HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 7, 2006
December 12, 2006
II. APPEAL OF COA (H-06-8) 4608 BRUCE AVE. — Heard by City Council 1-2-07
III. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE — OCTOBER 1-6,2007
PLANNING A FIELD SESSION HIGHLIGHTING EDINA
IV. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
V. RE -SURVEY OF THE COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - ROBERT VOGEL
VI. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — Neighborhood Survey Results
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 13, 2007
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal,
Arlene Forrest, Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Nancy
Scherer, Lou Blemaster,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Dan & Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Ave.
JoAnn Farley, 4615 Bruce Ave.
Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Ave.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 7th & 12th, 2006
Member Forrest questioned whether it was appropriate to conduct additional
business, including approval of minutes, at the special meeting on December 7th
Member Rofidal then moved approval of the Minutes from the December 7, 2006
and December 12, 2006 meetings. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All
voted aye, with the exception of Member Thorpe who abstained because she did
not attend either meeting. The motion carried.
II. APPEAL OF COA (H-06-8) 4608 BRUCE AVENUE: Heard by City Council
January 2, 2007
Planner Repya explained that on January 2nd, the City Council heard an appeal of
the Heritage Preservation Board's December 12th decision regarding the
Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the original building plans for 4608
Bruce Avenue. Several neighbors were appealing the changes approved for the
South elevation. They did not have an issue with the window placement,
however, after researching the manufactured stone product to be used, opined
that it was an inferior product to natural stone. The additional width of the stone
when compared to the cedar shakes was also cited as a problem due to the
protrusion into the 12 foot driveway abutting the south property line.
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Kitty O'Dea, owner of 4610 Bruce Avenue, the southerly abutting property
owner stated that she did not want the stone on the south elevation because she
thought the cedar shakes would have a softer look. ,
The City Council voted 3 to 2 to deny the neighborhood appeal for changes to the
Certificate of Appropriateness approved on December 7, 2006, with the exception
of the following elements on the Southerly elevation — 1. Stone replacing the
cedar shakes, and 2. The railing under the easterly windows on the first floor,
both of which the Council agreed were not appropriate due in part to the
additional protrusion into the 12 foot driveway width.
Member Rofidal stated that he attended the Council meeting and was still
somewhat confused as to how the Board should proceed in the future. It had
been his understanding that with the new home at 4608 Bruce Avenue, the
difficulty in providing the minimum 12 foot driveway width was a zoning and
building issue, not a heritage preservation issue. However, Council member
Swenson stated that the reason she moved to not allow the stone and railing on
the south wall was because it would protrude into the required 12 foot driveway.
Discussion ensued regarding the differences when addressing historic homes
versus the construction of new homes in historic districts. Consultant Vogel
observed nationally, new construction has been a chronic problem for heritage
preservation. He added that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards require that
new construction shall be differentiated from old, and it shall not destroy the
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Vogel recalled that when the Plan of Treatment was adopted in 2002, there
was a great deal of discussion regarding identifying those houses that did not
reflect the historic character of the district. The Board entertained only allowing
the more contemporary homes to be torn down, however, at that time, the
Council agreed that they wanted to treat all properties the same. Consequently,
as long as a home would not qualify for heritage landmark status in its own right,
the home could be torn, if the owner proved to the Heritage Preservation Board
that the replacement home met the criteria of the Plan of Treatment.
Member Scherer observed that Edina is in the midst of huge residential
redevelopment, and the problems which have arisen in the Country Club District
are seen in neighborhoods throughout the City — The difference, however, is that
in the Country Club District, these issues of height, massing and driveway widths
may also have an adverse impact on the historic integrity of this landmark district.
Board members agreed that the original brochure focused on what one saw from
the front street. Furthermore, there is no information available regarding garages,
driveways, or retaining walls. Consultant Vogel pointed out that the 1980 survey
of the district provides a photograph, the year built, and the architectural style of
each home. Moving forward, if decisions regarding such things as grading and
2
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
driveway width are required, the Board will need to gather that baseline
information. Fortunately, the re -survey of the district scheduled in the upcoming
work plan will address some of these issues for the first time.
Member Forrest stated that she was glad the appeal came before the Council
because it brings these important issues to the forefront. She added that she had
not been aware of the appeal and asked that in the future, if a decision of the
Board is appealed to the City Council, that the HPB is notified.
Chairman Kojetin asked if the neighbors present had any comments. The
following people spoke:
JoAnn Farley — 4615 Bruce Avenue
• Ms. Farley appreciated the discussion of the Board.
• She pointed out that the Country Club District was developed in two
sections, the east side with small lots and small homes, and the west side
with larger lots and larger, more expensive homes. Today, developers are
coming into the district, buying the smaller homes on the east side
because they are more affordable, tearing these homes down and
replacing them with homes that are no longer fitting with the east side of
the district, but perhaps more like what one might see on the west side of
the neighborhood.
• She added that she f-)Als passionate about what is happening in her
neighborhood, .stating that it is not the new construction she objects to,
however she is concerned that the new construction thus far does not fit
with the surrounding homes.
Dan Dulas — 4609 Bruce Avenue
Mr. Dulas commented the he believes that the neighborhood needs to
educate themselves regarding the issues of redevelopment in the district.
He stated that he agreed with Council Member Swenson's comment that
the Heritage Preservation Board needs to look at the big picture when
addressing new construction to include driveways and retaining walls.
He pointed out that builders should be encouraged to build homes that fit
within the surrounding homes; adding that he does not want to see the
speculation activity because the speculative developers are not vested in
the neighborhood, rather they are focused on investing in the
neighborhood.
Kitty O'Dea — 4610 Bruce Avenue
Ms. O'Dea stated that she has learned a lot through this process and
would like to use what she's learned to advocate for the neighborhood.
3
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• The piece meal issues which appear to be the responsibilities of different
departments within the city need to be addressed together.
• In addition to the total tear down of a home, the HPB should also regulate
quasi-teardowns and reconstructions where the historic facades of homes
are being changed.
• The materials proposed need to be scrutinized more closely with regard to
the amount of primary materials versus accent materials. Through her
observations of homes in the neighborhood, she has determined that
stone is used predominately as an accent material, not as a primary
material.
• She stated her appreciation for the work of the HPB, acknowledging that
the best interest of the historic landmark district is a common goal.
Cheryl Dulas — 4609 Bruce Avenue
• Ms. Dulas expressed her appreciation to the HPB and stated that the
appeal of the decision was in no way meant as a slam to the Board.
However, the issues with JMS and the subject home had reached a point
where she and those who submitted the appeal felt as though that was
their only recourse.
Chairman Kojetin thanked the neighbors for their comments and ensured them
that the Heritage Preservation Board is committed to work with the neighborhood
toward the common goal of maintaining the historic integrity of the district. A brief
discussion ensued. No formal action was taken.
III. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE — OCTOBER 1-6,2007
PLANNING A FIELD SESSION HIGHLIGHTING EDINA:
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that at the December 12th meeting, the
HPB and Edina Historical Society agreed to host a field session for attendees of
the National Trust Conference that will be held in the Twin Cities from October 1 —
6 2007.
Mr. Vogel presented the Board with the proposal for the "Heritage Preservation in
a First -Ring Suburb" session which is due to the selection committee at the end of
the week.
The proposed session would be a full-day, guided bus tour with stops at selected
heritage preservation sites that will focus in-depth on the following local
preservation issues:
• Design review in an early 20th century residential district
• Rural heritage preserved in the suburban landscape
• Interpretation at suburban historic sites
4
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Comprehensive planning for heritage preservation
Preservation values of shopping malls
City staff and members of the Heritage Preservation Board are proposed to serve
as tour guides and presenters, assisted by volunteers from the Edina Historical
Society.
Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed that providing a field session for
the National Trust Conference would be an honor with the added benefit of
having an excellent historic tour that could be used in the future. Member
Scherer then moved to authorize that the Heritage Preservation Board submit the
proposal for a field session for the National Preservation Conference as proposed
by Consultant Vogel. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
IV. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAA's):
Consultant Vogel presented the Board with the list of 17 FAA's which they had
finalized at the August 2006 meeting. Board members reviewed the list and
made suggestions for clarifications to some of the points. Mr. Vogel recorded the
corrections/clarifications and agreed to provide an updated list at their next
meeting.
Chairman Kojetin commented that the FAA's should be a tool the Board
continually reviews and updates as questions might arise - observing that the
interaction that has taken place with the Bruce Avenue house has brought to light
questions and misconceptions that the Board had not previously considered.
Mr. Vogel promised to have the updated FAQ list for their review at the February
meeting. The Board thanked Mr. Vogel for his work and agreed that once they
have reviewed the additions, they would like the FAQ list posed on the web site
and available in a paper format as well. No formal action was taken.
V. RE -SURVEY OF THE COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
Consultant Vogel explained that the proposed re -survey of the historic Country
Club District will identify and gather information on the architectural and
landscape resources located within the district boundaries. It will include field
survey as well as planning and background research, organization and
presentation of survey data, and the development of a revised inventory of
heritage resources worthy of preservation.
5
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr: Vogel pointed out that the underlying reason for undertaking a re -survey at
this time is to gather the information needed for making wise design review
decisions in relation to applications for Certificate of Appropriateness. The
Country Club District was originally surveyed in 1979 and the data was used to
assemble the documentation that resulted in the district's listing in the National
Register of Historic Places in 1980. The same information was used to support
the rezoning as an Edina Heritage Landmark District in 2003. Now, the existing
inventory is 25 years old and somewhat out-of-date with existing conditions. One
of the chief goals of the re -survey is to compare what exists today with the
resources that were recorded in 1979. Another critical planning objective is to
identify and evaluate the preservation value of garages, driveways, streets,
vegetation, and other features that were not included in the 1979 survey or the
National Register registration documents.
Mr. Vogel elaborated on several- specific research tasks that will need to be
carried out by the Heritage Preservation Board and its consultant, assisted by city
staff and volunteers.
Member Blemaster asked how volunteers would be involved in the project.
Consultant Vogel explained that community volunteers could participate in the
survey by:
Gathering information about homes, garages, and other features in the
district from property tax assessment records, back issues of community
newspapers, and other sources;
2. Helping record field data on individual properties (photography,
measurements, and interviews with owners); and
3. Organizing the hard survey data (old survey records, field survey forms,
photographs, maps, etc.) in a set of inventory files (organized by location)
that will make it accessible and usable.
Mr. Vogel added that the HPB members' participation and all volunteer work will
be supervised by the consultant and city staff.
Chairman Kojetin asked how long the survey should take. Vogel explained that to
adequately survey the entire district which makes up 550 properties could take
several years, however, if the project begins in May, by mid -summer there should
be good results using samplings by blocks and sections. The actual leg work will
begin in April or May when the weather is more conducive. However, in the
meantime, a checklist and timeline will be created.
Kojetin added that it would be wise to send a notice to the district residents
advising them of the survey that will be taking place. The Board agreed, pointing
out the importance of keeping the neighborhood informed.
C.
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Following a brief discussion, Board members agreed that they looked forward to
the new survey which will provide the necessary baseline information to more
effectively address the heritage preservation needs in the district. No formal
action was taken.
VI. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — Neiahborhood Survev Results:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that a group of neighborhood residents in the
Country Club District have been working on a survey to gather opinions on the
"City of Edina's current guidelines for construction and major reconstruction in the
Edina Heritage Landmark District." The survey was completed in December and
the results provided to the Board for their review.
The Board expressed their appreciation to the neighborhood group for their hard
work. All agreed the survey was very thorough and contained useful information.
Discussion ensued regarding how the Board should use the information in the
survey. Members stated while the survey is a valid tool that should be taken into
consideration, the Board should be cautious about making any changes
predicated solely on the information provided in the survey.
Member Blemaster pointed out that the people want to be heard, and it is
important that the Board take into consideration the survey when evaluating
procedures and guidelines. The Board agreed with Blemaster.
Consultant Vogel observed that the politics of the process is reflected in the
survey. He added that the Heritage Preservation Board has traditionally been
responsive to concerns as they arise and not locked into rules. It was agreed
when establishing the landmark designation for the district that due to limited
resources, the City would not be able to regulate everything; thus the plan of
treatment as it currently exists was an attempt to strike a balance between
protecting the historic district while providing for individual property rights.
Mr. Vogel suggested that the Board look at the survey with the Plan of Treatment
in mind.
Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue opined that the Board needs to clearly define
their goals to the neighborhood. The brochure alludes to the goals, but it is not
specific and leaves one with many questions.
Following a brief discussion, Planner Repya offered to send Jane Lonnquist, the
chairman of the neighborhood group a letter of thanks for the hard work on the
survey. All agreed that would be an excellent idea. No formal action was taken.
7
Minutes — January 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. League of Women Voters Study:
Member Forrest, President of the Edina League of Women Voters thanked the
board for participating in the League's survey of boards and commissions. She
reported that once the study results were compiled, the League drafted the
following position statement: (adopted May 2006)
League of Women Voters — Edina supports:
*Codified, uniform term limits for all appointed advisory boards and
commissions;
*Appointment to advisory boards and commissions that reflect the
demographics of the City of Edina;
*Accurate, consistent, accessible and timely publication of:
* the purpose of advisory boards and commissions, openings on
boards and commissions, and application/appointment process;
* advisory board and commission members names, term dates
and contact information;
* city staff liaison names and contact information;
* advisory board and commission meeting notices, agendas and
minutes.
B. Board Members Identified on the Web Site:
Continuing the conversation from the League of Women Voter's survey, board
members discussed the importance of identifying the members of the board on
the City's web site. All agreed that would be a good idea. Discussion ensued
regarding whether to include phone numbers and/or addresses. Member Scherer
moved that the identity of the board members be listed on the City's web site.
Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Planner Repya indicated that she would ensure that the information posted for the
board was consistent with that of other boards and commissions.
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 13, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.e. pya
0
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like
to speak about something not on the agenda.
• Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
• Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments.
Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 9, 2007
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — DESIGN REVIEW:
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — RE -SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT:
IV. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Continued
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 13, 2007
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you
need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or
something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal, Arlene
Forrest, Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Nancy Scherer,
Lou Blemaster, Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Kojetin
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Ave.
Jean Rehkamp Larson, 4628 Arden Ave.
Bright Dornblaser, 4630 Drexel Ave.
New Member Introduction: Vice Chairman Marie Thorpe welcomed the
newest member to the Heritage Preservation Board, Sara Rubin. Sara, a Junior
at Edina High School represents the student population on the Board. The Board
members introduced themselves to Sara and shared how pleased they were to
have her as their newest member.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 9, 2007
Member Scherer moved approval of the Minutes from the January 9, 2007
meeting. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. Member Forrest asked to clarify
her comments when the minutes were approved last month, pointing out that they
should convey that "Member Forrest questioned whether it was appropriate to
conduct additional business, including approval of minutes, at the special meeting
on December 7t'," Members Scherer and Rofidal agreed to amend the motion to
reflect Member Forrest's correction. All voted aye. The motion carried.
I. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — DESIGN REVIEW:
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that City Code §850.20 requires that the
HPB include a plan of treatment... with guidelines for design review and specific
recommendations for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction"
as part of each Heritage Landmark nomination (Subd. 4-D). The ordinance also
states that HPB design review decisions for Certificates of Appropriateness "shall
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, the Comprehensive Heritage Preservation Pian, and the
heritage landmark preservation study for each designated property" (Subd. 10-C).
The Plan of Treatment that was approved by the City Council when the Country
Club District was designated a Heritage Landmark District (City Council
Resolution No. 2003-16) lays out the official protocol for dealing with "teardowns"
and references a document titled, "Guidelines for New Home Construction in the
Edina Country Club District," which was adopted at the time of the landmark
designation. Both the plan of treatment and the new home guidelines follow the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which state (in part):
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The
new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment
[Standard No. 9]
Furthermore, Mr. Vogel added that the Secretary of the Interior's standards state
that:
New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired [Standard No. 10].
The Secretary of the Interior has also issued guidelines for applying the
rehabilitation standards which pertain to historic districts as well as to individual
buildings and sites that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
Unlike the standards for rehabilitation, the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines
are not codified as National Register program requirements but are non-
prescriptive and intended to provide general guidance for those involved in the
design review process.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that recent events have illustrated three inherent conflicts
between the city's zoning code and the application of heritage preservation
standards in the Country Club District:
1) The current zoning code allows significantly more building coverage per lot
than was intended by the Country Club District's original developer and
homeowners. Several property owners have argued that allowing a new
home (or an old home with additions) to cover 25-30% of its lot with
building mass is not appropriate in the district because these large homes
are incompatible with the massing, size, and scale of the older homes.
The counter argument is that the bigger homes allow "an efficient
contemporary use" of private property while preserving the historic integrity
2
Minutes – February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
of the district as a planned residential community composed of houses of
varying ages, sizes, and styles.
2) Driveway width is a persistent planning and zoning issue in the Country
Club District, where most older homes were not designed to accommodate
multiple vehicles with off-street parking. This may not be a preservation
issue at all, per se, but it certainly has an impact on the appearance of the
homes in the district. The original covenants and zoning regulations (pre -
1950) do not address driveway width and the only relevant heritage
preservation standard is the one dealing with architectural compatibility.
The 1980 National Register nomination, on which the 2003 Heritage
Landmark designation was based, does not mention driveways or other
landscape features in either the description of the district or the statement
of significance.
3) The plan of treatment that was approved by the City Council in 2003 allows
for the demolition of homes in the district (that are not individually designed
as heritage landmarks) and provides direction for. the design of
replacement homes. (The HPB originally proposed that a COA would not
be approved for demolition of any historic home—i.e., a residence built
between 1922 and circa 1950—except in "extraordinary circumstances"
involving public health or safety issues; this recommendation was watered
down to: "The removal or alteration of any contributing historic building or
feature should be avoided whenever possible" [No. 6])
Mr. Vogel clarified that if the conflicts are to be resolved, the City will need to
amend its policies and procedures. The proposed re -survey of the Country Club
District will provide important data relating to lot coverage and driveway
configuration—until these data are in hand, the HPB should not recommend any
changes in either the zoning code or the plan of treatment.
With respect to the demolition of historic homes, Mr. Vogel observed that the
Board is currently in a position to advise the City Council to adopt a change in
policy by amending the plan of treatment to explicitly prohibit tear -downs of
historic homes that meet the ordinance definition for "heritage resource". Using
the original Country Club survey as the baseline of data on historic homes in the
district, every property evaluated as contributing to the historic character of the
neighborhood (i.e.,, those houses identified as "pivotal" and "complimentary" in
the 1980 National Register nomination form) would be treated as a heritage
resource worthy of preservation. Assuming that these houses represent a
defining characteristic of the district, the Secretary of the Interior's Standard for
Rehabilitation (No. 2) would be applied whenever the Board reviewed a
Certificate of Appropriateness application for demolition. The standard reads as
follows:
3
Minutes – February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The historic character of a property [in this case, the Country Club
District] shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
In closing, Mr. Vogel explained that by adopting a policy with stronger language
on tear -downs, the City would effectively eliminate the demolition of houses in the
Country Club District that were built before 1950—in order to obtain a Certificate
of Appropriateness for demolition of a heritage resource, an applicant would need
to show that the subject property was in deteriorated condition, represented a
public health/safety hazard, or had been so significantly altered from its historic
appearance that it no longer qualified as a heritage resource. Tear -downs of
houses that were not heritage resources would be allowed, subject to the
Secretary of the Interior's standards and the plan of treatment.
Member Scherer asked if the proposed change to the plan of treatment would
also address the issue of additions in the district. Mr. Vogel responded that
additions should also be addressed, however the until the re -survey of the district
is complete, the Board does not have the baseline information relative to what
currently exists from which to base a decision.
Member Rofidal asked how the proposed amendment would affect the teardown
and new construction of detached garages which has been the bulk of the work
the Board has addressed thus far. Mr. Vogel clarified that the change would only
address the homes, not detached garages.
Member Forrest observed that the proposed change to the plan of treatment
could be opening the door to more extensive remodeling projects in lieu of a
teardown. The Board agreed and stressed* the importance of addressing
additions once the survey data was available.
Member Forrest then moved to adopt a policy to clarify the plan of treatment for
the Country Club District so the tear down of homes built prior to 1951 is
considered ineligible for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Member Scherer
seconded the motion. `All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT – RE -SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT:
Consultant Vogel reported on the progress his firm had made on there -survey of
the Country Club District since the work commenced at the first of the year. Thus
far, the following work has been completed:
• Compiling background information on the district;
• Review of 190 survey and National register documents;
• Classification of homes in the district; and
• Winnowing the inventory – historic vs. not historic
4
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Addressing the "winnowing of the inventory", the Board agreed that by using the
historic window for the Country Club District of 1920 — 1950 (as identified in the
Historic Context Study for the City), that provides good justification to support the
amendment they previously voted to recommend to the plan of treatment
regarding tear downs in the district.
Regarding the survey work to be undertaken in February, Mr. Vogel explained
that he will begin a detailed inspection of each property identified as "pivotal" in
the 1980 inventory database to determine whether any of those properties meet
the eligibility criteria for individual designation as Edina Heritage Landmarks. He
added that he hopes to start the volunteers working on assembling and
organizing the existing inventory files.
Mr. Vogel further suggested that as a preliminary step, to conduct at least a
cursory check of current aerial photographs and recent building permit files to
improve the understanding of the extent of large additions to older homes in the
district. Board members agreed that they would be happy to participate in the
research and organization
Member Rofidal asked how the neighborhood would be notified about the
resurvey work taking place in the district. All agreed that a notice should be
placed in the Sun Current as well as a letter from the board to all- property owners
in the district. Planner Repya stated that she would work with Jennifer
Bennerotte, the City's Communications Director to make sure that a notice is
published in the Sun Current as well as mailed to the residents. No formal action
was taken.
IV. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ's):
The revised and updated list of FAA's from January's meeting was presented to
the Board for their final review. All agreed that they met their expectations.
Member Scherer moved to adopt the Frequently Asked {questions and post them
on the Heritage Preservation section of the City's web site. Member Blemaster
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Joint Meeting with Eden Prairie HPB
Consultant Vogel explained that the Eden Prairie Heritage Preservation Board
has expressed an interest in a joint meeting with the Edina HPB at the end of
2007. He pointed out that both cities share common interests and concerns
relative to heritage preservation and a joint meeting would be beneficial for all.
5
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board members agreed with Mr. Vogel and expressed their interest in scheduling
a meeting later in the year. No formal action was taken.
2. HPB Board Members Identified on the City's Web Site
Member Forrest recalled that at the last meeting Board members agreed to post
their email addresses as well as their names on the City's web site. However,
she noticed that the addresses had not been posted. Planner Repya explained
that it is City policy to post only the names of all board and commission members
on the web site.
3. Browndale Bridge and Edina Mill Site
Planner Repya explained that she received a letter from the Minnesota State
Historical Society in which they endorsed the proposed Edina Heritage Landmark
designation of the Browndale Bridge and Edina Mill Site. Both designations are
now ready to proceed to the Planning Commission for their input and then on to
the City Council for their final consideration.
Consultant Vogel suggested presenting the proposed designations to the
Planning Commission at their April 25t meeting, with the final stop at the City
Council on May 15th, which would be perfect timing since May is Preservation
Month. The Board agreed that the April 25th and May 15th meetings would be a
good idea. No formal action was taken.
4. Marie Thorpe's Last Meeting
Marie Thorpe shared with the Board that this would be her last meeting with the
Heritage Preservation Board. She explained that it is a City regulation that
residents may only serve on one board or commission. Currently, she serves on
both the Heritage Preservation Board and the Transportation Commission.
Moving forward, she will remain on the Transportation Commission and a new
member will be appointed to the Heritage Preservation Board. Board members
expressed their disappointment that they would be losing Ms. Thorpe from their
ranks and they wished her the best in the future.
VI. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
Bright Dornblaser — 4630 Drexel Avenue
Mr. Dornblaser stated that he had listened to all the business transacted by the
Board during the meeting, and he liked what he heard. He then asked if his
neighbor's kitchen addition on the rear of their home should have been reviewed
by the Heritage Preservation Board. Board members explained that a certificate
of appropriateness and review by the Heritage Preservation Board is not required
N.
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
for an addition to a home. They also thanked him for taking an interest in the
preservation of the Country Club District.
Jean Rehkamp Larson — 4628 Arden Avenue
Ms. Rehkamp Larson introduced herself to the Board - explained that she had
submitted an application to serve on the HPB, and expressed her interest in
becoming a board member.
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 13, 2007
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.epya
7
V&
AGENDA
THE REGULAR and ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS — Connie Fukuda and Jean Rehkamp Larson
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairman and Vice Chairman
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February13, 2007
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-1 4605 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — RE -SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT:
V. UPDATE BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE:
VI. 2007 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
VII. 2007 PRESERVATION AWARD — Appoint Subcommittee
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Joint Study Session with City Council — (TENTATIVE) Monday, March 27th,
11:30 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. (lunches provided
2. Preservation Month - May
IX. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 10, 2007
XI. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Karen Ferrara,
Nancy Scherer, Lou 'Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, Jean
Rehkamp Larson, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Tim Webb, 4605 Wooddale Avenue
Ed & Marie Jackson, 4604 Drexel Avenue
Introduction of New Members: Chairman Bob Kojetin welcomed the newest
members to the Heritage Preservation Board, Connie Fukuda and Jean Rehkamp
Larson. The Board members introduced themselves and shared how pleased
they were to have Connie and Jean as their newest members.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Planner Repya called for nominations to the office of Chairman of the Heritage
Preservation Board.
Member Blemaster moved to reappoint Bob'Kojetin to the office of Chairman.
Member Scherer seconded the motion. No other nominations were presented.
The vote was taken. All voted aye for Bob Kojetin to continue serving as
Chairman of the Board. The motion carried.
Chairman Kojetin called for nominations to the office of Vice Chairman of the
Heritage Preservation Board.
Member Blemaster moved to nominate Chris Rofidal to the office of Vice
Chairman. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. No other nominations were
presented. All voted aye for Chris Rofidal to serve as Vice Chairman of the
Board. The motion carried.
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 13, 2007
Member Ferrara moved approval of the Minutes from the February 13, 2007
meeting. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-07-1 4605 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of
the 4600 block of Wooddale Avenue. The existing home is identified as an
American Colonial Revival style constructed in 1931. A 2 -car detached garage is
located in the northeast corner of the lot, accessed by a driveway running along
the north property line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 426 square foot detached
garage which was increased from a 1 -car to a 2 -car structure in 1948, and
building a new, detached garage in its place. The plan illustrates the new
structure will maintain a 5.1 foot side yard setback from the north and a 4.5 foot
rear yard setback from the east; a minimum 3 foot setback is required. A new
curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will provide access to the
proposed garage.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new 2 stall detached garage is proposed to be
24'x 24' or 576 square feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to
compliment the architectural style of the home which is currently undergoing an
addition and exterior remodel. James Hardi Shingle siding is proposed for the
walls and GAF Timberline shingles are proposed for the roof. The height of the
proposed garage is shown to be 20 feet at the highest peak, 14.6 feet at the mid-
point of the gable, and 9.3 feet at the eave line. The lot coverage for the property
with the proposed garage and the ongoing addition will be 2,315 square feet in
area or 24.4%; the maximum allowed by code is 25% or 2,371.5 square feet.
The proponent has provided information regarding characteristics of garages
adjacent to the subject property. The data indicates that the proposed garage is
taller than the surrounding structures, however, appears to be within the range of
new garages previously approved by the Board.
Ms. Repya explained that Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed plans and
observed that the dimensions are right down the middle, with new garages
reviewed in the district, noting that the abbreviated cornice returns on the gable -
ends were a very nice touch. The only problem he identified was with the east
and north elevations which face away from the house. The proposed wood
'r:
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
shingle siding gives the structure some character and does, indeed, match the
finishes on the house. However, the guidelines for garages recommend avoiding
undecorated expanses of wall surface longer than 16 ft.
Mr. Vogel explained that if the plan proposed a 24x24 ft. garage with stucco or
horizontal lap siding, adding some kind of architectural feature (such as a window
or molding) to break up the "blank" wall would be preferable, however, in this
case, the proposed shingles will add texture to an otherwise flat surface; the
shadow effect of the shingles should also add a bit of visual interest. To soften
the expanse of undecorated walls on the north and east elevations, the addition
of some vegetative landscaping (shrubbery) could help further soften the view
from adjacent properties
Planner Repya concluded that the plans provided with subject request clearly
illustrate the scale and scope of the project relative to the principle home.
Furthermore, the information provided supporting the subject Certificate of
Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Country Club Plan of Treatment, thus approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness for the new garage is recommended subject to the plans
presented.
Board Member Comments:
Member Rofidal observed that since massing has been such a huge issue in the
city, the proposed 576 square foot garage concerns him since it would be larger
and taller than the surrounding garages.
Member Scherer shared Rofidal's concerns, adding that the lack of detail on the
east and north elevations also appears to be an issue, in light of the fact that the
guidelines for garages indicates that undecorated walls longer than 16 feet
should be discouraged whenever possible. Ms. Scherer pointed out that the
north elevation was less of a concern due to the expanse of roof and adjacent
fence which provide a visual break. However, she opined that a window on the
gable end would address the guidelines on the east elevation.
Member Fukuda agreed with Members Rofidal and Scherer, pointing out that it
appears that something is missing on the east elevation.
Member Ferrara stated that she disagreed with the contention that the shake
siding provides enough texture and shadows to break up the blank wall —
observing that to be a subjective statement. She added that if the guidelines
state that undecorated walls longer than 16 feet should be discouraged, than it
shouldn't matter whether the walls are clad with stucco, shake siding or clap
board siding. It is the Board's responsibility to be consistent with decisions.
K
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Rehkamp Larson noted that she did not believe the 24' x 24' garage was
an excessively large 2 car garage — it allows for the parking of two vehicles and
some storage space. Addressing the height of the garage, Ms. Rehkamp Larson
noted that while lowering the proposed pitch of the garage could be more
compatible with the neighboring garages; the proposed 8/12 pitch does match the
pitch of the house which is also commendable.
Member Blemaster observed that it is the job of the Heritage Preservation Board
to ensure that new construction in the district is pleasing. She added that while it
is important to ensure that the garage is compatible with the neighboring garages,
it is also important that the garage is compatible with the architectural style of the
home.
Homeowner Comments:
Mr. Tim Webb explained that he purchased the home last summer and
discovered that both the home and garage had received little attention over the
years. The garage was in particularly bad shape. He expressed his delight at
living in the Country Club District, as well as his.desire for the proposed work to
comply with the district requirements.
Neighbor Comments:
Ed and Marie Jackson, 4604 Drexel Avenue explained that they live east of the
proposed garage and are pleased that the existing run-down garage will be
replaced. They stated that the proposed garage looks like a vast improvement,
and asked if the Webb's were proposing a fence or landscaping. Mr. Webb
indicated that he would be happy to work with the neighbors, and would consider
a fence and/or landscaping.
Decision:
Member Blemaster moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
new detached garage in the rear yard subject to the plans presented and the
condition that a window be added to the east elevation. Member Ferrara
seconded the motion.
Members Rofidal and Scherer expressed their continued concern regarding the
height of the garage, noting that massing of new structures needs to be
considered.
Members Kojetin, Fukuda, Rehakamp Larson, Rubin, Ferrara, and Blemaster
voted aye. Members Rofidal and Scherer voted nay. The motion carried.
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT RE -SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT:
Consultant Vogel reported that during the month of February he continued with
background research concentrating on the district's development and assembling
4
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
all of the pertinent plans and documents. Historic preservation work and planning
done for public works and utilities projects was incorporated into the re -survey.
Work has also continued with assessing the reliability of the information
contained in the 1979 and 1980 survey and National Register nomination.
Vogel pointed out that the city's public works department has provided plans and
data relating to the proposed utilities work in the district. Hopefully, these data
can be used to determine the current extent of lot coverage and average
driveway width. Because the district is so large, it may be cost-effective to
conduct a sample survey of selected blocks or streets that are likely to be
representative of the entire district.
Looking ahead, Vogel pointed out that in March, with the help of the HPB, he
would continue to assemble and analyze graphic material (maps, plans, and
photographs) which can provide information that corroborates or clarifies the data
on historic houses that is currently on file. Property tax assessment records,
including assessor photographs and sketch plans, will be used to document
changes which have occurred at individual houses over time. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture and other government agencies have been taking
aerial photos of Hennepin County, including the Country Club District, since 1938
(the area has been re-photographed every 2-5 years since the 1940's) and these
records should be extremely useful in illustrating changes in the built
environment.
Discussion ensued among the Board regarding ways they could be involved with
the survey activities. All agreed that it would e a good idea to set up several work
sessions when they could assist with the survey data. It was decided that several
evening and a weekend sessions would probably work best with varying
schedules. Planner Repya agreed to email the Board a selection of several dates
and times to choose from before the next meeting.
V. UPDATE BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURES:
Planner Repya explained that at the annual meeting, the Board is required to
review the Bylaws and Rules of Procedures to ensure that they accurately reflect
the Board's activities. Ms. Repya pointed out that under the `Procedures",
Section E. 1. "Annual Meeting" it indicates that the annual meeting will occur in
January of each year. It has been the practice of the Board to hold the annual
meeting in March, after the new board appointments have been made. This
section should be amended to reflect that the annual meeting is held "each
March".
5
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The Board agreed that March should be designated as the month for the annual
meeting. A discussion ensued regarding other changes that should be made and
the following were agreed upon:
A.2. Section 850.20 of the City Code should be added
D.1. The number of members on the Board should be changed from
seven (7) to nine (9).
E.1. The annual meeting should be changed from January to March.
E.S. The number required for a quorum should be defined as five (5).
E.10. The steps for landmark designations should be expanded to
include review by the Planning Commission and Public Hearing
by the City Council.
E.11. The use of the term Certificates of Appropriateness should
replace reference to city permits.
E.13. Add — Meetings shall be held in full compliance with the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
VI. 2007 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
Planner Repya explained that at the annual meeting, the goals and objectives for
the coming year are established. As a starting point the Board reviewed the 2006
Goals and Objectives to determine those which were accomplished, and those
which should be carried forward into 2007.
2006 Goals and Obiectives:
• Complete the comprehensive heritage preservation plan.
• Initiate a city-wide survey of significant properties associated with the
heritage of Edina women.
• Work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and others to develop
long-range plans for preservation and heritage interpretation at the Edina
Mill and Mill Pond sites.
• Increase efforts to provide city officials with information, education and
training in heritage preservation.
• Work with Public Works, Parks and other city departments to ensure that
historic properties are taken into account in planning for city infrastructure
maintenance and improvements.
• Increase public education and outreach efforts.
Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed that the heritage preservation plan
had been completed thus could be deleted from the 2007 activities. The
remaining activities were ongoing and could remain on the list. The Board then
agreed to add the following activities to complete the 2007 list:
Re -survey the Country Club District
R
Minutes — March 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Re-evaluate the design guidelines for the Country Club District's
Plan of Treatment
Create a field session (tour) for the 2007 National Trust
Convention (If our proposal is accepted.)
VII. 2007 PRESERVATION AWARD: Appoint Subcommittee:
Planner Repya explained that because May is "Preservation Month", the 2007
Heritage Award is scheduled to be announced at the May 15th City Council
meeting. Requests for nominations will be published in the spring issue of "About
Town" as well as in the Edina Sun Current.
In 2006 no qualifying nominations were received thus there was not a recipient.
The Board expressed their hope that several nominations will submitted from
which to choose. Consultant Vogel advised that Board that they should be
looking for qualifying projects and submit the nominations; pointing out that the
nomination for the last recipient, the Edina Theater was submitted by Ann
Swenson when she was a member of the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding several potential properties. Planner Repya agreed
to email board members the nomination form to have on hand in case they run
across a possible submittal.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairman Kojetin suggested that a line item be added to the agenda for
"Correspondence" which would provide a time to discuss any correspondence or
articles provided for the Board's review. All agreed that would be a good idea.
IX. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 10, 2007
XI. ADJOURNMENT 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
7
AGENDA
THE REGULAR and ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 13, 2007
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — Resurvey Progress Report:
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT — Moratorium on Demolitions:
IV. PRESERVATION MONTH - 2007 PRESERVATION AWARD:
V. RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION:
VI. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE — Field Session Planning:
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
IX. CORRESPONDENCE:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 8, 2007
XI. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL – COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Laura Benson,
Nancy Scherer, Lou Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, Jean
Rehkamp Larson, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 13, 2007
Member Rofidal moved approval of the Minutes from the March 13, 2007
meeting. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT – RE -SURVEY PROGRESS REPORT:
Consultant Vogel reported that during the month of March, information was
compiled about the architectural history of garages in general, as well as data on
the types of garages that were built in the Country Club district during its period of
historical significance. He explained that some of the more interesting "tidbits"
include:
• Purpose-built garages first appeared soon after the invention of the
automobile (before 1910, most cars were stored in horse stables or sheds)
– the word itself is French, from garer, which originally meant "to put
something in a place where it will be protected" but by late 1800's was
commonly used to describe a covered place used to shelter railroad cars
• The first architect -designed automobile garage for a single family
residence appears to have been built in 1912; the architect who designed
it referred to the structure as "a new type of outbuilding" similar to the
traditional carriage house
• The "up -and -over" folding garage door was invented in 1921 and the first
electric garage door opener appeared on the market in 1926
• From old photographs, it appears that the first generation of detached
garages in the Country Club District were anything but "carriage houses"—
Minutes — April 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
the great majority appear to have been quite basic and utilitarian, really
little more than undecorated sheds designed to protect an automobile from
the elements
• According to trade magazines, attached or semi -attached garages first
construction until after World War II
• The front -loading "tuck -under" attached garage was widely touted in home
builder magazines published in the 1940's as a construction cost-saving
innovation, as well as a modern convenience that also saved space in the
backyard
• Prefabricated garages and mail-order garage plans have been available
since the early 1900's ("garage kits" began appearing in the Sears catalog
around 1928), but they did not enjoy widespread popularity until the 1950's
• Two -car garages were not the norm for new home construction in the Twin
Cities until the late 1960's judging from newspaper ads, some home
builders continued to offer single -stall garages right up until the early
1970's
• According to studies by urban anthropologists and the home remodeling
industry, the typical suburban family usually cannot store all of its personal
vehicles in their garage (particularly if it was built prior to 1960), while
roughly 1/3 of all the attached garages built before 1970 have been
converted to dens, game rooms, and other living space; sociological
research also strongly supports the conventional notion that as the kitchen
is the domain of women, garages are male strongholds with their own
distinctive social life and etiquette
As the re -survey progresses, several historical and architectural themes have
been discovered that were not recognized in the 1980 National Register
registration document or subsequent local history publications. For example, it
appears that the original development plan for the district placed more emphasis
on landscape features and streetscape qualities than had been previously
understood. It is also now apparent that the houses in the district are
characterized by two major phases of development, the first -in -the late 1920's,
with another pulse of building in the late 1930's and 1940's; each cycle of home
building appears to be represented by distinctive kinds of houses in different parts
of the district.
Mr. Vogel added that preparations are being made for members of the HPB to
more actively participate in the survey by recording information about the physical
development of individual homes based on property tax assessment data.
Volunteers and city staff are also expected to play a critical role in the review and
organization of survey data as the survey progresses.
Discussion ensued regarding the upcoming work of the Board. All agreed that a
work session before the regular HPB meeting fits well with their schedules.
2
Minutes — April 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Planner Repya agreed to schedule time prior to the May 8th meeting when the
Board can receive training on how to fill in the property information cards. No
formal action was taken.
M. C1"1 JAiT!7'Y (`1.11,1 D1�')T,^-1r T_ ?A--r#ni'sga7r "1 '"3f;O n. .
Planner Repya reported that the joint meeting with the City Council on Tuesday,
April 3rd went very well. The Council was supportive of the work the HPB has
outlined for the coming year. There was also consensus that the policy to restrict
the teardown of a home in the Country Club District built prior to 1951 was a step
in the right direction.
There was agreement that until the research of the Country Club District is
complete, the Plan of Treatment should not be changed — the rationale being that
once the re -survey is complete; in addition to the teardown issue, subjects such
as driveways, grading, etc., should also be addressed. That being the
case....the Council agreed it would be wise to put a moratorium in place for the
teardown of homes in the District built prior to 1951.
Members Kojetin, Rofidal and Rehkamp-Larson, commented that they were
pleased with the dialogue....the City Council members appeared very supportive
and appreciative of the HPB initiatives.
Ms. Repya then presented the proposed ordinance addressing the moratorium
for the Board to review; explaining that City Manager, Gordon Hughes is planning
on presenting the proposed moratorium to the City Council at their next meeting,
on April 17th. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed ordinance. The
response of the Board was positive, however, there was confusion with the
definition of the term "Demolition":
Demolition means: (1) to tear down or remove any part of the front street
fagade of a dwelling, or (2) to remove and replace the roof structure that
changes the pitch of the roof, or (3) to tear down more than 50% of the
dwelling.
Some felt that item #1 addressing the front street facade was not clear and may be
difficult to administer. Some questions that were raised include: What is
controlled? How will the review be administered? What if a building permit is not
required — who will oversee this? Member Benson suggested that language be
added to identify those changes that would require a building or demolition permit.
Member Scherer observed that the language in this ordinance is only for the period
of the moratorium. After the survey is complete, the Plan of Treatment will be
revised to reflect both the results of the survey as well as the activity in the District
over the moratorium period.
3
Minutes — April 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Planner Repya stated that she will share the Board's concerns and comments with
the City Attorney and Planning Staff as they work on fine tuning the proposed
ordinance prior to presenting it to the City Council.
Planner Repya explained that thus far one nomination for the 2007 Heritage
Award has been received for the Ralph Rapson house at 4729 Annaway Drive.
The deadline for nominations is Friday, April 13th. Robert Vogel added that a
second nomination is forthcoming for the Sly House at 6128 Brookview Avenue.
Member Blemaster stated that she understands that the current owner of the
Rapson property, while very flattered, currently does not have the time to address
the award. However, Ms. Blemaster has spoken with Jodi Peterson, the former
owner of the home, who was responsible for the renovation project. Ms. Peterson
has offered to arrange a tour of the home for the HPB with the current owner. All
agreed that would be important. Planner Repya cautioned that the timing for the
presentation of the award on May 15th is very short, and since it is important that
the owner of the property be part of the process perhaps that should be taken into
consideration with this nomination.
General discussion ensued. Chairman Kojetin offered to contact the owners of
the Sly House to further discuss the Heritage Award. No formal action was taken.
V. RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION: - Historic Preservation Tax Credit
Consultant Vogel provided an update on the status of the Historic Preservation
Tax Credit bill (SF 385), explaining that the bill was left out of the Omnibus Tax
Bill passed by the Senate Tax Committee last week, but may be included in the
House's Omnibus Tax Bill (see HF 1240). Edina's Ron Erhardt is NOT one of the
bill's cosponsors, but is a member of the House Tax Committee — his stance on
the tax credit legislation is not clear.
Vogel pointed out that the proposed state tax credit would provide a 25% state
income tax credit for qualified historic rehabilitation projects involving historic
commercial and residential properties.
He added that the Federal investment tax credit (ITC) that has been on the books
since the 1970s provides a 20% income tax credit for rehabilitation of income-
producing properties. The projects must be certified by the state historic
preservation officers and, of course, most also meet the requirements of the IRS.
The Historic Homeowners Assistance Act has been introduced in Congress but
never had a vote -- it would extend the commercial property ITC to residential
properties.
Minutes — April 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Generally, properties qualify for the preservation tax incentives (state and federal)
if they are listed in the National Register or are located in a locally designated
historic district. Vogel further stated that as he understands the proposal,
Minnesota tax credit legislation would apply to individually designated heritage
landmarks in ri?i-s T9 (` ;rtifio{4 Governments.
Board members thanked Mr. Vogel for the information and expressed a desire to
be kept up to date on the legislation. They added that if a letter of support from
the Board would be advisable, they would be in favor providing that. Vogel stated
that he would keep the Board posted. No formal action was taken.
VI. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE — Field Session Planning:
Consultant Vogel explained that on May 15th he will take the staff of the National
Trust on a dry run of the Edina tour which will be offered as part of their National
Conference on October 4th. The tour should take approximately 3 hours, and
once he receives feedback from the Trust, he will bring their reactions back to the
HPB. Chairman Kojetin expressed an interest in joining the dry run on May 15tH
The Board agreed that they looked forward to showcasing historic Edina to the
National Trust conference. No formal action was taken.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
Comprehensive Plan Update — Member Rofidal advised the Board that the City
is in the midst of updating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and as part of the
process, providing workshop opportunities for Edina residents to add their input.
Rofidal stated that he has attended two workshops thus far and was surprised at
the low attendance. He encouraged his fellow Board members to be part of the
planning process by attending the remaining workshops.
Planner Repya thanked Member Rofidal for his announcement, and explained
that the date for the next workshop had not been set; however, when that
information is available, she offered to keep the HPB advised. Board members
thanked Member Rofidal for the information and expressed an interest in being
kept in the loop.
VIII. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
Kitty O'Dea — 4610 Bruce Avenue provided the following comments:
She thanked the Board for taking a stance on the tear down of homes in
the Country Club District by proposing the moratorium on demolitions.
She offered assistance from the Country Club neighborhood on work
involved with the survey of the neighborhood.
She expressed frustration with the construction of the home to her north
(4608 Bruce Avenue); explaining that the materials being used, while
5
Minutes — April 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
consistent with what was on the plans, look different than what was
expected. She asked the Board to consider "expectation management",
addressing a better explanation of building terminology to the lay person.
Ai
Board would take them under advisement.
IX. CORRESPONDENCE: None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 8, 2007 (5:00 p.m. for survey work session)
XI. ADJOURNMENT 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.epya
0
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50' STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 10, 2007
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-2 4631 Casco Avenue
New Detached Garage
2. H-07-3 4609 Arden Avenue
New Detached Garage
3. H-07-4 4912 Arden Avenue
New Detached Garage
III. 2007 EDINA HERITAGE AWARD: 6128 Brookview Avenue, Dick & Jackie Whitbeck
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
*
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE:
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 12, 2007
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Survey Progress Report
Demolition Moratorium Update
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Kreiter also explained that the new living space created in the old attached
garage will be reduced in size by about ten feet to provide more yard space as
well as to maintain the appropriate lot coverage for the property.
Decision:
Member Rofidal commented that he liked the design of the garage and moved
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the plans presented.
Member Ferrara seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
2. H-07-3 4609 Arden Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of
the 4600 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home is identified as an American
Colonial Revival, constructed in 1940. A 2 -car attached garage is located in the
rear of the home, accessed by a driveway running along the south property line.
The subject request involves converting the existing 2 stall attached garage into
living space and building a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the
rear yard.
The new detached garage is proposed to measure 22'x 24', or 528 square feet in
area. The garage has been designed to compliment the American Colonial
architectural style of the home, with shingles, cedar shake siding, soffit, fascia
and trim detail to match. A window with shutters is proposed on the west
elevation above the overhead doors; there is also a window on the south
elevation, a window and service door on the north elevation, and a gable vent
proposed for the east/rear elevation. The height of the garage is shown to be 19
feet at the highest peak, 13.8 feet to the mid -point of the gable, and 8.75 feet to
the eave line. The setback of the proposed garage is shown to be 3 feet from the
side and rear lot lines — the minimum required by code.
Ms. Repya observed that the information provided regarding the surrounding
properties indicates that they all have attached garages with living space above
them — this will be the only detached structure in the rear yard of all the adjacent
properties.
The design for the proposed garage is consistent with new garages reviewed in
the district regarding the size and scale. The plan demonstrates an attention to
detail on all elevations which is of particular importance in light of the fact that this
will be the only detached garage in the rear yard of all the abutting properties.
In conclusion, Planner Repya observed that the information provided supporting
the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning
3
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ordinance and the Country Club Plan of Treatment, thus approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness for the new garage is recommended subject to the
plans presented.
Board Member Comments:
Member Fukuda liked the design of the garage, but raised some concern about
the proposed garage being the only detached structure of all the surrounding
properties.
Member Rofidal also liked the design, particularly the fact that attention to detail
was addressed on all four elevations, since it will be the only detached garage of
all the neighboring properties.
Member Scherer appreciated the design of the garage, but questioned the 19
foot height proposed considering that it will be the only detached garage in the
immediate area.
Member Benson commented that she liked the location of the proposed garage in
the south east corner of the yard because the straight driveway along the south
property line will greatly reduce the amount of concrete in the rear yard, providing
much more impervious surface.
Homeowner Comment:
Jayne Tuttle explained that by converting the existing substandard, attached
garage on the north side of the house into living space and building the detached
garage in the south east corner of the rear yard they will be able to tear out the
driveway which takes up almost their entire rear yard. She added that the
proposed plan will provide for a much more livable outdoor space. Ms. Tuttle
added that they had shared the plans with the surrounding neighbors.
Decision:
Member Benson moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness subject
to the plans presented. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
3. H-07-4 4912 Arden Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4900 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home is identified as an English
Cottage style, constructed in 1938. A 2 -car detached garage is located in the
northwest corner of the property, setback 5 feet from the side and rear property
4
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
lines. The garage is accessed by a driveway running along the south property
line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 20'x 22', 2 stall detached
garage and building a new detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear
yard.
The new detached garage is proposed to measure 22'x 24', or 528 square feet in
area. The garage has been designed to compliment the English Cottage
architectural style of the home, with asphalt shingles, cedar siding, soffit, fascia
and trim detail to match. Two windows and a service door are proposed on the
north elevation. The height of the garage is shown to be 14.5 feet at the highest
peak of the hip roof, 11.58 feet to the mid -point of the gable, and 8.5 feet to the
eave line. The setback of the proposed garage is shown to be 3.5 feet from the
side and rear lot lines, which will be accessed by the existing 8.3 foot driveway on
the south side of the property.
Ms. Repya pointed out that photographs were provided of the detached garages
which abut the property to the north, south and west. The approximate peak
heights of these structures which average from 19 feet to 15 feet are all taller
than the proposed garage at 14.5 feet.
The applicant acknowledges that the south and west walls are undecorated, and
understands that the HPB is sensitive to this subject. They have indicated that
the three abutting garages - to the south at 4914 Arden Avenue, to the west at
4911 Bruce Avenue and the north at 4910 Arden Avenue all have undecorated
walls which face the subject property. Furthermore, to require windows to be
located on walls that are not visible to the home raises concerns regarding
security on the property.
In conclusion, Planner Repya stated that the plans provided with subject request
illustrate the scale and scope of the project relative to the principle home and
adjacent properties. Furthermore, the information provided supporting the
subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Country Club Plan of Treatment
Regarding the blank walls depicted on the west and south elevations; the
applicant has asked the Board to consider the location of the proposed garage
abutting other garages, all with undecorated walls which are as tall, or taller than
the proposed structure. Ms. Repya added that if the Board concurs that due to
the siting of the garage relative to the surrounding structures, that no details
should be required on the south or west elevations, staff would recommend
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the detached garage subject to
the plans presented.
9
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board Member Comments:
Several Board members questioned why the existing garage had already been
demolished. Planner Repya explained that there had been some confusion with
the Building Department — the contractor had not been made aware of the
required Heritage Preservation Board review of the new garage.
Member Rofidal commented that he liked the design of the garage — it is smaller
in stature than most plans the Board has seen while still providing 528 sq. ft. of
floor area. The garage also does a good job of complimenting the home.
Board members asked Consultant Vogel's opinion about the south and west walls
of the structure having no accents or additional detail. Mr. Vogel explained that
the job of the Board is to determine the appropriateness of a proposed project
taking into consideration the nuances of the particular property. The proposed
plan with the south and west walls having not detail would be appropriate
considering they face detached garages in the abutting yards which also have
blank walls, all tucked into the corner of their respective yards.
Board members agreed that they liked the plans presented with this proposal,
particularly the photographs of the abutting garages which indicated the proximity
to the proposed garage as well as the respective heights of each structure.
Homeowner Comments:
Susan Goldstein commented that since she moved into her house, new garages
have been constructed on the properties abutting her property, thus it is unlikely
that those structures would be replaced.
Bill Brueggeman of Residential Renewal, Inc., the contractor for the homeowner
explained the confusion with the permitting process and the desire to work with
the Heritage Preservation Board.
Decision:
Member Scherer commented that she feels it is important when reviewing
requests for Certificates of Appropriateness, to take into consideration the design
of each structure as it relates to the property and its surroundings. In this case, to
have undecorated walls on the south and west elevations which face blank walls
of neighboring garages makes sense. Mrs. Scherer then moved approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the plans presented. Member Ferrara
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
A
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
III. EDINA HERITAGE AWARD — Dick & Jackie Whitbeck
6128 Brookview Avenue
Planner Repya introduced Dick and Jackie Whitbeck, owners of the Sly House
and the 2007 Heritage Award recipients. She explained that the City Council
recognized the Whitbeck's at their meeting on May 1, 2007, which was a great
kick-off for Heritage Preservation Month.
The Board enjoyed discussing the history of the Whitbeck's home and sharing
photographs of the basement family room that was added.
Chairman Kojetin presented the Whitbeck's with the 2007 Heritage Award plaque
recognizing the care and concern they have shown when making renovations to
their historic home. Mr. Kojetin added that the Sly House has been determined
eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark, and he has discussed
with the Whitbeck's the possibility of designating their home in the future.
Dick and Jackie Whitbeck thanked the Board for the honor of receiving the 2007
Heritage Award. They added that they look forward to future discussions with the
Board regarding the potential historic designation of their property.
IV. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
JoAnne Farley, 4615 Bruce Avenue
Speaking for the neighbors on Bruce Avenue, Ms. Farley thanked the Board for
requesting a moratorium on the demolition of homes in the Country Club District.
V. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
* Resurvey Progress Report -
Consultant Vogel reported that during the month of April work continued on the
organization of the district inventory and review of the 1980 survey data. A filing
system has been set up and the original survey and tax assessment records have
been merged. The HPB has made a number of crucial decisions about the kind
of documentation that should be included in the inventory files and how to
maintain the inventory so that there is rapid, easy access to the information.
The "windshield" or reconnaissance phase of the district re -survey began in late
April and should be completed by late May. This task involves nothing more than
simply driving the streets of the district and taking notes on the houses, streets,
and landscape characteristics that are visible from the public right-of-way.
Windshield survey is an efficient way to cross-check the findings of the 1980
survey against the homes as they exist today. One of the most important
functions of the windshield survey is to identify "problem" houses (houses built
after 1980, houses with extensively remodeled facades or that are currently
7
Minutes – May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
undergoing renovation, properties misidentified by the 1980 survey) that could
present unforeseen design review issues. The records being taken on individual
houses are usually abbreviated—more detailed information will be gathered later
when we start walking the district later this spring.
Research continued on the historic preservation values of garages and the
refinement of design review guidelines related to new detached garages.
Vogel concluded that he has begun to reclassify the historic homes in the district
with respect to architectural style. The 1980 survey and the resulting National
Register form created a complicated system for architectural classification, with
numerous subcategories for each of the several period revival styles. The re-
survey will utilize the style -type classifications used in McAlester's A Field Guide
to American Houses – for example, the houses categorized in 1980 as "American
Colonial," "American Georgian," "Cape Cod Colonial" and "Dutch Colonial" will be
reclassified as Colonial Revival; "English Cottage" and "English Tudor" houses
will be identified as Tudor, etc.
Vogel added that the project is on schedule but is consuming more consultant
time than was originally anticipated.
Board members asked Mr. Vogel if the amount of consultant time on the project
was problematic. He explained that it was not – he simply needed to adjust his
schedule.
Demolition Moratorium Update –
Planner Repya explained that the City Council passed the ordinance amendment
for the demolition moratorium for homes built prior to 1951 in the Country Club
District at their April 17, 2007 meeting. She explained that the moratorium is for
one year to allow the HPB time to complete the reevaluation of the Country Club
District and determine any changes to be made to the plan of treatment.
Ms. Repya reminded the Board that at their last meeting there was a good deal of
discussion regarding the definition of "demolition". She pointed out that the City
Attorney suggested that the definition for the purpose of the moratorium should
be no more restrictive than the current plan of treatment. Board members agreed
that was a good idea.
The Board thanked Planner Repya for the update. No formal action was taken.
0
Minutes — May 8, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
• Tax Credit Update
Consultant Vogel explained that the pending tax bill that had once included a
provision for historic residential and commercial properties now looks as though it
will not include either residential or commercial properties. However, there is still
a glimmer of hope on the horizon'— it appears that "This Old House" tax credit for
tax deferment on improvements to historic properties may be reinstated. He
promised to keep the Board advised as the legislative wheels keep turning.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE:
Preserve Minnesota Conference — June 12, 2007
Planner Repya explained that the Minnesota Historical Society's annual
conference will take place in June this year in St. Paul because the National Trust
Conference will be in town in October. The date is Tuesday, June 12th from 8:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The City will pay the $35.00 registration fee for any members
interested in attending.
Chairman Kojetin stated that he is planning on attending and would be happy to
drive anyone else who was interested. Members Scherer and Fukuda offered to
check their calendars and let Ms. Repya know if they would be available to
attend.
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 12, 2007 (with a 5:00 work session)
IX. ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
E
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 8, 2007
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-5 4622 Casco Avenue
New Detached Garage
2. H-07-6 4523 Casco Avenue
New Detached Garage
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Survey Progress Report
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 10, 2007
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Karen Ferrara,
Nancy Scherer, Lou Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, Jean
Rehkamp Larson, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Tom Mason, 4622 Casco Avenue
Gail Simons, 4620 Casco Avenue
Don McCormick, 4523 Casco Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 8, 2007
Member Ferrara moved approval of the Minutes from the May 8, 2007 meeting.
Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-5 4622 Casco Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4600 block of Casco Avenue. The existing home is identified as an American
Colonial Revival with Georgian Revival influence, constructed in 1941. A 2 -car
attached garage is located in the rear of the home on the south side, accessed by
a driveway running along the north property line.
The subject request involves converting the existing 2 stall attached garage into
living space which will be reduced in size somewhat to meet lot coverage
requirements, and building a new detached garage in the northwest corner of the
rear yard.
Ms. Repya explained that the new detached garage is proposed to measure 20' x
20', or 400 square feet in area. The garage has been designed to compliment
the Colonial architectural style of the home, with asphalt shingles and stucco
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
siding to match. Windows with planter boxes are proposed on the north, west
and south elevations. A service door is also proposed for the south elevations.
The front or east elevation will have external wall lanterns on either side of a
double overhead carriage door. The height of the garage is shown to be 16 feet
at the highest peak, 12.5 feet to the mid -point of the gable, and 8.5 feet to the
eave line. The setback of the proposed garage is shown to be 3 feet from the
side and rear lot lines. With the introduction of the 400 square foot garage on the
property, the lot coverage for the property will be maximized at 30%.
Information was provided regarding the heights of the surrounding garages; the
properties to the north and south have attached garages. The three properties to
the west on Drexel Avenue all have detached garages that are taller than the
proposed garage.
Ms. Repya concluded that the data provided with the application indicates the
proposed garage is consistent with the surrounding structures, and appears to be
within the range of new garages previously approved by the Board. Staff finds
that the plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope
of the project relative to the principle home as well as the adjacent properties.
The plans also demonstrate an attention to detail on all elevations. Furthermore,
the information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness
meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club Plan of
Treatment, thus approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new garage
is recommended subject to the plans presented.
Board Member Comments:
Member Blemaster stated that she was pleased to see architectural details on all
elevations and found the garage door to be interesting.
Member Fukuda said she thought the planter boxes under the windows added a
nice detail.
Board members agreed that the application package was very complete and did
a good job of representing the proposed project.
Homeowner Comments:
Tom Mason thanked the Board for their support and added that he found the
suggestions from City Staff to be very helpful as he was designing the garage.
Decision:
Member Blemaster moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to build
a new detached garage in the northwest corner of the rear yard subject to the
2
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
plans presented. Member Ferrara seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
2. H-07-6 4523 Casco Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of
the 4500 block of Casco Avenue. The existing home is identified as an English
Cottage style constructed in 1927. A 2 -car detached garage is located in the
rear yard, 13 feet from the side (north) lot line and 20 feet from the rear (east lot
line), accessed by a driveway running along the north property line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 407 square foot detached
garage and building a new, 528 square foot detached garage. The plan
illustrates the new structure will maintain a 4 foot side yard setback from the north
and a 3 foot rear yard setback from the east; a minimum 3 foot setback is
required. A new curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will provide
access to the proposed garage.
The new 2 stall detached garage is proposed to be 22'x 24' or 528 square feet in
area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the architectural
style of the home which recently underwent an addition to the rear. Hardi panel
stucco siding is proposed for the walls and GAF Timberline 30 shingles to match
the house are proposed for the roof. The height of the proposed garage is shown
to be 18 feet at the highest peak, 13.4 feet at the mid -point of the gable, and 9
feet at the eave line. The lot coverage for the property with the proposed garage
will be 2,028 square feet in area or 29.2%; the maximum allowed by code is 30%
or 2,083 square feet.
Information was provided regarding characteristics of garages adjacent to the
subject property. The data indicates that the proposed garage is taller than the
surrounding structures, however, appears to be within the range of new garages
previously approved by the Board.
Planner Repya concluded that the plans provided with subject request
demonstrate an attention to detail on all elevations, and clearly illustrate the scale
and scope of the project relative to the principle home. Furthermore, the
information provided meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Country Club Plan of Treatment, thus approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness for the new garage is recommended subject to the plans
presented.
3
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board Member Comments:
Members Scherer, Rehkamp Larson, Ferrara and Kojetin questioned the use of
hardi panel stucco on the exterior rather than traditional stucco.
Ms. Rehkamp Larson observed that the joints created by the panels need to be
caulked and would create a very flat texture compared to that of the home. She
further opined that the application of stucco panels would not compliment the
traditional stucco of the home.
Consultant Vogel explained that hardi panel stucco is a product usually found on
commercial structures, which has a flatter texture when compared to traditional
stucco. He added that the panels could be considered adequate on an accessory
structure in the back of the lot, pointing out that the accessory structure should
compliment the house, not necessarily match.
Member Rofidal stated that he was concerned about the height of the structure —
at 18 feet to the peak; the proposed garage will be 6 feet taller than the garage to
the north and 2 feet taller than the garage to the south.
Member Rehkamp Larson commented that the proposed 18 foot height with an
8/12 pitch is not an unusually tall garage. The city codes would allow the
structure to be 4.5 feet taller. She added that she did not believe that the
proposed garage should be penalized because the adjacent garages have a
lower profile.
Member Blemaster observed that the southerly garage is exceptionally low with a
12 foot hipped roof. She further opined that the garage as proposed with the 18
foot height will compliment the home better than a structure with a lower roofline.
Member Rehkamp Larson also pointed out that the window proposed above the
overhead garage door on the west elevation was tucked high into the peak of the
gable end — she suggested lowering the window somewhat to be more centered.
Homeowner Comment:
Don McCormick explained that the choice to use hardi panel stucco was not for
cost saving, rather, his wife's company does business with the manufacturer of
the product. He added that if the Board would prefer traditional stucco, he would
be happy to comply. He also agreed to Ms. Rehkamp Larson's suggestion to
lower the window on the west elevation.
Addressing the height of the garage, Mr. McCormick stated that they would like
additional storage space that would be afforded by the 18 foot height. He added
that he did share the plans with the neighbors; however the issue of height was
not specifically discussed.
rd
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Decision:
Member Scherer moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to build a
new detached garage in the northeast corner of the rear yard subject to the plans
presented and the following conditions:
1. The hardi panel stucco proposed shall be replace with traditional stucco
2. The window proposed on the west gable end shall be lowered somewhat
to become more centered.
Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report — May:
Analysis of Deed Restrictions
Consultant Vogel reported that one of the re -survey tasks is fine-tuning the Plan
of Treatment and to this end he has examined a number of the original Country
Club covenants. Assuming that preservation goals would need to be compatible
with the original Thorpe Bros. plan for the district, the applicable deed restrictions
are as follows:
• Houses were required to face the street; a house on a corner lot had to
face the same street as the "inside" house next door
• Setbacks: 30 feet from the front lot line to the front foundation wall
(excluding porches); 3 feet to the side lot line, 7 feet from the side of a
corner house to the street
• No house, including any attached garage and porches, could exceed 60%
of lot coverage, nor could it have a width greater than 80% of the distance
between the side lot lines
• Front porches, balconies, etc. could not project more than 12 feet from the
front of the house; on houses occupying corner lots, side porches could
not extend farther than 10 feet
• No bay window, dormer, stairway landing, cornice, or other projecting
feature could project more than 18 inches from the front and sides of a
house
• All outbuildings were required to "correspond in style and architecture to
the residence to which such buildings are appurtenant" and for houses on
corner lots, detached garages had to be located within 30 feet of the side
of the house farthest from the adjoining side street
• Detached garages and outbuildings could not occupy more than 60% of
the width of the rear lot line
5
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• Exterior fuel storage tanks, signs greater than 480 square inches, and
"objectionable" trees and shrubs were prohibited
• Concrete ramps or ribbons from the street to the sidewalk were required
for all driveways „
• Maximum height for fences was 4 feet 6 inches from grade, with no walls
over 3 feet above grade on front yards
• House foundation walls could not exceed 3 feet 6 inches (measured from
the elevation of the curb at the front lot line) unless the "natural grade" of
the lot was greater (in which case the natural grade could be the finish
grade)
• No walls, steps, or other construction (excluding sidewalks) could encroach
on the boulevard
Mr. Vogel observed that the Heritage Preservation Board may want to incorporate
some (perhaps all) of the 1920s -1940s restrictions in the revised plan of
treatment document.
Architectural Classification
Regarding the architectural classification of the homes in the district, Mr. Vogel
explained that he is recommending the Board reclassify the historic homes in the
district with respect to architectural style, using the classifications developed by
Virginia and Lee McAlester for their A Field Guide to American Houses. The new
architectural classifications are:
A. Colonial Revival (replaces "American Colonial Revival," "American
Georgian", "Cape Cod Colonial", "Dutch Colonial Revival", "Federal
Revival", "New England Colonial Revival", and "Southern Colonial Revival")
B. Tudor (replaces "English Cottage" and "English Tudor")
C. French Eclectic (replaces "Mediterranean", "Norman" and "French
Provincial")
D. Italian Renaissance ("replaces "Italian Renaissance Revival")
E. Prairie (replaces "Cubiform")
F. Craftsman (replaces "Bungalow")
G. Minimal Traditional (replaces "Contemporary" and "Rambler")
A few of the houses defy architectural classification, including several hybrids and
contractor -built homes. For example, the house at 4621 Wooddale Avenue,
which is identified as "Pueblo" in the 1980 survey. Some of the "ramblers" are
readily identifiable as examples of the Ranch style, while others are better
classified as "Minimal Traditional" houses. A handful of homes have been
isremuddled" beyond recognition by any classification system.
A
Minutes – June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Windshield Survey
Vogel summarized the preliminary results of our windshield survey of the district
as follows:
• The Country Club District is a unified entity that derives its primary heritage
preservation value from being a planned neighborhood rather than a
concentration of 500+ individually significant architectural landmarks
• Most of the homes built between 1924 and 1951 lack individual distinction
as examples of period revival style domestic architecture but are united
historically and aesthetically by the district's original plan of development
• The majority of the house facades visually add to the historic character of
the district as a whole and therefore should be considered contributing
properties
• An unknown number of houses may be historically important for their links
to specific events or people – these links need to be much better
documented (it is surprising how little we know about the people who lived
in the district during the 1920s -1950s)
• Architecturally, some of the houses built after 1951 correspond to the
styles of the "historic" homes in the district and probably should be re-
evaluated as contributing properties; by the same token, several pre -1951
houses have had their facades "remuddled" beyond recognition and no
longer contribute to the district's historic character
• The district as a whole has lost some historic integrity (i.e., the ability to
visually convey its historical significance) because of inappropriate building
additions and facade alterations; this erosion of historical authenticity is
primarily due to incompatible design and the introduction of new landscape
features that have disturbed the old relationships between homes and
streetscapes—however, the district retains a high level of integrity in other
critical areas, including location, setting, materials, feeling, and historical
association
Compared to other historic residential districts where the majority of
properties date from the 1920s -1940s, inappropriately altered fagades are
not particularly abundant in Country Club and tend to be widely dispersed
throughout the district—"remuddling" probably does not affect more than
10% of the historic houses in the district (intensive survey will provide us
with "real" numbers)
Mr. Vogel added that as he was perusing the Country Club District files in the
Planning Department, he discovered that in 1944, Thorpe Brothers gave up the
review of new building plans to the neighborhood association. That being the
case, he suggested considering 1944 as an accurate date for the ending of the
period of significance for the district.
INA
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
A general discussion ensued regarding some of the building activity currently
taking place in the District. There was a general consensus among the Board
that as the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness are revised the
Board should consider adding both changes to the front facade and roof lines as
well as large additions. Chairman Kojetin suggested that Board members keep a
list of questions and concerns which can be taken into consideration when
revisiting the COA criteria. All agreed that was a good idea.
Concluding his report, Mr. Vogel explained that a more intensive survey begins in
June and the HPB is expected to carry on with its work on the inventory files.
IV. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
* Preservation Conference —
Bob Kojetin reported that today he, Nancy Scherer and Connie Fukuda attended
the annual State Preservation Conference in St. Paul. The main theme of the
conference centered on the services the State Historical Society provides to the
local communities. Member Fukuda added that she appreciated a better
understanding of the Certified Local Government program and how local
communities can benefit.
Preservation Tax Credit - Member Blemaster reported that she had sent
a letter to Representative Earhardt expressing her interest in the Preservation
Tax Credit issue and encouraging Mr. Earhardt support the bill. Ms.
Blemaster received a response from Earhardt thanking her for her interest
and explaining that the Preservation Tax Credit bill did not proceed, however
it does appear that The "This Old House" tax credit program may be
reinstated. Member Rofidal stated that he too emalled Rep. Earhardt and
received a similar response. Board members thanked Ms. Blemaster and Mr.
Rofidal for taking the initiative to contact Rep. Earhardt.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE: None
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 10, 2007 (with a 5:00 work session)
IX. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,Joyce Repya
0
Minutes — June 12, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 12, 2007
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-7 4508 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
2. H-07-8 4512 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Survey Progress Report
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 14, 2007
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Karen Ferrara,
Lou Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, and Jean Rehkamp
Larson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson, Nancy Scherer and Sara Rubin
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Dave Terwilliger, 4523 Wooddale Avenue
Mike Wagner, 4506 Wooddale Avenue
Kenneth & Lori Feinberg, 4512 Wooddale Avenue
Kirby Herman, 5829 Brookview Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 8, 2007
Member Rofidal moved approval of the Minutes from the June 12, 2007 meeting.
Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-7 4508 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4500 block of Wooddale Avenue. The existing home is identified as an
English Cottage style constructed in 1924. A 2 stall detached garage is located
in the northwest corner of the rear yard, 4.5 feet from the side and rear, accessed
by a driveway running along the north property line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 532.6 square foot detached
garage and building a new, 704 square foot 3 stall detached garage. The plan
illustrates the new structure will maintain the existing 4.5 foot setback from the
side and rear property lines. A new curb cut is not required since the existing
driveway will provide access to the proposed garage.
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new 3 stall detached garage is proposed to be
22'x 22' and 11' x 20' for a total of 704 square feet in area. The design of the
structure is proposed to compliment the English Cottage architectural style of the
home which is undergoing an addition to the rear. Stucco siding with accented
stonework is proposed for the walls with half-timber detailing on the gable ends,
and triple layer lifetime shingles to match the house are proposed for the roof.
The north and south elevations propose an attention to detail with a window on
both sides and a service door on the south elevation. A Tudor -detailed gable and
two windows are shown on the west (rear) elevation. Carriage overhead doors
and half-timber detailing with a window above the doors is shown on the east
elevation. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 22.5 feet at the
highest peak, 16.25 feet at the mid -point of the gable, and 9.5 feet at the eave
line. The lot coverage for the property with the proposed garage will be 3,082.69
square feet in area or 24.79%; the maximum allowed by code is 25% or 3,109.07
square feet.
The proponents have provided information regarding characteristics of garages
adjacent to the subject property. The data indicates that detached garage to the
north at 4506 Wooddale Avenue is a hipped roof structure, approximately 14 feet
at the highest peak, sitting 5.2 feet from the shared property line. The property to
the south at 4510 Wooddale Avenue has an attached garage on the rear of the
home, roughly 11 feet in height with a deck above it. The three homes to the
west on Edina Boulevard all have 3 stall attached garages at least 25 feet from
the shared lot lines.
Ms. Repya concluded that Staff finds the plans provided with subject request
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, demonstrate an attention to
detail on all elevations, and clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project
relative to the principle home and adjacent properties. Furthermore, Preservation
Consultant, Robert Vogel has reviewed the plans and determined that the
information provided meets the requirements of the Country Club Plan of
Treatment. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new garage is
recommended subject to the plans presented.
Board Member Comments:
Member Rehkamp Larson questioned the purpose for the gable on the west
(rear) elevation of the garage. She opined that the gable was odd in form, served
no function, and appeared superfluous.
Member Ferrara shared Ms. Rehkamp Larson's concerns, commenting that the
gable appeared strange and unnecessary considering the plan provides two
windows on the west elevation, adding sufficient detail to the space.
F
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Rofidal appreciated Ms. Rehkamp Larson's concerns, but added that he
liked the design of the garage, particularly the recessed third stall on the south
end.
Members Blemaster and Kojetin stated that they felt the gable on the west
elevation added interest to the design which they liked. Ms. Blemaster also
inquired about the accent stonework proposed for the exterior walls.
Consultant Vogel commented that because there are no prescriptions for historic
garages, some of the decisions required of the Board deal with aesthetics that
being the case, the gable on the west elevation, while not necessary, does
improve the view shed from adjacent properties.
Homeowner Comments:
Addressing questions from the Board, owner Dave Terwilliger explained that the
gable on the west elevation was an aesthetic consideration to the design. The
westerly neighbor on Edina Boulevard has a swimming pool in their rear yard,
and the gable was added with their view in mind. Co-owner Mike Wagner added
that the gable was also designed to compliment the rooflines found on the rear
elevation of the home.
Responding to the question regarding the accented stonework proposed, Mr.
Terwilliger explained that natural stone is proposed to compliment the stonework
found on the home.
Decision:
Member Rehkamp Larson moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness
subject to the plans presented and the condition that the gable on the west
elevation be removed. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. Upon a roll call
vote, Members Ferrara, Rofidal, and Rehkamp Larson voted aye. Members
Blemaster, Fukuda, and Kojetin voted nay. Motion denied due to a tie.
Member Blemaster then moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness
subject to the plans presented and the condition that the homeowners and
adjacent neighbor decide whether to keep the gable on the west elevation, advise
the Planner of the decision, and provide a revised copy of the plan if the gable is
removed. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The Motion
carried.
3
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
2. H-07-8 4512 Wooddale Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4500 block of Wooddale Avenue. The existing home is identified as a New
England Colonial Revival style constructed in 1924. A 2 stall detached garage is
located in the rear yard, 24.5 feet from the rear and 13.6 feet from the north
property line, accessed by a driveway running along the north property line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 416 square foot detached
garage and building a new, 672 square foot 2 stall detached garage. The plan
illustrates the new structure will be placed in the northwest corner of the yard 4
feet from the rear and 9 feet from the side property line. A new curb cut is not
required since the existing driveway will provide access to the proposed garage.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new 2 stall detached garage is proposed to be 28'
x 24' for a total of 672 square feet in area. The design of the structure is
proposed to compliment the architectural style of the home. Stucco siding is
proposed for the walls, and asphalt shingles to match the house are proposed for
the roof. The north and south elevations display an attention to detail with a
window on north side and a service door on the north elevation. The east and
west elevations propose a window centered in the gable end (above the overhead
door on the east elevation.) The height of the proposed garage is shown to be
24.5 feet at the highest peak, 17.5 feet at the mid -point of the gable, and 10 feet
at the eave line. The lot coverage for the property with the proposed garage will
be 2,669 square feet in area or 22%; the maximum allowed by code is 25% or
3;000 square feet.
The proponents have provided information regarding characteristics of garages
adjacent to the subject property. The data indicates that the attached garage to
the north at 4510 Wooddale Avenue is centrally located in the rear of the home
measuring 11.5 feet in height with a deck above it. The property to the south at
4514 Wooddale Avenue has a detached 2 stall garage in the southwest corner of
the rear yard measuring approximately 20 feet to the peak of the hip roof. Two of
the three abutting homes to the west on Edina Boulevard all have 3 stall attached
garages at least 25 feet from the shared lot lines. The home at 4515 Edina
Boulevard has a 3 stall detached garage measuring approximately 15.25 feet to
the highest peak.
In conclusion, Ms. Repya explained that Staff finds that the plans provided with
subject request meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, demonstrate an
attention to detail on all elevations, and clearly illustrate the scale and scope of
the project relative to the principle home and adjacent properties. However, it is
the scale of the project, specifically the height of the garage which raises some
concerns. Since 2003, the Heritage Preservation Board has reviewed 21
proposals for 2 stall detached garages. The average height of the garages has
2
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
been 18 feet to the peak and 13.9 feet to the midpoint of the gable. The
proposed garage is shown to be 24.5 feet to the peak and 17.5 feet to the
midpoint of the gable. (Note 18 feet is the maximum height allowed at midpoint
by code.) A representative for the homeowner has explained that the reason for
the 24.5 foot height is to provide more storage space above the parking stalls.
Staff did advise the applicant that building height is a serious consideration of the
Board.
Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel has reviewed the plans and determined
that the information provided meets the requirements of the Country Club Plan of
Treatment. Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for
the new garage with the understanding that the Board may wish to have the
proponent reevaluate the building height.
Board Member Comments:
Member Rehkamp Larson made the following observations:
• The 672 square foot garage makes sense for the property considering the
size of the lot.
• The 12/12 pitch of the roof appears somewhat steep — a 10/12 pitch
would reduce the roof peak by 2 feet to 22.5 feet.
• While attention to detail is demonstrated on all elevations, the windows in
the plan appear to be casement style — Double hung windows would be
consistent with the home's windows.
Member Rofidal added that in addition to lowering the height at the peak, he
would prefer the height at the eave line to be more consistent with the averages
of the garages approved thus far — 8 to 9 feet instead of the 10 feet proposed.
Homeowner Comment:
Homeowners Kenneth and Lori Feinberg appreciated the comments from the
Board pointing out that the existing garage is falling apart and they are attempting
to replace it with a larger structure that will provide more room for storage while at
the same time be in proportion with their lot and home. The Feinberg's added
that they would be happy to entertain changes to the plan proposed by the Board.
Decision:
Member Rehkamp Larson moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness
subject to the plans presented and the following conditions:
1. The pitch of the roof is reduced to 10/12
2. The eave line height is reduced to 8.5 to 9 feet
6�
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
3. Double hung windows with muntins to match the windows on the home
are used on the on the east, south and west elevations.
Member Ferrara seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report — June:
Consultant provided the following report of the June survey activities:
Reconnaissance Survey
The windshield reconnaissance survey of the District was completed prior to the
June 12 meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board. This "once over lightly"
inspection involved driving around the District and noting the different types of
houses, their general condition, and the landscape characteristics of
streetscapes. I took a close and careful look at "infill" houses, i.e., homes built
since the 1950s, and made a detailed inspection of sample blocks to compare
with 1980 inventory data with present conditions. More intensive field inspections
will be conducted of individual properties to gather the information needed .to
evaluate their heritage landmark eligibility.
Historic Property Evaluations
Work continues on re-evaluating the heritage preservation value of individual
properties in the District. For a property to qualify as individually significant, it
would need to meet one of the Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria by
being associated with an important historic context and by retaining historic
integrity of those architectural features necessary to convey its significance. To
qualify as contributing within the Landmark District, a house does not have to be
individually significant; however, it must retain sufficient historic integrity (design,
materials, and setting) to convey its sense of time and place.
Because of teardowns, partial teardowns, and inappropriate exterior remodeling,
the following properties should no longer be considered heritage resources: 4529
Arden, 4609 Arden, 4619 Browndale, 4631 Casco, 4512 Drexel, 4601 Drexel,
4622 Drexel, 4619 Moorland, 4503 Wooddale, 4508 Wooddale.
Preliminary Findings
While it is not complete, the re -survey has already generated important
information that will help city planners revise both the heritage resources
inventory and the district plan of treatment.
• Thorpe Bros. approval of designs for new homes built in the District ended
July 1, 1944; the terminal date for the "period of significance," therefore,
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
should be 1944, although several of the homes built between 1945 and
1966 compliment the district's historic character and probably should be
considered contributing resources.
• Historic homes in the District include houses designed by architects J. J.
(Jack) Liebenberg, Seeman Kaplan, Joseph V. Vanderbilt, Charles
Trowbridge, Rollin Chapin, Milton C. W. Sundin, and A. R. Van Dyck
• The most important home contractor/builders in the District were Carl and
Louis Hanson, Morris Trach, Harry D. Roach, H. F. Nelson, George
Gamble, A. C. Walby, Chester Thompson, and Anton Duoos.
• The majority of existing homes in the District possess historical integrity of
those features necessary to convey their historic character and
significance; most of the infill new home construction (1945-2006) appears
to be compatible with adjacent historic properties.
• Since the 1930s, zoning regulations have effectively eliminated large
structural additions on the street facades of houses in the District;
however, side and rear additions are common and larger than room -sized
additions with architecturally incompatible features (roof lines, materials,
massing) are sometimes readily visible from the street. Some major
additions are so large they overpower the original house.
• The outdoor deck is probably the most frequently introduced non -historic
architectural feature in the District after garages; except in cases where
they are structurally independent from the houses, patios, terraces, and
decks often diminish or distract from historically important architectural
elements.
• Except for part of Browndale Avenue, the District was virtually bare ground
when the homes were built; however, mature trees (boulevard and yard)
have become an integral streetscape element and should be treated as
historic landscape features.
• Approximately 16 of the homes previously classified as examples of
Rambler, Colonial Revival or Cape Cod probably should be recategorized
as Minimal Traditional, the preferred catch-all classification for houses that
architecturally reflect a compromise between the Period Revival and
Modern styles, i.e., houses built between 1935 and 1950 which exhibit the
massing and scale of the Period Revival styles but are generally devoid of
authentic period style detailing or decorative elements.
Architectural Database
Members of the Heritage Preservation Board continued to review, organize, and
record assessor data on individual properties in the District. Some minor
discrepancies in street address and date of construction have been noted
between the 1979-80 survey data and assessor records.
Board members observed that as Mr. Vogel indicated, since the City's zoning
Is regulations were established in the 1930's large additions haven't occurred to the
7
Minutes — July 10, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
front fagade of houses, however that isn't the case in the side and rear yards.
Many residents of the District incorrectly assume that the HPB oversees large
additions to homes. Moving forward, the Board may wish to consider reviewing
these additions.
Consultant Vogel suggested the Board take a fieldtrip through the District to
evaluate the impact some additions have had on the respective homes as well as
the neighborhoods.
Board members agreed to meet at a "To Be Determined Location" in the District
on Tuesday, July 31St, at 7:00 p.m. to walk the streets and gain a perspective of
the impact additions have had on the District.
Consultant Vogel recommended that the HPB consider focusing their future
efforts on educating the people who work with the Country Club residents; such
as realtors and contractors, who can then act as ambassadors for the
preservation movement. Providing workshops and lectures on various
preservation topics, and making the sessions available to residents and the
business community working in the District would do a lot to advance the cause of
preservation in the neighborhood.
In conclusion, Mr. Vogel explained that starting in September, the Board will
begin focusing on elements of the Plan of Treatment at each meeting. Board
members thanked Mr. Vogel for his report. No formal action was taken.
IV. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE: None
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 14, 2007
IX. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,Joyce Aepya
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 10, 2007
II. COUNTRY CLUB WALKING TOUR: July 31St - Reflections & Discussion
I11. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Survey Progress Report
IV. HISTORY ARTICLE — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT MAGAZINE:
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE:
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 11, 2007
ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster,
Connie Fukuda, Laura Benson, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Scherer, Karen Ferrara, and Jean Rehkamp
Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 10, 2007
Member Blemaster moved approval of the Minutes from the July 10, 2007
meeting. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB WALKING TOUR: July 31St
Heritage Preservation Board members took a two hour walking tour in the Country Club
neighborhood on Tuesday evening, July 31' to revisit some of the properties they had
reviewed in the Certificate of Appropriateness process, as well as to better acquaint
themselves with the district.
Board members agreed that the tour was time well spent; and wished to express
their thanks to Jean Rehkamp Larson and her husband Mark for hosting the pre -
tour gathering at their home.
Member Blemaster suggested that on future tours, the Board take time to
introduce themselves and talk with residents out in their yards — pointing out that
a gathering of a dozen people walking around pointing at houses can lead one to
question, "What's going on?"
Member Fukuda noticed that a wall was being constructed in the front yard of a
property and wondered whether that was allowed in the District's plan of
treatment. Consultant Vogel explained that currently, landscaping, to include
fences is not addressed in the plan of treatment. However, such improvements
are required to meet the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Minutes — August 14, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Benson appreciated the opportunity to tour the neighborhood with the
Board, stating that she was impressed with the flow of the streetscapes and the
differences in building heights and front facades which add to the ambiance of
the District.
Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed that touring the historic district was
very beneficial in gaining an understanding of the planning principles Thorpe
incorporated in the design of the neighborhood.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report — July:
Consultant Vogel provided the following report of the July survey activities:
The pace of the project slowed down slightly in July. Consultant work focused on
reorganizing the inventory and conducting more intensive studies of selected
historic homes. To date, the. following properties have been determined non-
contributing:
• 4524 Arden (built in 1966)
• 4609 Arden (built in 1940, reconstructed in 2007)
• 4524 Bruce (built in 1973)
• 4528 Bruce (built in 1986)
• 4602 Bruce (built in 1972)
• 4608 Bruce (built in 1977, reconstructed 2006)
• 4608 Casco (built in 1977)
• 4207 Country Club (built in 1990)
• 4512 Drexel (built in 1925, reconstructed in 2006)
• 4601 Drexel (built in 2005)
• 4622 Drexel (built in 1941, teardown 2005)
• 4619 Moorland (built in 1936, reconstructed in 2003)
• 4501 Wooddale (built in 1924, reconstructed in 2004)
• 4505 Wooddale (built in 2000)
• 4614 Wooddale (built in 1972)
The following homes were built between 1945 and 1957 but need to be re-
evaluated because of extensive exterior °remuddling":
• 4529 Arden (built in 1957)
• 4906 Arden (built in 1948)
• 4631 Casco (built in 1936)
• 4600 Moorland (built in 1951)
• 5615 Moorland (built in 1940)
• 4504 Wooddale (built in 1927)
2
Minutes — August 14, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• 4503 Wooddale (built in 1925)
• 4508 Wooddale (built in 1924)
• 4621 Wooddale (built in 1928 — new fagade 2001)
Additional research was conducted in the air photo collection of the University of
Minnesota, which includes half -section air photo mosaics with overlays of the
Edina Country Club District assembled by the county surveyor in 1951, 1956,
1960, 1965, and 1967.
The following architects and builders have been identified as important in the
District:
• Arneson, Martin (landscaper)
• Bloomberg, H.
• Burton, Hal
• Chapin, Rollin C.
• Thompson, Chester
• Dahl Bros. Construction
• Duoos, Anton
• Farnham, C. W.
• Gamble, George
• H. S. Cleveland Company (decorators)
• Hansen, Carl M. (d. 1991) [Carl M. Hansen Companies]
• Hansen, O. A.
• Hanson, Louis [L. L. Hansen?]
• Hanson -Aarhus Company
• Heiberg, Hoff
• Knutson, A.
• Liebenberg & Kaplan (Jack Liebenberg, 1893-1985; Seeman Kaplan,
1894-1963)
• Melich, Edward P.
• Nelson, H. F.
• Pesek, Cyril P. (Schifflet & Pesek)
• Roach, Harry D.
• Rosander
• Rosenblad, John (concrete contractor)
• Rosendahl, H. R.
• Rosenlund, Arne (contractor)
• Sundin, Milton C. W.
• Thompson, Herbert
• Trach, Morris [Trach Properties?]
• Trowbridge, Charles
• Vanderbilt, Joseph V. (1877-1966) (Bard & Canderbilt, 1929-1962)
• Van Dyck, A. R. (Albert Reed, b. ca. 1867-1941)
3
Minutes — August 14, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• Walby, A. C.
More research is needed to document their possible significance in relation to the
district and individual homes.
Progress continued on abstracting the assessor property card data.
On July 31, Board members and staff toured part of the Country Club District.
This included a sidewalk inspection of the house under construction at 4609
Arden Avenue and a walk-through of the reconstructed home at 4512 Drexel Ave.
Member Rofidal found Vogel's research interesting, but asked that photographs
be provided for the non-contributing homes as well as the "remuddled" homes.
Planner Repya offered to have photos available to the Board for the September
meeting. All agreed that would be a great idea.
Rofidal then questioned why once a new home has been approved through the
Certificate of Appropriateness process, it is considered non-contributing. Mr.
Vogel agreed that was a very good questions....one might assume that by
receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness, the new home would be considered
"appropriate", thus contributing. However, while it is deemed that a new home
that receives a COA will compliment the historic homes, the new home will be
contemporary, not historic.
Addressing a question regarding the differences between the original 1980 survey
and the current survey, Consultant Vogel explained that the purpose of the 1980
survey was to support the District's National Register application. The main
emphasis at that time was to prove that the homes in the District were
predominately made up of historic architectural styles. Conversely, in the current
survey, we are examining the District as a planned community, and as a result of
the research, discovering that there are actually fewer homes that fall into the
category of possessing an historic architectural style than was reported in the
1980 survey.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that in the 1980 survey, every home, (with the exception of
4 Contemporary styled homes built in the 1970's), regardless of the year
constructed, was identified as being historically significant to the District. The
current research has demonstrated that the historic period of the District ended in
1941 when the developer ceased design review of new homes in the District.
That being the case, prior to 1941, Thorpe ensured that the new construction met
his criteria for the planned community — after 1941, approval was left to the
neighborhood association with no guarantees that Thorpe's plan was being
implemented.
Following a brief discussion, the Board thanked Mr. Vogel for his report. No
formal action was taken.
El
Minutes — August 14, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
IV. HISTORY ARTICLE — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT MAGAZINE:
Planner Repya explained that a new magazine entitled "Country Club
Neighborhood Life" has been created for Edina's historic neighborhood with the
first issues distributed in June and July. The publication is free, mailed only to
residents of the neighborhood, with the cost for the magazine incurred by the
advertisers.
Board Member Lou Blemaster explained that she has offered to sponsor a
"History of the District" section for the magazine that would include a % page ad
for her business, with the remainder of the space attributed to historic information
and photographs about the neighborhood.
Ms. Blemaster pointed out that the magazine is published monthly and she has
committed to one year - twelve articles. The first article to be published in
October will address the history and beginnings of the Country Club District.
Board members agreed the articles could serve as a great teaching tool and
provide a direct vehicle to communicate with the neighborhood.
General discussion ensued regarding future articles. Board members thanked
Ms. Blemaster for offering this opportunity for the HPB to communicate directly
with the District neighborhood. No formal action was taken.
IV. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
Member Benson explained that he has heard of a home on Sunnyside Road that
backs up to the vacated streetcar line and has an old stone structure in the rear
yard - apparently once used as a wait station for the old streetcar. Board
members were fascinated with this information. Ms. Benson could not provide
more information, but promised to check into this find further and report back to
the Board at the next meeting.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE: None
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 11, 2007
IX. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,Joyce Repya
9
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 14, 2007
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-07-9 4626 Bruce Avenue
New Detached Garage
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Survey Progress Report
IV. HISTORICAL PROJECT FUNDING TEA -21: Country Club District
V. NATIONAL TRUST FIELD TRIP:
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
VII. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE:
IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007
X. ADJOURNMENT: '
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Rofidal — Vice Chairman, Lou Blemaster, Connie
Fukuda, Laura Benson., Nancy Scherer, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Kojetin, Jean Rehkamp Larson, and Karen Ferrara
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Brett Fenske, 4626 Bruce Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 14, 2007
Member Benson moved approval of the Minutes from the August 14, 2007
meeting. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-9 4626 Bruce Avenue
New Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home is a 1937 American Colonial
Revival. A 2 stall flat roofed garage is attached to the rear of the'house accessed
by a driveway running along the south property line. The subject lot is 50'x 131'
in area, or a total of 6,556 square feet. The maximum lot coverage allowed by
the foot print of all structures is 30% or 1,966.8 square feet.
The subject request involves converting the existing 2 stall attached garage to a
potential mud room leading into the kitchen. The new room will be reduced in
size from 455 square feet to 245 square feet in area to ensure that the lot
coverage on the property is not detrimentally affected by the introduction of the
new garage.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new detached garage proposed for the southwest
corner of the rear yard measures 22' x 24', or 528 square feet in area, and is set
4 feet from the side and rear lot line. The garage has been designed to
compliment the American Colonial architectural style of the home, with shingles,
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
siding, soffit, fascia and trim detail to match. The north and south elevations
display an attention to detail with a window/planter box and service door on the
north elevation and a double hung window in the gable on the south elevation.
The west/rear elevation has a gabled dormer with a double hung window to
provide additional storage in the rafter area. The east/front elevation has a
double overhead door with lite windows across the top.
The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 16.75 feet at the highest peak,
13 feet at the mid -point of the gable, and 8.7 feet at the eave line. The proposed
roof pitch is 7/12, with a ridge length of 22.5 feet. The lot coverage for the
property with the proposed garage will be 1,961.7 square feet in area or 29.9%.
Ms. Repya observed that the applicant provided photographs and the heights of
adjacent structures. The home to the north (4624 Bruce Ave.) has an attached,
single stall -tandem garage set 5 feet from the shared property line. The property
to the south (4628 Bruce Ave.) has a detached, 2 car garage, approximately 15.5
feet in height that is set 25.5 feet from the north property line, abutting the
driveway shared by the two homes. Of the three homes to the rear on Casco
Avenue, 4627, directly behind the subject home has a 2 stall attached garage
with living space above; 4625 Casco Ave. has a 15 foot high 2 stall garage; and
4629 has a detached, 16 foot high, 320 square foot garage.
Ms. Repya added that the plans under consideration had been revised somewhat
from those originally submitted. Mr. Fenske met with the abutting neighbors, and
in an attempt to address some of their comments, the height at the peak was
lowered 2 feet to the 16.75 feet height proposed, and the pitch was lowered from
8/12 to 7/12.
Although not required for Certificate of Appropriateness review, the applicant also
provided a plan to change the front fagade of the home showing removal of a 2nd
story peak above the front door (not original to the home), and adding three
gables at the eave line above each 2nd story window. A small covered porch with
posts at the front entrance is also proposed.
Planner Repya concluded that the plans for the new detached garage
demonstrate that the design and exterior materials will compliment the existing
home and meet the setback and height requirements set out in the Zoning
Ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed garage also addresses the homeowner's
needs for parking and additional storage, while at the same time takes into
consideration the impact the building will have on neighboring properties.
Staff also found that the information provided supporting the subject Certificate of
Appropriateness met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country
Club Plan of Treatment. Approval of the request to build a new detached garage
was recommended subject to the plans presented.
'r:
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board Member Comments:
- Members Scherer and Benson thanked Mr. Fenske for providing the drawing of
the changed front fagade of the home agreeing that changes will add to the
historic integrity of the home. Consultant Vogel concurred adding that the
changes are more suited to the colonial architectural style and will give the house
a nice rhythm.
- Member Rofidal questioned the purpose for the gabled dormer on the rear
elevation. He also asked what the southerly neighbor (4628 Bruce Ave.) who is
most impacted by the new garage thought of the plan, and if the loss of the ash
tree was a problem.
- Member Blemaster stated that she liked the plan very much - it was obvious that
the applicant did his homework, and the changes will add value to the home. Ms.
Blemaster questioned the type of cedar that will be used for the siding, with a
caution that if "clear" cedar which is knot -free is not used, woodpeckers and
insects could become a problem in the future.
- All Board members commended Mr. Fenske for sharing his plans with the
neighbors and addressing their concerns prior to bringing them before the HPB.
Homeowner Comments:
Brett Fenske explained that he has owned his home since 2005 and was
attracted to the neighborhood because of the historic architecture of the homes.
The existing attached garage leaks and is structurally unsound requiring it to be
totally replaced. The decision was made to replace the attached garage with a
new detached garage to open the rear of the home to the back yard and provide
more outdoor living space for his family.
Mr. Fenske pointed out that he has observed some controversial building projects
close to his home and realizes that the neighbors have a keen interest in how
changes impact the neighborhood. That being the case, he chose to share his
plans with his neighbors. As a result of the meeting, the height of the garage was
reduced by two feet and the pitch of the roof changed from an 8/12 to a 7/12.
Regarding the dormer proposed on the rear elevation, Mr. Fenske explained that
the purpose is two -fold, to break up the wall area on that elevation, and also
provide for some additional storage.
Addressing Member Rofidal's question regarding the southerly neighbor at 4628
Bruce Ave., Mr. Fenske explained that he did share the plans with his neighbor
and they are fine with them. Also, the ash tree that is in the place of the
proposed garage will be removed and the southerly neighbor has stated that he
3
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
does not have a problem with the removal because the tree leans toward his
property and isn't in the best of shape.
Decision:
Board members agreed that the design of the new garage was very fitting for the
property and would be an enhancement. Member Benson appreciated Mr.
Fenske's sensitivity to the desires of his neighbors in the planning process, and
moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to build a new detached
garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard subject to the plans presented.
Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report August:
Consultant Vogel explained that work continued on updating the inventory of heritage
resources in the Country Club District to include a review of the findings from the 1980
National Register survey to correct mistakes and inaccuracies. At the same time,
information on the current condition of individual homes was also collected the integrated
with the information already on file.
A good deal of effort was devoted to the reclassification and re-evaluation of individual
homes. Our goal is to classify each property as either contributing or non-contributing.
To be considered a contributing heritage resource, a house must add to the district's
historic character by being associated with the district's primary historical theme (planned
residential development by Thorpe Bros.) and embodying the distinctive characteristics
of the period revival or "eclectic" styles of domestic architecture (Colonial Revival, Tudor,
French Eclectic, Italian Renaissance, Mission, etc.). For planning purposes, we have
decided to count as contributing resources all homes constructed prior to 1945 (the date
Thorpe Bros. lifted its architectural controls on new construction), unless their principal
facades have been radically altered.
Mr. Vogel observed that homes constructed after 1944 are being re-evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. Mere age is not enough, in and of itself, for a house to qualify as
contributing—it must also possess the distinctive physical characteristics that constitute
one of the period revival architectural styles historically associated with the Country Club
District. What we see in the district is a shift in architectural styles that began in the
1930s, when a number of smaller, more austere homes were built in Country Club—
presumably, these "Minimal Traditional" style homes passed muster with the developer's
architectural review committee, even though they would not qualify as authentic
specimens of period revival architecture. Minimal Traditional style homes built between
the late 1930s and the late 1950s represent a compromise between the traditional period
revival styles and modern suburban house forms such as the Ranch or "rambler."
Overall, these houses reflect the changing standards and tastes of Country Club
residents during the 1930s -1950s period. Unless their fagade -integrity has been
compromised by alterations, we are classifying Minimal Traditional style homes from the
1940s -1950s as contributing heritage resources because they reflect the broad theme of
postwar suburban development in Edina and are architecturally derivative from the
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
period revival styles of the 1920s -1930s (the relevant historic context study unit is "The
Suburban Landscape, 1887 to 1974").
Research continued to address design review issues, particularly with respect to the size
and proportions of new houses and detached garages, the effects of large additions on
the integrity of historic homes, driveway width, and landscaping. We are also conducting
a comprehensive review of the historic preservation planning literature to find a better
working definition of the terms "new construction" and "demolition."
Mr. Vogel explained that he would like to recommend the Board's consideration a
modification of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process. The change would
involve adopting a standard format for documenting its COA decisions. At a minimum,
this documentation should include a clear statement of the criteria used in granting or
denying the COA, reference to the applicable standards for rehabilitation and plan of
treatment guideline, and a simple check -list of the kinds of information provided by the
applicant (plans, drawings, elevations, photos). This information would supplement, but
not replace, the planning report and COA document that is attached to the building
permit.
Board members discussed the determination of whether a home in the district is
classified as "contributing" or "noncontributing". Mr. Vogel pointed out that he would
recommend setting the date for noncontributing homes as those constructed after 1974.
Mr. Vogel's proposal to add a section to the COA staff reports identifying the criteria
40 used for granting decisions was favorably received by the Board. It was suggested that
a checklist or bullets could be used to identify the rationale for decisions. Planner Repya
stated that a similar change has been implemented for variance staff reports, and it has
been well received.
Member Fukuda asked if another tour of the Country Club neighborhood is proposed for
this fall. Consultant Vogel stated that at the October meeting a tour date will set when
the Board can focus on streetscapes, driveways, and anything else of interest to the
Board.
Following a brief discussion, the Board thanked Mr. Vogel for his report. No
formal action was taken.
IV. HISTORICAL PROJECT FUNDING TEA -21:
Consultant Vogel explained that the City's Engineering Department is working
with the consulting firm of SEH, and one of their projects involves coordinating
inquiries to MnDOT's State Aid office regarding a grant application for TEA -21
(Transportation Efficiency Act) funds which could potentially be used for
transportation related expenditures in the Country Club District, and elsewhere in
the community.
5
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
SEH has stated that because a sewer, water and street rehabilitation project is on
the horizon for the Country Club neighborhood, the potential to utilize grant
monies to fund street lights and other elements affecting pedestrian safety or
boulevard treatments might qualify for funding. At this time, SEH would like the
HPB to consider transportation related enhancements which might qualify for
funding through the TEA -21 program.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that at this time, the Board is asked to brainstorm about
potential uses for the funds. He added that it is important to keep in mind that the
Minnesota Historical Society will determine what will be eligible for funding.
Mr. Vogel provided the Board with a brief history of how TEA -21 funds have been
historically spent. Board members agreed that until they know MNSHPO's criteria
for eligibility, it is difficult to be too specific. The Board then determined that the
following elements would have a positive impact on the neighborhood and be well
worth considering:
• Ehancements to the traffic triangles (pork chops)
• Street signs
• Pedestrian walk ways ,and
• Street lighting
Following a brief discussion, Consultant Vogel thanked the Board for their input.
No formal action was taken.
V. NATIONAL TRUST FIELD TRIP: October 4, 2007
Consultant Vogel reviewed the itinerary for the upcoming National Trust tour with
the Board. He pointed out that if members of the Board would like to participate
they could join in at any of the stops. He added that it would be nice for some
Board members to attend the lunch at Arneson Acres, pointing out that local
mingling with the conference attendees is always a good idea.
Planner Repya offered to email the itinerary to the Board, and requested that if
planning on attending the luncheon to let her know so she could have a head
count.
IV. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
Member Benson reminded the Board that at the last meeting she reported that
there is a home on Sunnyside Road that backs up to the vacated streetcar line
and has an old stone structure in the rear yard - apparently once used as a wait
station for the old streetcar. Since then, she has sent an email to the owner of
A
Minutes — September 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
the property introducing herself and asking if she could take some photographs of
the structure. To date she had not heard back, however she promised to keep
the Board advised if and when she does hear something.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE: None
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 9, 2007
IX. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 p.m.
n
U
Respectfully submitted,
,Joyce R.epya
7
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Refidents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 11, 2007
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Survey Progress Report
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT UTILITY/ROADWAY PROJECT: Presentation from Engineers
IV. NATIONAL PRESERVATION CONFERENCE FIELD SESSION: Recap
V. PENTAGON PARK AUAR (report):
VI. DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION NO. 1: Policy on demolition of city -owned buildings
VII. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT WORKSHOP: Establishing criteria for determining
"contributing" vs "non-contributing homes
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
X. CORRESPONDENCE:
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 13, 2007
XII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Connie
Fukuda, Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Jean Rehkamp
Larson, and Sara Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Scherer
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Wayne Houle, City Engineer
Jesse Struve, Utility Engineer
Paul Pasko, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (utility consultant)
Mike Kotila, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (traffic consultant)
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 11, 2007
Member Rofidal moved approval of the Minutes from the September 11, 2007
meeting. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - Survey Progress Report — September:
Consultant Vogel explained that work continued on updating and reorganizing the
inventory of heritage resources in the Country Club District. Final preparations
were made for the National Historic Preservation Conference field session in
Edina, to be held on October 4.
Some recommendations relating to the number of contributing heritage resources
in the district and revisions to the plan of treatment were prepared for discussion
at the Heritage Preservation Board meeting on October 9.
Mr. Vogel stated that the Country Club District derives its historical significance
from being a unified entity composed of more than 500 individual heritage
resources. The quality of significance is the result of the interrelationship of the
houses and streetscapes, which together convey a sense of the district as a
cohesive historic environment. The primary heritage preservation resource is the
planned neighborhood designed and built under the auspices of the Thorpe
Brothers Realty Co. The component heritage resources (houses, streets,
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
sidewalks, trees, and open spaces), which are relatively equal in importance, are
united historically by Thorpe's design plan for the development of the district,
which is the basis of the district's Heritage Landmark designation and the focal
point of its plan of treatment.
For purposes of design review, it is critically important that we determine which
houses contribute to the overall significance of the district, and which do not. As
a practical matter, the city needs to ensure that every house that adds to the
historic qualities of the district is afforded the same level of protection against the
adverse effects of teardowns and new construction. To do this, we much reach
some kind of consensus on what constitutes a heritage preservation resource
(i.e., a "contributing" property) within the district boundaries.
Vogel pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the homes in the district were
constructed between 1924 and 1944, when Thorpe Bros. controlled development
in Country Club, including the architecture of individual homes. Unless its
principal (street) facade has been substantially altered from its original
appearance, a house built prior to 1945 would have to be classified as a
contributing resource, regardless of its architectural style or aesthetic value.
Furthermore, Consultant Vogel opined that in order to qualify as a contributing
resource in the Country Club District, a house built after 1944 would need to meet
one of the Heritage Landmark criteria for significance by being associated with an
important historic context and by retaining historic integrity of those architectural
features necessary to convey its significance. Individual significance or high
aesthetic values is not required, as most of the homes constructed before 1945
also lack individual distinction.
Mr. Vogel than recommended adopting the following policy with respect to
evaluating Country Club homes constructed after 1944: To be considered a
contributing resource, a house must:
1) Be more than 50 years old;
2) Embody the basic form, plan, and materials characteristic of one of the
traditional early 20th century period revival or "American Movement"
architectural styles; and
3) Retain historic integrity of the primary (street) fagade.
The style classifications encompassed by criteria #2 include: Colonial Revival,
Tudor, French Eclectic, Italian Renaissance, Mission, Spanish Eclectic, Prairie,
and Modern (after McAlester and McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses).
Vogel added that Minimal Traditional and Ranch style homes should also be
included because these styles reflect popular house forms built from the 1930s
through 1950s. Although they share little of the architectural character of the
homes built in the district in the 1920s and 1930s, these later homes still show
the influence of Thorpe's original plan of development; they are also important
because they represent changing standards and tastes in the community during
the last phase of its development (which ended in the late 1950s—only a relative
E
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
handful of new homes were built in the district after 1960). The Edina Historic
Context Study provides the framework for dealing with these properties as
preservation resources.
Vogel pointed out that in addition to the historic homes, a number of landscape
features appear to meet the minimum criteria for consideration as contributing
resources. These include: public open spaces designed and developed for
outdoor recreation (Browndale and Dwight Williams parks), circulation networks
related to the original plat and development plan (public streets, sidewalks,
"islands"), original plat boundary demarcations delineating areas of ownership
and land use (lot lines and subdivision boundaries), and historic vegetation
(specimen boulevard and park trees, trees pre -dating Country Club platting, relic
elms, catalpas). For preservation planning purposes, Mr. Vogel recommended
treating the Browndale Bridge and Edina Mills Archaeological Site as separate
heritage resources, although they are situated (partially) within the district
boundaries.
Regarding the Plan of Treatment revisions, Mr. Vogel stood by his earlier
recommendation that no Certificates of Appropriateness should be approved for
demolition of any contributing resource in the Country Club District. Demolition of
noncontributing homes would be permitted.
Regarding the guidelines for new construction in the Plan of Treatment, Vogel
recommended that the Board retain the preference for period revival style
("Eclectic") design in new homes because Colonial, Tudor, etc. dominate the
aesthetic character of the district. While every effort should be made to prevent
teardowns of contributing resources, Mr. Vogel added that he saw no reason not
to allow teardowns of noncontributing properties, provided that the new
construction is compatible with the predominant architectural character of the
district.
Regarding the definitions of demolition and new construction, Mr. Vogel
recommended including the removal, covering up, or substantial alteration of any
principal historic character defining exterior feature on the principal (street)
fagade; corner houses would be required to obtain Certificates of
Appropriateness for work on both street elevations. The principal historic
character defining features of historic homes in the District are:
• Roof shape, pitch, and height
• Front wall width, height, and cladding
• Front wall window and door openings
• Entrances, porches, vestibules, and porte-cocheres
Mr. Vogel concluded that he did not recommend expanding the COA requirement
to include structural additions or exterior alterations on the rear or side elevations.
The survey data compiled strongly indicate that, to a considerable extent, the
street facades of historic homes are being preserved voluntarily; that in most
3
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
cases, side and rear additions do not detract from the district's historic character;
and that the major threat to the district's historic integrity is from teardowns and
inappropriately designed new construction, which can be effectively controlled
under the current ordinance.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that later in the evening's agenda, a workshop was planned
to establish criteria for determining "contributing" vs "non-contributing" homes.
Due to the amount of information yet to be discussed on the agenda, he
recommended that a special workshop meeting be set to address the
recommendations proposed for the district's Plan of Treatment.
Board members agreed that more time should be spent than would be available
during the meeting - it was agreed that a special meeting would be held on
Monday, November 5th at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT UTILITY/ROADWAY PROJECT:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that in 2005 a Certificate of Appropriateness
(H-05-6) was issued for a Sewer, Water, and Street reconstruction project in the
Country Club District. The proposed 2 year project included the following
improvements:
• Mainline sanitary sewer and water main pipe replacement
• Replacement of city owned portion of individual sanitary sewer
and water services
• Storm sewer pipe replacement
• Street replacement (except Bridge Street)
• Street light replacement
• Pedestrian safety improvements (crosswalks)
Conditions accompanying the approval included the following:
1. Changes shall be considered to the street at major intersections
with islands to ensure vehicles come to a complete stop, and
2. Brick pavers shall be used for pedestrian crosswalks at major
intersections.
After the project received Certificate of Appropriateness approval from the
Heritage Preservation Board, public hearings were held by the City Council. As a
result of the input from residents at the public hearings, the project was put on
hold to allow for a traffic study of the Northeast section of Edina to ensure that the
traffic elements included in the project would be consistent with the needs
identified for the northeast quadrant of the city.
rd
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• The Northeast Traffic Study was completed earlier this year, and the
recommendations for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements have been
added to the revised project plan moving forward at this time.
Ms. Repya advised the Board that since there are changes to the original
Certificate of Appropriateness issued in 2005, a new Certificate of
appropriateness will be required. She added that at this time, the revised plan
would be explained to them for review and consideration, with no action to be
taken. However, at the November meeting of the Board, clarification of the
project will be addressed and a motion on the appropriateness of the project will
be requested.
City Engineer, Wayne Houle recognized that a majority of the current HPB board
members were not serving in 2005, thus he briefly retraced the history of the
proposed project. Paul Pasko, the utility consultant with SEH presented a power
point presentation highlighting the non-invasive methods proposed for installation
of the new utility lines. He pointed out that the utility section of the proposal is
relatively unchanged for the 2005 plan. Board members were pleased to see
sensitivity to preserving the boulevard trees inherent in the plan.
Addressing the traffic and safety improvements proposed for the project,
Engineer Houle explained that the proposal is part of the Northeast East Edina
Transportation Study. The major goals of the plan include:
• Reducing diversion of traffic through the neighborhood
• Keeping vehicle speeds in neighborhood at, or below the posted
speed limit
• Enhancing pedestrian/non-motorized travel and safety
Mike Kotila, traffic consultant with SEH presented the proposed traffic calming
and pedestrian improvements recommended for the district. Major changes
identified in the plan include:
• Speed Humps at major entrances to the district.
• Realigned intersections
• Choker or street narrowing at intersections
• Raised and brick crosswalks
• Median island added to south end of Wooddale Ave.
Board members briefly discussed the proposed changes to the traffic/pedestrian
patterns in the district. All agreed that the proposal is a step in the right direction
to addressing the neighborhoods traffic concerns.
Several questions arose relative to the signage required for some of the changes.
Concern was expressed relative to the bright neon yellow signs typically used at
pedestrian crosswalks and paint identifying speed hump locations.. Engineer
5
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Houle stated that he was not sure if there was a legal requirement for the
signage, or if the city had any leverage to reduce the number and color of signs
installed. However, Houle promised to consult the City Attorney and report back
at the November meeting.
A suggestion was also made that a sign could be installed at the entrances to
district identifying it as a historic neighborhood and advising that "traffic safety
measures are in place" might be a good compromise to a proliferation of signs
that could be required. Houle agreed that was a suggestion worth considering.
Preservation Consultant Vogel advised the Board that the proposed changes to
the traffic/pedestrian plan are not subject to the HPB review, however
determining the appropriateness of materials and signage related to the
improvements are areas that should be addressed.
IV. NATIONAL PRESERVATION CONFERENCE FIELD SESSION: Recap
Consultant Vogel recapped the highlights of the October 4th National Trust tour of
Edina. The weather was perfect for 23 conference attendees from all corners of
the country. From the Mayor's welcome greeting as they entered the city to the
final farewell at Southdale Center, a good time was had by all. Board members
Kojetin, Rofidal and Blemaster participated in the tour; and each shared their
favorite memories with the Board.
Members Rofidal and Blemaster were both very impressed with the Cahill School
and Grange Hall pointing out that the structures are so well preserved, and the
school marm's presentation made one feel they were back on "Little House on the
Prairie".
Chairman Kojetin was pleased with the luncheon put on by the Historical Society
at the Edina Historical Museum. Not only did everyone enjoy a tasty Minnesota -
style lunch, but they also were able to enjoy the current Edina Fire and Police
exhibit.
Mr. Vogel and Planner Repya agreed that the tour was a worthwhile venture
which can be offered to interested groups in the future. No formal action was
taken.
V. PENTAGON PARK AUAR REPORT:
Consultant Vogel explained that as part of a potential redevelopment of the
property, the City's Director of Planning, Cary Teague asked that he conduct a
preliminary heritage resources assessment of the Pentagon Park of Edina office
complex located at Highway 100 and 77th Street West. The purpose of this
investigation was to identify and gather information on potential heritage
preservation resources in the Gateway Study Area.
Cy
Minutes – October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Vogel reported that the Pentagon Park office complex comprises sixteen
freestanding buildings that were constructed in phases between 1963 and 1970.
The multi -tenant office park is designed to house up to approximately 300 tenants
and incorporate a wide range of space types, including offices, lobbies,
conference rooms, rest rooms, mechanical and service areas, restaurants, banks,
postal and copy services, vending areas, daycare, and small shops. The office
park's primary amenity, the Fred Richards Executive Golf Course, is located
outside of the Gateway Study Area boundaries.
Vogel explained that he was unable to verify the accuracy of the statement, which
appears on the Wayzata Properties webpage, that Pentagon Park represents "the
first planned office park in the Twin Cities." (A recent article in Minneapolis/St.
Paul Business Journal refers to it as "one of the first corporate campuses in the
Twin Cities"; it is not mentioned in Gebhard and Martinson's Guide to the
Architecture of Minnesota [1977] or Scott and Hess' History and Architecture of
Edina [1981].) According to the National Building Museum, the General Motors
Technical Center at Warren, Michigan, was the first modern suburban office park
in the country. Designed by the Finnish American father -and -son architectural
team of Eliel and Eero Sarrinen, the 25 -building, 330 -acre facility was designed in
1949-51 and built in 1955-56. Like the Pentagon Park buildings, the GM Tech
Center is a Modernist composition dominated by low-rise "Miesian" style
buildings, abundant parking, and landscape amenities. The Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company (3M) headquarters on 1-94 in Maplewood, designed
by Ellerbe Architects and built in the late 1950's, would appear to have a good
claim to the title of first corporate office park in the Twin Cities and is also an
example of Modernist architecture. It may well be that Edina's Pentagon Park
represents the first speculative office park development in the Twin Cities—more
intensive research will be required to clarify this historical association.
Pentagon Park was designed and built by Rauenhorst Construction, a company
founded by 25 -year-old Gerald A. Rauenhorst in 1953. It was one of the
company's biggest early projects, along with the Normandale Center Industrial
Park (1961-70). In 1982 Rauenhorst Construction became Opus Corporation,
one of the largest real estate development companies in the country.
Consultant Vogel explained that for a building or group of buildings to qualify for
designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark it must meet one of the landmark
eligibility criteria by being associated with an important historic context and
retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.
Built between 1963 and 1970, the Pentagon Park property certainly meets .the
minimum requirements for consideration as a heritage resource. The buildings
physically and spatially comprise a specific environment shaped by historical
processes of land use. Architecturally, the buildings are the product of the
dissemination of the Modern or "International" style that dominated commercial
architecture from the early 1950's through the late 1970's.
7
Minutes – October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mere association with a particular period or architectural style is not enough for
Pentagon Park to qualify as historically significant: it must be shown to have been
significant in commercial or architectural history. Contextually, it relates to the
broad theme of postwar suburban development delineated in the City of Edina
Historic Context Study (which provides the framework for identifying and
evaluating heritage resources within the city limits). Although office park was not
specifically identified as a significant heritage property type in the historic context
study, the general theme of Modern style commercial architecture is recognized
as one aspect of the postwar suburban built environment. Unlike the National
Register of Historic Places, which disqualifies buildings less than 50 years old
from consideration unless they are of "exceptional" importance, the city's
landmark code sets no arbitrary restrictions on how old a property must be before
it can be considered a heritage resource. For planning purposes, the City uses
1974 as the terminal date for the historic context dealing with suburban
development. The Pentagon Park property falls well within the chronological
limits of "The Suburban Landscape" study unit.
While it clearly possesses the defined characteristics required to represent the
theme of suburban commercial development, it is unlikely that Pentagon Park
represents the sole surviving example of a 1960's office complex in Edina—
comparison with other, historically -related properties will be essential for
determining its preservation value. It is certainly not the best surviving example
of Modern style commercial architecture in the city, though its association with the
early career of professional engineer/real estate developer Gerald A. (Gerry)
Rauenhorst, the founding chairman of Opus Corporation, may be significant as
well.
Vogel further observed that with respect to the draft AUAR, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) inventory database for historical and architectural
resources is not considered a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of
significant cultural resources within a given area. While it is true that the
Gateway Study Area contains no properties that have been listed in or
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the reason for this
would appear to be obvious: until the present investigation, no one has even
looked for these resources on the ground. Given that the developer's own
website refers to the Pentagon Park property as "the first planned office park in
the Twin Cities," even declaring that it "has achieved virtual landmark status
within the community," one wonders why the AUAR preparers did not undertake
even a perfunctory assessment of the project's effects on potential heritage
preservation resources.
Mr. Vogel recommended that the potential heritage value of the buildings be
given proper consideration during the development planning process. At a
minimum, more intensive survey is needed to provide the information needed to
fully evaluate its historical and architectural significance. This will require a close
and careful look at the property to identify all heritage resources within the area of
0
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
project effects, detailed inspection of the individual buildings, and thorough
documentation of their physical history. Vogel added that he would like to do
more research on the history of office parks in the Twin Cities area to better
determine how Pentagon Park represents the property type and to develop a
better perspective on the potential significance of being "the first" example of the
type.
Given the rising level of preservation interest in heritage resources from the
"recent past," the SHPO could be expected to require intensive survey and
mitigation of adverse effects if any future project involving the Pentagon Park
locality would require compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act
or the National Historic Preservation Act. (Any projects using Community
Development Block Grants, State Aid transportation funds, or other federal
assistance would be subject to SHPO review and compliance.)
Assuming that all or part of the Pentagon Park office complex will eventually give
way to redevelopment, several mitigation options are available to avoid complete
loss. Before demolition occurs, the tower and the other office buildings should be
permanently recorded with archival -quality drawings, photographs, and written
data so that a body of information will remain about them. As a matter of policy,
the Heritage Preservation Board has adopted the Secretary of the Interior's
standards for historical and architectural documentation, which provide an
appropriate format for recordation products. (The same mitigation standards used
in National Register of Historic Places program). It may also be appropriate to
salvage some architectural elements for curation in a museum.
Board members briefly discussed the report, finding it interesting that while the
owners of Pentagon Office Park boast about being the 1St office park in the state,
no heritage research had been done on the site prior to Mr. Vogel's report.
Mr. Vogel explained that he presented the report to the Board for information; no
action being required at this time. He added that he would keep them posted if
the Heritage Preservation Board should need to get involved.
VI. DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION NO. 1:
Consultant Vogel explained that Fire Station No. 1 was demolished earlier this
year and a new fire station is being constructed on the site. He recommend that it
would be a very good idea for the Heritage Preservation Board to have an
opportunity to weigh in on the historic significance of City buildings when they are
being considered for demolition.
Chairman Kojetin agreed that would be a very good policy. He recalled that when
the old City Hall was being considered for demolition, the collective memories of
those who had worked for the City for many years had some trouble remembering
9
Minutes — October 9, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
what buildings preceded the soon to be demolished structure. It would have been i
very helpful to have a record of the bygone structures.
Planner Repya stated that she felt sure the process of documenting the history of
city buildings would be well received by city staff. She offered to report back to
the Board regarding city buildings which might be considered for demolition or
replacement. The Board agreed that was a good idea. No formal action was
taken.
VII. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT WORKSHOP: Establishing criteria for determining
"contributing" and "noncontributing"
Homes
Continued until November 5, 2007, 7:00 p.m.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: None
IX. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
X. CORRESPONDENCE:
Member Rofidal announced that the City will be holding community
meetings at the elementary schools to discuss the update to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. A schedule of the meetings was presented to the Board
and Mr. Rofidal encouraged his fellow board members to attend one of the
meetings. Planner Repya thanked Mr. Rofidal for his support of the
Comprehensive Plan process and also encouraged the Board to attend one of the
meetings.
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 5, 2007 — Special Meeting
November 13, 2007 — Regular Meeting
XII. ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.epya
10
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to
speak about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 9, 2007
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-07-10 Country Club Area Sewer, Water and Safety Reconstruction Improvements
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
A. October - Survey Progress Report
B. Design Review Issues
C. Proposed Plan of Treatment Changes — Revised
D. Amended Guidelines for New Home Construction — Revised
E. Definition of Architectural Styles
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: Monday, December 17, 2007 —Special Meeting
with Eden Prairie HPC
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Connie
Fukuda, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Nancy Sherer, and Sara
Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Wayne Houle, City Engineer
Jesse Struve, Utility Engineer
Paul Pasko, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (utility consultant)
Mike Kotila, Short Elliott Hendrickson - SEH (traffic consultant)
Veronica Anderson, Short Elliott Hendrickson — SEH (land-
scape consultant)
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 9, 2007
Member Blemaster moved approval of the Minutes from the October 9, 2007
meeting. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1. H-07-10 Country Club Area Sewer, Water and Safety Reconstruction
Improvements
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the October HPB meeting a
preliminary plan was presented for review. It was agreed that the proposed plan
addressed the needs for both upgrading the utility services and improving traffic
and pedestrian safety.
Questions were raised relative to the amount and type of signage required for the
traffic improvements and the crosswalk design and materials.
According to City Engineer Wayne Houle, under usual circumstances, the City is
required to follow "The Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices."
The manual would require a minimum of four signs per speed hump and up to
seven signs for a set of two speed humps. Because the Country Club District is
Minutes — November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
designated a local historic district, and addressing the Board's concerns
regarding the proliferation of signs, staff recommends a deviation from the
manual with an entrance sign be placed at the perimeter of the neighborhood to
warn of the traffic control devices that are found within the neighborhood. Such
signs would be located on the south ends of Arden, Bruce, Casco, Wooddale and
Browndale Avenues; the north ends of Browndale and Wooddale Avenues; and
the east entrance to the district on Sunnyside Road. Engineer Houle has
consulted the City Attorney, Roger Knutson regarding the proposed deviation
from the manual. Mr. Knutson recommended that if the proposed deviations
were to be implemented, it would be important to have findings of fact for
justification.
Addressing the crosswalks, Ms. Repya explained that they are shown in a
running bond brick pattern edged with concrete bands with the intent of using
traditional clay bricks in a blend of earthen tone colors.
Due to the complexity of the street alignments, many of the intersections and
sidewalks do not conform to a 90 degree rule. The goal of the proposed plan
works toward minimizing the hard surface area at the corners while providing safe
and legible pedestrian crossings. Curving the sidewalks at the corners and
adding or retaining lawn panels will promote a softened edge.
Engineer Houle advised the Board that the Edina Bike Task Force has identified
Wooddale Avenue as a primary bike route. Staff is not recommending additional
modifications be made to Wooddale Avenue other than those indicated on the
proposed plan. However, a "share the road" approach with proper signage in
place should be implemented with this plan.
Planner Repya concluded that the proposed plans demonstrate that no significant
heritage resources are to be destroyed or removed. Furthermore, the engineers
have done a very good job designing safety improvement measures that require
minimum alteration to the district's built environment and meet the criteria set out
in the "Guidelines for Public Works Projects".
Staff recommended approval of the requested Certificate of Appropriateness for
the proposed sewer, water and street reconstruction improvements to the historic
Country Club District subject to the plans presented.
Consultants for Short Elliott and Hendrickson (SEH), Paul Pasko, Mike Kotila,
and Veronica Anderson reviewed the proposed plan as it would be presented at
the upcoming neighborhood open house. Ms. Anderson elaborated on the
corner/crosswalk treatments as well as the proposed median for Wooddale
Avenue north of W. 50th Street.
Ms. Anderson pointed out that the general design intent for the streetscape and
landscape elements for the Country Club District project was based in part on the
intricate and richly diverse material patterns found on house facades, masonry
K
Minutes — November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
work and pavement treatments within the district. Ms. Anderson added that as a
result of researching the work of the landscape firm believed to have contributed
to the Country Club Development (Arthur Nichols and Anthony Morrell), the
proposed design of the a brick, stone, and concrete column, a major feature in
the gateway median at Woodale Avenue and 50th Street was created.
Board members discussed many of the details of the plan including the sign
proposed for the entry monuments and the colors to be used on the entrance
signs. It was agreed that Staff would make the final decisions regarding the
signs.
Member Blemaster complimented the consultants on the proposal, stating that
she appreciated their research into the history of the neighborhood that is obvious
in the plan.
Collectively, the Board thanked SEH for listening to the concerns they expressed
at the initial meeting in October. It was agreed that the proposal addressed all
the questions they had raised.
Member Rehkamp Larson then moved approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness for the Country Club area sewer, water and safety reconstruction
improvements. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
A. Survey Progress Report — October
Consultant Vogel explained that work continued on updating and reorganizing the
inventory of heritage resources in the Country Club District. The field survey was
about 75% completed by the end of the month. A good deal of consultant time
was devoted to reviewing the proposed traffic safety study improvements (the
subject of a COA application to be acted on at the November 13 HPB meeting)
and preparing for the HPB's Country Club workshop on November 5.
During October, the survey also began to focus more intensively on historic
landscape resources in the Country Club District. Historic landscape features
generally fall into one of two heritage resource categories:
1) Designed landscapes — Landscapes designed by professional or amateur
landscape architects, horticulturalists, or civil engineers using a recognized
style or tradition; or
2) Urban cultural landscapes — Geographical areas that have been
historically used by people, or shaped or modified by historical processes
3
Minutes — November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
of land use, and that retain visual characteristics indicative of such
processes.
To be considered a heritage resource, a landscape must be at least 50 years old
and have a well documented historical association with the broad pattern of
residential development in the Country Club District.
Some of the types of landscape features found in the District:
• Pattern of spatial organization (platted subdivisions, property lot lines)
• Boundary demarcations (lot lines, fenced yards, hedges)
• Public parks & open spaces (Browndale Park, Wooddale Park)
• Residential grounds (lawns, planters, flower beds, retaining walls, fences,
hedges, ornamental trees & shrubbery, walkways, outdoor lighting fixtures,
signs, sculpture, gazebos, decks, swimming pools, accessory buildings,
and other yard furnishings)
• Streets, curbs, gutters, drains
• Sidewalks & boulevards
• Residential driveways
• Median islands
• Vegetation related to land use (functional & ornamental plantings,
boulevard trees, yard trees)
• Gardens
• Public improvements (street lights, street signs, traffic signs)
• Topographic features (including Minnehaha Creek and Mill pond shoreline)
Vogel added that before the survey is completed, it needs to determine which
landscapes contribute to the historical significance of the district (and are
therefore worthy of protection). Some modifications to the district plan of
treatment may also be necessary.
B. Design Review Issues
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that at the November 5th Workshop the
following questions relative to design review were raised:
1) How should the heritage landmark overlay zoning treat noncontributing
properties located in designated landmark districts? and
2) Should Certificates of Appropriateness be required for structural alterations
and additions?
1. Noncontributing Properties
Mr. Vogel explained that the physical characteristics and historical significance of
the Country Club District as a whole provide the basis for evaluating individual
2
Minutes – November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
houses as contributing and noncontributing heritage resources. Contributing
properties are those which add to the historical associations and historic
architectural qualities for which the district is significant. Noncontributing houses
do not add to the historical and architectural values for which the district has been
zoned for preservation. Although analysis of the re -survey data is not yet
complete, it appears that a very substantial proportion of the houses in the
Country Club District meet the criteria for contributing heritage resources.
The comparatively small number of noncontributing residential properties in the
district either were not present during the period of significance (i.e., they are less
than 50 years old) or no longer possess historic integrity due to major alterations,
additions, or other physical changes in their appearance.
By definition, noncontributing properties are not heritage preservation resources
because they do not meet the criteria for significance and integrity. Individual
houses in the Country Club District either retain integrity (and thereby contribute
to the significance of the district) or they do not. Noncontributing houses in the
Country Club District are subject to design review by the Heritage Preservation
Board when they are demolished or moved because the city code requires the
replacement homes to be architecturally compatible with the historic homes and
streetscapes of the landmark district.
Vogel observed _,that in common practice, heritage preservation design review is
not concerned with exterior modifications made to noncontributing properties in a
district (particularly one where the majority of the components lack individual
significance). This is not to say that noncontributing properties are outside the
scope of heritage preservation planning—obviously, they form part of the fabric of
the district and their physical presence has an impact on its overall character and
integrity. Noncontributing properties can even become the focus of preservation
treatments: for example, in cases involving properties where historic integrity has
been compromised as the result of unsympathetic additions or remodelings, the
Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Restoring Historic Properties provide
a useful approach for recovering important aspects of historic integrity. In the
City of Edina, under the existing codes, changes to the appearance of
noncontributing homes in the Country Club District would not require a Certificate
of Appropriateness and homeowner compliance with preservation standards
would be voluntary.
2. Additions and Alterations
Regarding the issue of reviewing addition and alteration projects, the current City
of Edina heritage preservation code does not require Certificates of
Appropriateness for exterior alterations or additions on any buildings within a
designated heritage landmark district. The primary emphasis of the code is on
preventing teardowns of historic (i.e., contributing) properties and applying
architectural design standards to new construction. The protection, repair, and
replacement of exterior features on historic homes is left to the homeowners.
5
Minutes – November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Vogel pointed out that the cornerstone of the city's preservation program, as it is
currently constituted, is the concept of heritage preservation as a partnership
between local government and property owners. Sustaining the city's heritage
resources for future generations depends on striking a balance between
government regulation and private stewardship. As the city expands the Edina
Heritage Landmark overlay zoning to other buildings, sites, and districts, the
Heritage Preservation Board's responsibilities for design review will also increase.
When the current preservation code was adopted, there was a strong consensus
among members of the City Council, the Heritage Preservation Board, and the.
public that the best way to make the benefits of preservation available to the
largest number of historic property owners and the community as a whole was to
emphasize voluntary compliance with preservation standards (private
stewardship) over regulation by means of Certificates of Appropriateness (police
power).
Mr. Vogel further stated that the most important threat to the historic integrity of
the Country Club District is from teardowns—specifically, the demolition of
existing historic homes and the construction of architecturally inappropriate new
homes. Demolition, obviously, is the most destructive and irreversible form of
activity which can degrade the integrity of a heritage resource. Inappropriately
designed new construction can also have significant, long-term negative effects.
The data at hand show that historic facades in the district are, by and large,
intact—indeed, the overall level of fagade preservation in the district is
outstanding in comparison with other neighborhoods of similarly -aged homes in
the Twin Cities. (I would add that, based on my experience, the level of
compliance in the Country Club District is at least as good as that of more
intensively regulated historic districts.) Of course, facade "modernization" and the
replacement of original architectural features can have significant effects on the
neighborhood's historic character. Vogel pointed out that in his professional
opinion, the exterior remodeling that has occurred has had minimal adverse effect
on the historic character of individual house facades or the neighborhood as a
whole—put another way, the loss of historic fabric has not resulted in significant
loss of historic character. Most of the egregious "remuddling" seems to have
occurred at post -1940 homes, which are inherently more susceptible to loss of
historic integrity from exterior alteration than older homes because of their design
characteristics and materials. There are also several noteworthy examples of
facade remodeling where the new work actually enhances the historic facades by
adding architecturally compatible character -defining features.
Addressing additions, Vogel observed that over their lifetimes most of the homes
in the district have been added to—one could make the case that the additions
more than fifty years old reflect an important aspect of the pattern of residential
development in the district. Most of the additions made since the 1950's appear
to have been appropriate, in that they did not destroy significant, historic
character -defining architectural features. Once again, the most incompatible
additions tend to be found on houses built after 1940. Except for a relatively
A
Minutes – November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
small handful of large, multi -story additions (most often attached garages) that
overpower or dramatically alter the historic character of the house, most of the
additions are easily differentiated from the original building and do not
compromise the integrity of the facade elements visible from the street.
Although individual homeowners have not always followed preservation
standards and guidelines to the letter, with few exceptions they have succeeded
in preserving the form and details of their historic house facades without any
coercion from the city. In the final analysis, the typical Country Club homeowner
has been a good steward of neighborhood heritage.
Vogel explained that the current Plan of Treatment for the district reflects the
city's comprehensive, contextual approach to heritage resources management,
which recognizes the historical fact that the Country Club is one of the city's
historically significant neighborhoods, a heritage resource that derives its primary
heritage preservation value from being a unified entity, even though it is
composed of over 500 heritage resource components which are not individually
significant. Because they lack individual distinction, the preservation of house
facades relies heavily upon voluntary compliance with heritage preservation
standards. The level of regulation by overlay zoning is, in my opinion, matched to
the scale of the primary threats (teardowns) and has been demonstrated to be
cost-effective from the perspective of local government operations. Because no
form of government regulation of private property is perfect (there will always be
"loopholes" and property owners willing to circumvent the official controls),
requiring Certificates of Appropriateness for exterior remodeling and small
additions would not increase the long-term benefits of heritage landmark zoning
for the community at large. In my opinion, it would be better to address the
problems posed by inappropriate fagade remodeling and out -of -scale additions
through more intensive public education focusedon historic homeowners,
realtors, contractors, architects, designers, and builders.
Consultant Vogel concluded that the heritage landmark code and the political
process that shaped it have placed limits on the authority of the Heritage
Preservation Board to prescribe any particular preservation treatment outside of
demolition and new construction in relation to privately owned property. The Plan
of Treatment adopted when the Country Club District was designated an Edina
Heritage Landmark establishes priorities for dealing with heritage resource
preservation issues within the framework of existing local planning and zoning
programs. The plan also presents specific recommendations for meeting these
priorities and fairly detailed guidelines with respect to new construction. The
challenge here is to adopt a policy that protects significant heritage resources yet
also allows private property owners the flexibility to accommodate changing
needs without excessive government regulation—it goes without saying that
finding this middle ground between guidance and regulation will always be a
challenge. Based on the preliminary findings of the re -survey, however, the best
course to follow seems to be: continue to guide, rather than regulate, additions
and alterations to contributing properties, using the Certificate of Appropriateness
7
Minutes — November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
process to control teardowns and developing property owner education programs
to encourage voluntary compliance with accepted preservation standards and.
By redefining demolition to encompass the destruction or removal of a major
architectural character -defining feature, the city may be able to better protect
historic facades with Certificates of Appropriateness under the current code. (It
remains to be seen, however, if the legal definition of demolition can be stretched
to cover activities which are widely regarded as "remodeling" — the decision
ultimately rests with the City Council.) Such design review should apply only to
permits for work on contributing properties. Staff feels strongly that the overriding
consideration should be protecting the historic elements deemed most critical to
defining neighborhood character.
While continuing to encourage private stewardship, Vogel recommended that the
city should take the steps needed to ensure that historic property owners have
access to information, education, and technical assistance in preservation
matters. The city also needs to explore ways to provide property owners with
economic incentives to invest in state-of-the-art facade rehabilitation and
architecturally compatible new construction.
Board members discussed the need to better define the term "demolition", to
ensure that it is clearly understood what building activity would warrant a
Certificate of Appropriateness. All agreed that it is imperative the revised plan of
treatment clarify the preservation activities overseen in the district.
Member Blemaster opined that the proposed changes cover the level of
monitoring very well without stringent controls. She cautioned that it is important
to respect peoples' property.
Member Scherer questioned what would be considered significant changes to the
front facade. Mr. Vogel explained that character defining features would be
subject to review. All agreed that "character defining features" need to be
defined; otherwise the review process could appear arbitrary. Member Rofidal
suggested photos of character defining features might be helpful. Board
members agreed.
C. Proposed Plan of Treatment Changes
Consultant Vogel provided the Board with proposed revisions to the plan of
treatment reflecting direction from the November 5th workshop. Board members
agreed that the revisions reflected the discussion at the workshop.
Addressing changes to the landscaping in the district, Mr. Vogel recommended
not reviewing those changes because landscaping is reversible - as seen in
photos of the homes over the years.
Minutes — November 13, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board members requested that driveways be addressed in the revised plan of
treatment. Vogel agreed that would be important, noting that although it appears
that currently, a 12 foot wide driveway is required by the zoning code; with the
exception of shared driveways and the driveways of new homes, most driveways
in the district are less than 10 feet wide, with the average being 8 feet.
Discussion ensued regarding how driveways should be addressed. It wasagreed
that since driveway widths do vary within the neighborhood, a requirement of the
driveway being proportionate to the property would be reasonable.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Country Club Survey Meeting Schedule
Member Rofidal observed that the Country Club District moratorium ends on April
th
15 , at which time the survey work and proposed changes need to be presented
to the City Council for their approval. Board members discussed a proposed
schedule of meetings with the neighborhood and the City Council. It was agreed
that a joint meeting with the City Council would be preferable in January to touch
base and make sure the Council was aware of the content of revised plan of
treatment prior to a neighborhood meeting toward the end of February (perhaps on
the 25th). Planner Repya stated that she would check into the possibility of a joint
meeting with the City Council in January, prior to a neighborhood meeting in
February.
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS: None
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 11, 2007 — Regular Meeting
December 17, 2007 — Special Meeting with
Eden Prairie HPC
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.epya
E
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
During "Concern of Residents," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak
about something not on the agenda.
* Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an
issue previously discussed.
* Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might
direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 13, 2007
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
A. November - Survey Progress Report
B. Design Review Guidelines — Garages
C. Design Review Guidelines — Landscaping
III. COMP PLAN: Draft Heritage Plan Review
IV. OTHER 1361NESS:
A. 2008 Meeting Schedule
B. Boards and Commissions — City Council Decisions
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: Monday, December 17,2007— Special Meeting with Eden Prairie I
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance
in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-
927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER11, 2007, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Kojetin, Lou Blemaster, Laura Benson, Connie
Fukuda, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Nancy Sherer, and Sara
Rubin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara, and Chris Rofidal
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Robert Sykes, 4512 Casco Avenue
Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 13, 2007
Member Blemaster moved approval of the Minutes from the November 13, 2007
meeting. Member Rubin seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
A. Survey Progress Report — November
Consultant Vogel reported that the survey activities continued to focus on the
visual inspection of heritage resources in the district (about 90% complete at the
end of the month). Descriptions of the physical appearance of houses made in
the field were checked against photographs and documentary evidence
contained in the assessor records and previous surveys. A number of mistakes,
inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in the 1980 National Register form are being
corrected. Maps and aerial photographs are being used to verify the locations of
historic landscape features, which had been left out of the 1980 survey. The
information that is being recorded on each property will be used to determine the
number of contributing and noncontributing resources in the district.
Organization and review of the survey data has been ongoing with the field
survey. The updated inventory of heritage resources in the district, as well as the
district plan of treatment, are being reviewed for content, clarity, and accuracy.
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Vogel explained that the district plan of treatment and design review
guidelines were revised to reflect the comments and suggestions made by the
HPB at the November 5 workshop and November 13 regular meeting.
Following a brief discussion regarding the changes that have been made to the
plan of treatment thus far, Board members asked Mr. Vogel to prepare a copy of
the most up to date plan of treatment for review at the January meeting. Vogel
agreed to have a draft copy of the plan of treatment reflecting the proposed
changes for the January meeting.
B. Design Review Guidelines — Garages
Consultant Vogel presented the following revised plan of treatment design review
guidelines for garages: (Note - the new language underlined)
• No detached garage should be taller, longer, or wider than the house on
the same lot.
• No new detached garage should have a roofline taller that that of adjacent
homes.
• The design and materials of any new detached garage should compliment
the architectural style and character of the house on the same lot.
• Undecorated side walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided whenever
possible on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties.
• New detached garages should be differentiated from historic homes and
clearly identifiable as contemporary works.
These guidelines generally follow the Secretary of the Interior's standards for
preservation projects and the guidelines for rehabilitation.
C. Design Review Guidelines — Landscaping
Consultant Vogel proposed that Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) decisions
by the HPB encompass landscape architecture to the extent that such projects
will have an impact on prominent or distinctive landscape features (driveways,
retaining walls, walkways, vegetation, outdoor furnishings, decorative details,
etc.). Landscape architecture associated with houses may require protection or
rehabilitation as part of demolition and/or new home construction work. Historic
landscape resources will also need to be considered in planning for public works
projects.
2
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
While historic landscape preservation involves a broad array of designed and
vernacular features, COAs will only be required for work that requires a city
permit. The recommended design review guidelines are as follows:
New driveways should be compatible in size, scale, and material with
historic driveways in the district. Driveways and off-street parking areas
should be designed in such a manner that they do not radically change,
obscure, or destroy the historic character -defining spatial organization of
front yards and streetscapes. The 12 -foot width requirement for new
driveways is not appropriate in the Country Club District.
Design and install new retaining walls, planters, steps, walkways, and
fences to be physically and visually compatible with the historic character
of the district in scale, form, and materials. Retaining walls should follow
the grade of the property and blend with its setting. Plant material such as
vines may also be used to help soften and screen retaining walls.
• Retain historic front yard terraces ("patios") that give historic houses
(especially those built in the Italian Renaissance and Spanish Eclectic
styles) their distinguishing character.
• . Minimize the disturbance of terrain around historic houses to reduce the
possibility of destroying important trees, shrubs, planting beds, walkways,
and other landscape features.
• New plant materials, fencings, walkways, lights, signs, and street furniture
should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale,
material, texture, and color.
• Boulevard and park trees should be replaced in kind. New plantings
should convey the same visual appearance as those planted during the
district's period of historical significance (1920s -1950s).
• Provide access for the handicapped without damaging the essential
character of streets and sidewalks.
• Avoid new curb -cuts and driveways.
• Landscaping with materials, plants, and features from the district's period
of historical significance (1920s -1950s) should be encouraged.
The plan of treatment generally follows the National Park Service's new
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, which interpret the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Preservation guidelines could provide opportunities for protecting and enhancing
natural resources. For example, the city may wish to adopt a policy that would
discourage construction of large areas of impervious surface for off-street parking
in residential areas by promoting a return to the old-fashioned ribbon -type
driveways in older neighborhoods. Permeable pavement systems and other
"green" alternatives to solid concrete, brick or bituminous paving could also be
explored.
Board members agreed that the proposed language for landscaping in the plan of
treatment addresses some of the problems which have arisen in the past and will
be a welcome addition.
Robert Sykes, 4625 Casco Avenue explained that he is a Professor of Landscape
Architecture at the University of Minnesota and has used the Country Club District
as a case study for his classes. He suggested that the City carefully control the
boulevard areas in the District. Requiring boulevard trees to be replaced with the
new variety of disease resistant elms would ensure that the historic tree canopy
unique to the District would be maintained. He recommended that the City
maintain an inventory of desirable trees that could be made available to residents
upon request.
Board members agreed with Mr. Sykes pointing out that the treescape is an
important element to the historic context of the district.
Regarding driveways in the District, Member Rehkamp Larson agreed that a
minimum12 foot width was not realistic. Furthermore, perhaps the Board could
encourage ribbon strip driveways which would be much friendlier to the
environment.
Member Scherer questioned how the plan of treatment would address shared
driveways which are pretty prevalent in the District. The Board agreed that it
would be wise to encourage those with shared driveways to provide a buffer
between the two whenever possible.
Kitty O'Dea, 4510 Bruce Avenue observed that the new home abutting hers to the
north (4508 Bruce Avenue) was required to have a 12 foot wide driveway, which
is now just shy of 12 feet, and they need every inch. Ms. O'Dea opined that the
new plan of treatment should encourage the maintenance of the 12 foot driveway
width. Board members thanked Ms. O'Dea for her insight.
D. Thorpe Bros. Design Guidelines
Consultant Vogel pointed out that while revising the plan of treatment for the
district, close attention was paid to the original Country Club design guidelines
adopted by Thorpe Bros. as part of the original homeowner covenants from 1924-
1944, which remained in effect until 1964. The original covenants included the
following:
M
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
1) Houses were required to face the street; a house on a corner lot had to
face the same street as the "inside" house next door.
2) Setbacks: 30 feet from the front lot line to the front foundation wall
(excluding porches); 3 feet to the side lot line, 7 feet from the side of a
corner house to the street.
3) No house, including any attached garage and porches, could exceed 60%
of lot coverage, nor could it have a width greater than 80% of the distance
between the side lot lines.
4) Front porches, balconies, etc. could not project more than 12 feet from the
front of the house; on houses occupying corer lots, side porches could not
extend father than 10 feet.
5) No bay window, dormer, stairway landing, cornice, or other projecting
feature could extend more than 18 inches from the front and sides of a
house.
6) All outbuildings were required to "correspond in style and architecture to
the residence to which such buildings are appurtenant" and for houses on.
corner lots, detached garages had to be located within 30 feet of the side
of the house farthest from the adjoining side street.
7) Detached garages and outbuildings could not occupy more than 60% of
the width of the rear lot line.
8) Exterior fuel storage tanks, signs greater than 480 square inches, and
"objectionable" trees and shrubs were prohibited.
9) Concrete ramps or ribbons from the street to the sidewalk were required
for all driveways.
10)Maximum height for fences was 4 feet 6 inches from grade, with no walls
over 3 feet above grade in front yards.
11)The height of house foundation walls could not exceed 3 feet 6 inches
(measured from the elevation of the curb at the front lot line) unless the
"natural grade" of the lot was greater (in which case the natural grade
could be the finish grade).
12)Walls, steps, or other construction (excluding sidewalks) could not
encroach on the boulevard.
5
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board members agreed that acknowledging Thorpe's design criteria will be an
important step to insure that moving forward; decisions maintain the historic
integrity of the district.
Member Rehkamp Larson suggested that the revised plan of treatment include
an appendix with suggestions for interested parties to gain more information on a
desired topic. Board members agreed that would be an important and helpful
tool for the residents. Consultant Vogel added that such an appendix would also
provide an education element which is one of the missions of the HPB.
111. COMP PLAN: Draft Heritage Plan Review
Planner Repya explained that the Heritage Preservation Plan created by the HPB in
2005-2006 has been assimilated as a chapter into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
content of the HPB's plan remains unchanged; however it has been reformatted to
compliment the other chapters of the Comp Plan.
Ms. Repya pointed out that in keeping with the other Comp Plan chapters; the following
Implementation section was added to provide a schedule for the identified goals:
Ongoing
1. Carry out a comprehensive city-wide survey to identify and evaluate the
preservation value of historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, and
districts.
2. Rezone historically, architecturally, archaeologically, and culturally
significant properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and Landmark
Districts.
3. Increase the use of partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and
individual property owners to ensure that significant heritage resources are
preserved, protected, and used in a manner that is responsive to
community values and consistent with appropriate preservation standards.
Short Term
4. Update the information in the heritage resources inventory and convert it to
electronic form so that it can be manipulated, used, and retrieved quickly.
In addition, the inventory should be made adaptable for Geographic
Information System (GIS) users.
5. Use existing planning tools more effectively and create a better "tool box"
to address emerging heritage preservation challenges.
6. Establish and allocate resources to development of a heritage resources
disaster management plan.
7. Redirect the resources of the Heritage Preservation Board toward an
increased emphasis on education and technical assistance programs.
0
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
8. Provide better public access to heritage preservation information through
the media, outreach, and the Internet.
Medium-term
9. Develop an array of economic incentives for the preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of significant, privately -owned
heritage resources.
10. Develop innovative demonstration projects and disseminate information on
the importance of heritage preservation in developing sustainable urban
environments.
Board members thanked Planner Repya for the update. Member Scherer also
announced to the Board that the Planning Commission will be holding the first
public hearing for the Comp Plan on December 19th and she encouraged her
fellow HPB members to attend. No formal action was taken.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. 2008 Meeting Schedule
Planner Repya provided the Board with a schedule of the monthly meeting dates for 2008.
Included in the schedule were the monthly deadlines for the submittal of Certificate of
Appropriateness requests. Board members thanked Ms. Repya for the information as it will be
helpful for planning in the year ahead.
B. Boards and Commissions — City Council Decisions
Planner Repya presented the Board with a memorandum from Gordon Hughes, City Manager
which outlined
V. CONCERN OF RESIDENTS:
Robert Sykes — 4512 Casco Avenue
Mr. Sykes advised the Board that he had the opportunity to review to review the
proposed changes included in the upcoming Country Club District utility/street
improvement project and he would like the Board to consider the following:
1. Incorporate elements of Thorpe's original deed restrictions into the criteria for
evaluating changes in the District.
2. Encourage the strongest language possible regarding preserving the original
design and planning of the boulevard and rights of way in the District. By
allowing only grasses on the boulevard, as designed, the HPB would be setting
an example for the residents.
7
Minutes — December 11, 2007
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
3. The proposed roadway plan provides for mountable curbs to be used on the
traffic islands. Although the rationale for the design is to provide for an easier
turning radius for large trucks and buses; utilizing a wider curb top as seen
around the Minneapolis park system also serves that purpose and is far more in
keeping with the historic district. Planner Repya thanked Mr. Sykes for his
observation and stated that she would share his concerns with City Engineer,
Wayne Houle.
Addressing potential changes to the District's plan of treatment, Mr. Sykes
encouraged the Board to consider that when Thorpe was designing the District, a
system of non -symmetrical side yard setbacks was used. This practice is evident
in the varying deed restrictions for each street in the neighborhood and provides a
pattern on the streetscape in which the houses are not centered on the lot. These
variations were intentional, creating an irregular rhythm, and defies the City's
current zoning requirements of consistent side yard setbacks. He added that the
variations are intentional, providing closer front doors, which is more neighborly.
Board members thanked Mr. Sykes for sharing his expertise on the District and
welcomed his input in the future.
Kitty O'Dea — 4610 Bruce Avenue
Ms. O'Dea inquired about the schedule for a neighborhood meeting to address
the proposed changes to the District's plan of treatment.
Planner Repya explained that the HPB will have a joint meeting with the City
Council sometime in January, and a neighborhood meeting will tentatively take
place in late February or early March. She noted that the scheduling of meetings
must take into consideration the termination of the demolition moratorium in the
District which is April 15tH
Board members added that notification of the neighborhood meeting will be
mailed to residents in the District as well as posted in the Edina Sun Current.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 8, 2008
January 15, 2008 — Joint Meeting with City Council
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya