feed into the cistern. The run-off from the gutters on the main house will continue
to empty into the cistern.
Discussion ensued regarding the driveway. Mr. Forrest indicated that they
are considering utilizing both curbcuts on W. 501h Street to provide a circular
driveway. The driveway will probably be asphalt, possibly with circular paving
bricks at the entrances. He added that the cost of using paving bricks on the entire
driveway would be very high.
Members Wilder and Crawford commented that a nice job was done on the
presentation. Member McCauley stated that the project was quite a challenge.
Member Jennings opined that the proposal offers a gentle evolution to the 21"
century, appreciating the proportion of the addition relative to the main house.
Mrs. Forrest indicated that they are planning to repair the chimneys on the
house which have been deteriorating for years, and asked how she should
proceed. Planner Repya explained that they should submit a separate modification
permit application which would include a description of the work to be performed
and photographs of the existing conditions. The Board would be able to act on this
permit as soon as the regular September meeting.
Planner Repya thanked the Forrests and MA Peterson Design/Build for
sharing their plans with the Board. Responding to a question as to what the next
step should be, Planner Repya pointed out that since staff only received the plans
the day before they were sent out to the Board, there was not time to write a staff
report. She added that the Board will take the plans under consideration, to be
addressed at their regular meeting on September 25, 2001.
Board members asked consultant Vogel which standards must be
considered when reviewing a project such as the proposed addition. Mr. Vogel
pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as well
as the criteria set out in the City Code are the standards that should be applied.
3
Chairman Nyberg asked if the Standards offer guidelines relating to the i
massing of an addition. Mr. Vogel explained that Secretary of the Interior's
Standards recommends locating an attached exterior addition at the rear or on an
inconspicuous side of a historic building and limiting its size and scale in
relationship to the historic building. One could say that it is a subjective
determination as to whether an addition is appropriately proportioned to the historic
building.
Mr. Vogel added that the Standards also address the need for an addition to
make possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and
features of the property which are significant to its historic values. Board members
discussed whether an attached garage was an efficient contemporary use or
merely a convenience. Chairman Nyberg stated that he felt that a detached garage
would address an efficient contemporary use. It would not have been unusual for a
detached garage to have been built on the site many years ago. However, an
attached garage is uncharacteristic with a 19'h century home and should not be
included in the family room/bedroom addition.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that typically, additions to historic homes are not
problematic, however when the addition diminishes the historic character of the
home, that is a concern.
Board members discussed their concerns with the plan. Member Ratelle
stated he would not have been comfortable approving the plans as they were
presented without closely reviewing the standards and regulations that are used to
direct our decisions; he added that it is not the job of the Heritage Preservation
Board to act as architects and redesign the project. Member Crawford expressed
concern regarding the garage being attached to the historic house, as well as the
scale of the addition.
Board members agreed that they would like to review the plans in more
detail. A tentative meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 12. No
formal action was taken.
III. HPB WORK PLAN: GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Mr. Vogel reviewed the proposed Goals, Policies and Actions that were
distributed to the Board at the July meeting, indicating that they are the starting
point for the new Heritage Preservation Plan.
Mr. Vogel explained that he will propose that the new plan establish only one
registry of historic sites rather than the two separate designations that currently
exist (National Register of Historic Places and Edina's Heritage Preservation
District). The intent will be to re -register every property that is currently designed
CI
as either National Register properties, locally zoned, or both. The process will
basically follow the same format as the National Register designations which will
avoid the need to create a whole new body of guidelines. The Board will then
move to designate new properties.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that new tough decisions lie ahead for the Board; the
largest, to determine the level of enforcement the Board should have, specifically in
relation to the number of properties identified and the time and budget constraints
of the Staff and HPB.
Member Wray commented that the new preservation plan should provide
procedures and guidelines that would require a preliminary plan review, so an
applicant doesn't come in with a final plan that the Board has never seen which
may or may not be appropriate to the historic site. Mr. Vogel assured the Board
that a preliminary plan review would be built into the plan.
A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken.
IV. 2002 CLG GRANT APPLICATION:
Mr. Vogel explained that the deadline for 2002 Certified Local Grant
applications is in mid-January, 2002. Now, the Board should be considering
projects to be accomplished utilizing this matching grant. Keeping in mind the
goals identified in the Historic Context Study, Mr. Vogel suggested that a survey of
the properties in one of the districts identified, either Morningside or West
Minneapolis Heights would be very appropriate and timely.
Board members discussed the desire to pursue the history of the
Morningside District, particularly because it truly was the first neighborhood in the
City of Edina. A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken. Mr. Vogel
explained that the grant application will be an item to discuss on each agenda this
fall. No decision needs to be made immediately, however within the next several
months, the Board should decide.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
■ 4249 Lynn Avenue
Planner Repya explained that the mayor received a letter of concern from several
residents of the Morningside neighborhood regarding renovation that is occurring at
40 a home at 4249 Lynn Avenue which they feel is very distressing.
5
11
The property is on the northeast corner of Lynn Avenue and Morningside
Road and consists of a two story home with a large patio in the rear yard, but no
garage. A large addition and detached 3 -car garage is being added to the home by
the new owner, a builder who will sell the home once the work is complete. The
new construction is considerably smaller than the original proposal, however it
maximizes the lot coverage and setback requirements.
The concern of the residents is that the home is being redeveloped for
speculation and once completed, will be out of scale and design with the
surrounding homes. Planner Repya stated that much of the concern expressed in
the letter echoes the concerns expressed in the Country Club District Survey. The
Mayor responded that the Heritage Preservation Board will take their concerns
under advisement.
Board members discussed the nature of the residents concerns. Mr. Vogel
explained that as the Heritage Preservation Plan evolves, identified neighborhoods
will all be evaluated by the same criteria. There won't be a different set of
guidelines for each. Chairman Nyberg pointed out that Morningside is probably the
right neighborhood to consider for the CLG grant, given the concerns expressed by
its residents. A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken.
■ 2001 Minnesota Historic Preservation Conference, Glenwood, MN
Planner Repya reminded the Board that the annual preservation conference
will be held on Thursday and Friday, September 20 and 21 in Glenwood,
Minnesota. Among the sessions offered is one on "Revising Your Local Historic
Preservation Ordinance which would be timely considering the current work of the
Board. As a Certified Local Government, the Edina HPB is required to send at
least one board member to the conference. Board members discussed the
conference. Chairman Nyberg offered to check his schedule, and if he could, he
would attend the conference. No formal action was taken.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 25, 2001
VII. ADJOURNEMENT: 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ALI
0
a
• AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 28, 2001
II. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Permit for Modification: Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
Request: Rebuild and/or Restore Chimneys
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Permit for Modification: Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
Request: Remove Family Room, Construct 1 '/2 Story Addition
B. HPB Work Plan : Amendments to City Code, Chapter 8
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Minnesota Historic Preservation Conference Report - Gary Nyberg
B. 2002 CLG Grant Application
V. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, John McCauley and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle and Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Brad and Arlene Forrest, 4400 West 50th Street
Mark and David Peterson, MA Peterson Design Build
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Don Wray moved approval of the minutes from the August 28,
2001 meeting. Member John McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Permit for Modification: Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
Request: Rebuild and/or Restore Chimneys
Planner Repya explained that Brad and Arlene Forrest are proposing to
have all three chimneys of the Baird House restored and/or repaired above the
roofline. The design of each of the chimneys is unique as are their problems.
The front, most ornate chimney is deteriorated to the point that it must be rebuilt.
The remaining two chimneys on the east and north sides of the house will
require repairs and new chimney caps. John Mohler Chimney Repair is the
contractor proposed to complete the work.
A 1975 City of Edina Assessing Department inspection report indicated
that the chimneys above the roof and the chimney caps needed complete
restoration. For the past 26 years, the chimneys have basically remained
untouched; they have only continued to deteriorate.
Planner Repya pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
require that "Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual
qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall
be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence."
Addressing the current condition of the chimneys, Planner Repya stated
that new caps are required on all the chimneys. The existing caps, or lack
thereof do not extend beyond the top coarse of brick on the chimney; water has
dripped down onto the brick causing wicking, and over time, deterioration.
Mankato limestone is the material proposed for the caps, which is the same
limestone found on other treatments of the home. The caps will provide a lip to
prevent future wicking of the brick.
The main chimney has deteriorated to a point where it must be replaced.
The existing brick and mortar are no longer available, consequently a Beldon
503/505 brick is proposed which closely matches the original. The contractor,
John Mohler is proposing to replicate the mass, height, pattern, mortar color and
thickness or the mortar joints as closely as possible. Mr. Mohler has a copy of
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines relative to masonry and
has indicated that he is familiar with their requirements.
In closing, Planner Repya stated that the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation stresses the importance of maintaining historic
structures so they don't reach the point of being irreparable. The three chimneys
on the Baird House have long been identified as being in need of repair. Now,
the Forrests have expressed their intention to make the necessary repairs to the
chimneys. The have chosen a masonry contractor familiar with the unique
requirements of historic structures and appreciate the importance of respecting
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, thus Staff recommends approval of the
request to repair and restore the chimneys subject to the condition that the
contractor adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Masonry.
Mrs. Forrest offered to provide more detailed photographs of all three
chimneys. Board members agreed that would be a great idea.
Member Peggy Jennings then moved to approve the repairs and/or
restorations to all three of the Baird House chimneys subject to the condition
that the contractor adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Masonry. Member Bill Crawford seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
2
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Permit for Modification: Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
Request: Remove Family Room, Construct 1 '/2 Story Addition
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their August meeting, they had
reviewed a plan from Brad and Arlene to permit to the demolition of their existing
family room and the construction a 1 '/2 story addition in its place. The addition
consisted of an attached garage, family room and mudroom on the main floor, a
master bedroom/bath on the upper level and a recreation room in the basement.
The plan being considered at this time remains unchanged. The subject
property, historically known as the Baird House, is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places and is included in the city's Heritage Preservation District and
is surrounded by other single-family residential properties.
The National Register is an important component of the city historic
preservation program and the National Register registration document that was
originally submitted to the Keeper of the National Register is the required basis
for decisions with respect to historical and architectural significance of the Baird
House. However, it is the property's local designation that triggers review by the
Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) when changes are proposed. The legislated
purpose of the Heritage Preservation Overlay District, the preservation of
historically and architecturally significant buildings that "promote the educational,
cultural and general welfare of the residents of the City," gives initial guidance,
but is too general for permit review decision making. Therefore, in the absence
of local ordinance criteria for determining the effects of proposed work, the HPB
has adopted the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the guide to be used in
reviewing permit applications.
Planner Repya explained that Staff review was guided by the principle that
permit review decisions must be made within the bounds of the Heritage
Preservation Overlay District ordinance (Edina City Code 850.20) and the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (U.S. Department of the
Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67). Staff also took into account time and funding
limits, the city's legal obligations, and the nature of the historic resource.
While reviewing the permit, Staff identified a number of planning
constraints:
1. The Heritage Preservation Overlay District ordinance contains no specific
regulations or requirements pertaining to the design of additions on historic
buildings.
2. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards are neither technical nor
prescriptive and cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential
design review decisions in this case.
K
3. The National Register registration form for the Baird House, which is the
required basis for judging the potential effects of new construction, is
ambiguous with respect to the significance of the property's architectural
design elements.
4. While the city code provides for appeals of HPB permit review decisions, it is
not clear what criteria the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals would apply in this
case.
Planner Repya pointed out that Staff has considered three options for
HPB action on the Baird House permit:
A. Approve the permit. This action assumes that the preservation value of the
Baird House is the product of its historical significance, rather than the
architectural characteristics. The proposed alteration of the historic building
is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because it
continues the residential use of the property while preserving the original
1886 structure; no historic materials would be removed or destroyed; the new
construction would be located at the rear of the historic building; and the
addition would be architecturally differentiated from the old.
B. Deny the permit. This action would need to be based on the subjective
judgment that the proposed addition would compromise the historic integrity
of the historic house by significantly altering its architectural character and
historic feeling. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards assume that
historic properties will remain eligible for the National Register after they are
rehabilitated and require that additions retain the historic character of the
property by being compatible in size and scale. Denial of the permit would
likely trigger an appeal to the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals and, if
necessary, the City Council.
C. Take no action. City code requires HPB action on a permit within 60 days
from the date the application is submitted; if the Board does not act, the
permit is issued.
Planner Repya stated that on September 10, Staff and Consultant Vogel
met with the homeowners and their builder to discuss a number of preservation
issues and concerns relative to the proposal; particularly the inclusion of an
attached garage on a Victorian home. Opinions were then garnered from HPB
members, senior members of Edina's planning staff as well as others with
specialized knowledge of the Baird House and expertise in historic preservation.
4
In conclusion, Planner Repya recommended that the HPB approve the
permit with the following conditions:
1. When built, the new work will conform to the plans and specifications
presented to the HPB on August 28, 2001, subject to their acceptance by the
Building Official.
2. No historic architectural material (masonry, wood, roofing, windows, doors,
porches or exterior finishes) will be altered or removed during construction of
the addition.
3. the new work will meet all applicable building, health and safety code
requirements.
4. Prior to the issuance of any city permit, the owner will provide the Planner
with recordation data on the historic property which meets the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.
This documentation, which shall be compiled under the supervision of a
person who meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications
standards in architecture or architectural history, shall meet the requirements
of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation Level 1.
Member Wray questioned whether the incorporation of an attached garage
was appropriate for a Victorian home. Chairman Nyberg opined that he did not
feel the attached garage was appropriate. Member McCauley remembered that
the Board felt the attached garage was not appropriate for the Baird House.
Member Wray then asked if the proposed plan met the State's requirements for
additions to historic structures. Consultant Vogel explained that the subject
addition meets some State requirements, but not all.
Mr. Vogel continued to explain that it was the consensus of the City Staff
to recommend approval of the proposal because currently, the City has no
regulations to guide decisions; preservation standards are non -prescriptive, and
non -regulatory. The same problem exists from a code standpoint with the
teardown of homes in the Country Club District —currently, there simply are not
city codes addressing these situations. The other consideration for
recommending approval of the proposal centered around the fact that if the HPB
denied the permit application, the way the current ordinance is written, an appeal
of the decision would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals which doesn't have to
apply any historic preservation standards to their decisions, in fact, they are
required to uphold the City's Zoning Ordinance; and the proposed plan meets all
of the Zoning Ordinance requirements from a lot coverage and setback
standpoint. The Zoning Board would be hard pressed to deny an appeal of the
subject request. Even if the Zoning Board opted to take no action, the appeal
would then go to the City Council for a final decision. Staff felt that would be an
l•1
unreasonable imposition to put upon the Council since they depend upon the
HPB for technical expertise.
Furthermore, Mr. Vogel pointed out that the process would take at least
two months, eating up valuable staff and consultant time that needs to be spent
on the Heritage Preservation Plan, since the six month teardown moratorium
clock is ticking.
In closing, Mr. Vogel stated that the design of the addition as proposed is
compatible with the existing structure, in theory, is removable and will not result
in the demolition in any part of the existing building.
Chairman Nyberg asked Mr. Vogel how the addition could be achieved
without flashing into the masonry of the old building. Mr. Vogel explained that as
part of the designer's presentation during the August meeting, they indicated that
the original structure would not be compromised.
Member Wray asked how this decision would affect the Board in the
future. Planner Repya explained that each historic structure is evaluated
separately and stands on its own merit. Because each property is unique, a
precedence -setting situation does not exist. Consultant Vogel added that the
current work of the HPB with writing a Heritage Preservation Plan will correct the
inefficiencies that now exist in the code, warding off future ambiguities.
Member Wray also asked if the new Heritage Preservation Plan were in
place, would the proposal before them be handled differently? Mr. Vogel
explained that the Plan has not been written, however he foresees several
changes to the process: First, he would like to see an early meeting of the HPB
and homeowner to discuss their needs, desires and possible alternatives; Unlike
the subject proposal which came out of the blue with no prior discussion and
offered no alternatives. Secondly, a formula may be established, much like what
exists in many building codes, addressing the size of an addition and how it
relates to the existing structure, particularly as it relates to massing. Lastly, Mr.
Vogel indicated that a timeline should be established to address proposals in a
timely fashion. Currently, unlike the Zoning code, the HPB code does not
provide any deadlines or time frames to guide the process.
Board members agreed that changes to the Heritage Preservation Code
are necessary as evidenced by the struggles with addressing the subject
proposal, however the action that must be taken on the subject proposal can
only be guided by the codes as they currently exist; that is the task at hand.
Expressing a desire to comment on the subject proposal, Chairman
Nyberg stated that he is an architect, and feels that the plan is not appropriate to
the house. He pointed out that the plan looks very nice and is beautifully
delineated, but it is not appropriate to the significance of the Victorian house.
0
There would not have been an attached garage on a Victorian home. There
would have been a carriage house that originally housed horses, and would have
been converted to a garage in about 1910. The carriage house would most likely
have been two stories with a haymow on the upper level which in time may have
been converted into a mother-in-law apartment.
Chairman Nyberg stated that at the August meeting, the Forrests
indicated that they were planning on paving the driveway with asphalt; and while
he appreciates the need to provide a hard surface to the current gravel driveway,
Mr. Nyberg opined that asphalt would cheapen the look of the house from the
street. Brick pavers are probably very expensive, but that would probably be the
most appropriate driveway material.
Chairman Nyberg pointed out that the Board is currently struggling with
the issue of massing in the Country Club District. A recent survey of District
residents provided overwhelming responses concerned with large additions
being added to homes that are out of proportion to the original structure. And
while the Baird house is not in the Country Club District, it borders the district.
Although the lot is large and can accommodate the addition, I feel from a
massing standpoint, the proposal is inappropriate, totally out of proportion with
the historic structure.
In closing, Chairman Nyberg stated that unfortunately, the subject
proposal includes a number of issues which are hitting the Board at the same
time and for which there are not guidelines to support a decision. He pointed out
that his issues are subjective and aesthetic. The Baird house has been
beautifully maintained over the years, but the subject proposal will detrimentally
affect the character of the historic structure.
Addressing the driveway, member Crawford stated that an asphalt
driveway with a chip seal or a red rock seal coat would tend to look more like a
gravel driveway. Pointing out that possibly there are alternatives to brick pavers.
Mrs. Forrest, the homeowner stated that the Edina Ordinance specifically
refers to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Since there are no other
guidelines, that is what was used to create their plan. Furthermore, there are no
prescriptions from additions in those standards. The standards specify that
additions can be completely opposed in looks from the original building if certain
criteria are met, such as compatibility, being able to delineate it from the original
structure, and a strong emphasis on only the primary elevation which is what one
sees from the front street
Mrs. Forrest further explained that as a private residence, the Baird house
has certain deficiencies which were problematic when the house was being
marketed for sale. She indicated that as the house currently stands, it is
obsolete compared to other homes in the same price range.
7
Addressing the driveway, Mrs. Forrest stated that she loves the feel of the
gravel driveway, but from a maintenance standpoint, it is a nightmare. They
have discussed different alternatives, however at this time, have not made any
final decisions.
Mrs. Forrest added that the existing family room is already an
incompatible addition on the rear of the house. The proposed addition will at
least have the look of a carriage house.
Chariman Nyberg clarified that he does not have a problem with the
addition in general. It is the inclusion of the attached garage that he feels is
inappropriate.
Mrs. Forrest replied that the main issue with their plan is to have an
attached garage. The point of the design was to ensure that the garage was not
visible from the front elevation.
Chairman Nyberg stated that he is not looking at this plan one
dimensionally, all sides must be considered.
Designer Mark Peterson stated that the standards that they were looking
at were very explicit in saying that they are not taking a home and encapsulate it
in its vintage and time. Houses need to change with the times as well. He
added that the intent of the plan was to provide the illusion of a carriage house
from the public's angle of perception on the front street.
Chairman Nyberg asked the designer how he planned on attaching the
addition without causing damage to the existing structure. Dave Peterson
answered that currently the existing family room addition is counter flashed to the
mortar joints on the side of the building. The same technique is proposed for the
subject addition. If the addition were to be removed at a later date, the mortar
joints could be replaced.
Dave Peterson pointed out that when designing the addition they followed
the Standards closely, walking a fine line, providing the appearance of a carriage
house in the rear with the practicality of being attached for today's lifestyles.
Chairman Nyberg expressed his disappointment that only one concept
was presented to the HPB for review. It appears there is no flexibility to work
with the concerns of the Board. Dave Peterson indicated that they followed the
rules. At which Chairman Nyberg pointed out that right now, the rules are bad
and the HPB is in the process of rectifying the problems. However, at this point
in time with the subject request, the HPB is stuck between a rock and a hard
place.
Member Jennings observed that it is not the Forrest's responsibility to deal
with the fact the current regulations are ineffective. They have been working with
what currently exists. The issue the Board is dealing with is timing, and the
Forrest's should not be held to regulations that don't currently exist.
Mrs. Forrest also pointed out that when the Baird House was put on the
National Register of Historic Places, it was voted on not for its architectural
value; in fact it was noted that the home was a poor example of Charles
Sedgwick's work. It was voted on for the Baird's prominence in the community.
Following a brief discussion, Member Crawford moved approval of the
permit application subject to the following conditions recommended by staff:
1. When built, the new work will conform to the plans and
specifications presented to the HPB on August 28, 2001, subject to
their acceptance by the Building Official.
2. No historic architectural material (masonry, wood roofing, windows,
doors, porches or exterior finishes) will be altered or removed
during the construction of the addition.
3. the new work will meet all applicable building, health and safety
code requirements.
4. Prior to the issuance of any city permit, the owner will provide the
Planner with recordation data on the historic property which meets
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation. This documentation, which shall be
compiled under the supervision of a person who meets the
Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards in
architecture or architectural history, shall meet the requirements of
the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation
Level I.
Member Jennings seconded the motion. Members McCauley, Wray, Jennings
and Crawford voted aye. Chairman Nyberg voted no. The motion carried.
B. HPB Work Plan: Amendment to City Code, Chapter 8
Consultant Vogel reviewed his proposal for an amendment to the HPB
section of the City Code. The main areas identified in his outline included the
following elements: *Policies
*Purpose
*Definitions
*Heritage Preservation Board: General
*Heritage Preservation Board: Powers & Duties
*Heritage Preservation Board Members
*Edina Heritage Landmarks Registry
*Edina Heritage Landmark Districts
*Certificates of Appropriateness
ir7
*Maintenance of Heritage Resources
*Records and Documents
*Penalties
Mr. Vogel pointed out that among other things, the code should better
define how the HPB works with the Planning Commission. Currently the HPB
serves as somewhat of a satellite to the Planning Commission. There are some
instances such as the development of new projects where such a relationship
would be appropriate. However, when dealing with Identified properties, the
HPB should have the final authority and currently, that is not spelled out.
Also, Mr. Vogel noted that the Zoning Ordinance clearly defines the
activities of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, providing
definitions and procedural guidance relative to timelines for plan submission and
review. Whereas, the Heritage Preservation section of the code provides none
of those explanations and direction; it is very arbitrary and vague — not user
friendly for the constituents.
Board members discussed various sections of the proposed ordinance
amendment. Mr. Vogel indicated that before the October meeting he and
Planner Repya would meet with Craig Larsen, Planning Director to ensure that
the proposed changes to the code are consistent with remainder of the Zoning
Ordinance and city policy. No formal action was taken.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Minnesota Historic Preservation Conference Report
Chairman Nyberg reported that he represented the Edina Heritage
Preservation Board at the 2 -day annual Minnesota Historic Preservation
Conference held in Glenwood, Minnesota, September 20th & 21St. The program
centered around the main topic of rehabilitating old school buildings. Meetings
were held in Glenwood's Central Square, which is their historic school, as well as
the old Glenwood Pavilion, which is now owned by the City and used for
conferences, but in its day, was a popular dance hall.
Chairman Nyberg indicated that the conference was most worthwhile and
encouraged all the Board attend future conferences put on by the State. The
Board then thanked Chairman Nyberg for representing them at the Conference.
No formal action was taken.
B. 2002 CLG Grant Application
Consultant explained that he has asked Planner Repya to include this
item on every monthly agenda to remind the Board that the CLG grant
10
applications are due to the State by mid-January. This grant generally funds
projects that deal with surveys. As previously discussed, a project for surveying
the Morningside District would be timely. As the January deadline grows closer,
more details will be forthcoming. No action was taken.
V. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
11
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
II. HPB WORK PLAN: AMENDING THE HPB SECTIONS OF THE
CITY CODE
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
IV. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Don Wray, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
John McCauley, Herman Ratelle and Lois Wilder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Gary Nyberg
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Bill Crawford moved for approval of the minutes from the September
25, 2001, meeting. Member John McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
II. HPB WORK PLAN: AMENDING THE HPB SECTIONS OF THE CITY
CODE
Consultant Robert Vogel identified and elaborated on the following eleven points
which are relevant to amending the HPB sections of the City Code:
1. Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) = city heritage preservation
commission
2. Planning Commission & Historical Society membership (ex -officio) on
HPB
3. Edina Heritage Landmarks (local equivalent of National Register of
Historic Places) nominated by HPB, designated by City Council resolution
4. Individual heritage landmarks & heritage landmark districts based on
National Register criteria & standards
5. Heritage preservation plan part of City comprehensive plan
6. Heritage resources survey and inventory
7. Local regulatory standards & guidelines part of Zoning code
8. City Planner issues Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) with advice &
consent of HPB
9. COA appeals direct to City Council
10. HPB review of development projects (coordination with Planning
Commission
11. Emphasis on education & voluntary compliance
Member Donald Wray asked how a Heritage Preservation Commission would
differ from the Heritage Preservation Board. Mr. Vogel explained that functionally there
would be little difference. He is proposing to maintain the 7 voting members, however
add 2 ex -officio members; perhaps one member from the Planning Commission and one
from the Historical Society. He added that the addition of a student member might prove
to be beneficial.
Addressing the question of designating properties heritage preservation, Mr.
Vogel explained that he is proposing to do away with the HPD overlay district in favor of
a new Edina Heritage Landmark District designation. He indicated that the designations
would be more explicit. The Heritage Preservation Commission would nominate the
properties and the City Council would then designate the properties via a resolution. He
added that the language and criteria for the Landmark District would be the same as the
National Register.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that currently the sections of the City Code addressing
Heritage Preservation are unlike any other sections of the code. It is the goal to bring the
new code into conformance with the practices in the Zoning Ordinance.
Member Herman Ratelle asked how the properties which are currently zoned
HPD would fit into the new Landmark District. Mr. Vogel explained that all properties,
which are currently carrying a Heritage Preservation District Overlay zoning designation,
would be redesignated to the Edina Heritage Landmark District. This process would
basically be starting from scratch with identifying the significance of each structure and
property. Mr. Vogel pointed out that this would be an important step, because some of
the original applications for HPD zoning are sorely missing valuable information as to
the significance of the properties. This problem was very evident in the most recent
review of the addition to the Baird house.
Mr. Vogel explained that the proposed code would provide a basic level of design
review to be performed by City Staff, not unlike the review currently provided in the
Zoning Ordinance for additions and new construction. He added that previously, any
modification to a historic structure had to come before the HPB, which often caused
tedious delays for maintenance type issues like painting and re -roofing. The Heritage
Preservation Commission would then be able to focus their efforts on reviewing
development projects, proposed additions, designating new properties and education.
Mr. Vogel advised the Board that by the November meeting he will have finished
the code updating for their full review. The next step will then be to review the proposed
code with the City Attorney and Planning Commission, which should take several
months.
Following a brief discussion, board members agreed that the new code appears to
be addressing areas of the existing code, which are laborious and inconsistent with the
other city codes. Member Ratelle stated that Mr. Vogel has offered a host of ideas to
address the operation and needs of the Board.
2
III. OTHER BUSINESS: None
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 27, 2001
V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Joyce Repya
01 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APROVAL OF THE MINUTES: OCTOBER 23, 2001
II. HPB WORK PLAN: AMENDING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE (continued)
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: To be determined
V. ADJOURNMENT
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Don Wray, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings
and Herman Ratelle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Gary Nyberg, John McCauley and Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Herman Ratelle moved for approval of the minutes from the October 23,
2001, meeting. Member Bill Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
H. HPB WORK PLAN: REVIEW DRAFT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HERITAGE PRESERVATION SECTIONS OF THE
CITY CODE
Consultant Vogel presented a draft copy of the proposed changes to the HPD
section of the city code, explaining that he has attempted to fashion the amendment so as
to fit in seamlessly with the existing city codes. Mr. Vogel pointed out that some
important additions include a section for definition of terms and adding a student member
to the Board as well as an ex -officio member from Planning Commission and Edina
Historical Society.
The biggest change will be seen in the process of identifying, designating and
maintaining historic properties. The proposed code will require that each property that is
currently locally designated be reevaluated providing important information as to what is
historically significant about the property and how those important elements should be
preserved. Mr. Vogel pointed out that this new approach provides the Board structure
and vision that is currently lacking. He added that the most recent addition to the Baird
House at 4400 West 50th Street is a perfect example of what is lacking in the current
code. The original designation documents for the property did not provide the detail and
vision necessary to provide tkee Board the justification to support their desired decision to
deny the permit to construct an attached garage to the historic structure.
le
Mr. Vogel explained that he is also proposing a name change for designated
properties from the Heritage Preservation District to Edina Heritage Landmarks which is
defined as "Any heritage resource so designated by the City Council that is significant in
history, architecture, archeology, or culture and therefore worthy of preservation and -
consideration in city planning." Board members agreed that the term "Edina Heritage
Landmarks" would be better understood by the general public and will provide more
flexibility for future designations. A good example of a possible future designation that
would benefit from the new terminology is the Edina Theatre sign. While the theatre
probably would not qualify for designation due to the changes that have taken place over
the years, the sign is definitely part of the historic fabric of the 50a' & France commercial
area worthy of consideration.
Mr. Vogel added that it is his intention to have the amended ordinance support the
City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan which has definable goals and objectives. Member
Wray stated that he liked the direction being taken with the new ordinance, pointing out
that up until now, the Board has been reactionary. To have a preservation plan for
designated properties and work with property owners, not as the "preservation police",
but as partners appears to better serve the community.
Board members stated that they agreed with the direction Mr. Vogel is headed
with the code amendment. Member Jennings concurred, pointing out that the proposed
changes will provide not only the Board, but also City Staff, the Council and the residents
with a more "user friendly" approach to heritage preservation.
When asked what the next step should be, Mr. Vogel stated that if the Board was
satisfied with the proposed draft, the City Attorney and Planning Director should now
review it. Upon the City Attorney and the Director's review, at the next HPB meeting,
the Board can address any proposed changes and move toward a final proposal which
would then be presented to the City Council.
A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
Baird House Addition — 4400 West 50th Street
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their last meeting, they had approved
an addition to the Baird House subject to several conditions including the submittal
recordation data for the property which meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Architectural and Engineering documentation. The homeowner's were required to
include the following:
• 35mm black and white photographs of the existing structure
• Measured drawings of the existing home and the proposed addition to
scale including a mylar copy
And a written narrative description of the building before the work, with
emphasis on the changes that have occurred over the years
Ms. Repya reported that the required information has been satisfactorily
submitted and a building permit has been issued. Work will probably commence
on the home in the near future.
Board members thanked Planner Repya for her attention to this project.
No formal action was taken.
III. NEXT MEETING DATE: TO BE DETERMINED
IV. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Joyce Repya