Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 8, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-1 4505 Arden Avenue Remove home's heritage resource classification to enable demolition of home and construction of a new home III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. OTHER BUSINESS: V. CORRESPONDENCE: VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 9, 2010 VII. 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. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Lo Jean Rehkamp Larson, Montgomery MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West i Blemaster, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Bob Kojetin, Bob Schwartzbauer, Joel Stegner and Elizabeth STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the December 8, 2009, meeting were filed as submitted. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificate of Appropriateness A. H-10-01 4505 Arden Avenue, Edina, MN Remove home's heritage resource classification to enable demolition of home and construction of a new home. Staff Presentation Planner Repya explained that the Country Club District Plan of Treatment, as revised in 2008, stipulates that houses which the HPB determines to be heritage preservation resources will be protected against teardowns "unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage or by inappropriate additions or alterations." For planning purposes, a house in the Country Club District is considered to be a heritage preservation resource if (a) it was built during the district's period of historical significance (1924-1944) and (b) it embodies the distinctive architectural features that characterize one or more of the "period revival" styles (Colonial, Tudor, etc.). Planner Repya reported that the subject property at 4505 Arden Avenue is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home is a Tudor style constructed in 1926, and thus categorized a heritage resource which precludes the home from being torn down. Tim and Michele Pronley have entered into a purchase agreement for the property with the intention of demolishing the home and building a new home that meets the design review guidelines in the Country Club District's Plan of Treatment. HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the November HPB meeting, Scott Busyn of Great Neighborhood Homes represented the Pronleys in requesting opinions from the Board as to the likelihood the home could be reclassified a non -historic resource and hence qualify for demolition. At that time, Mr. Busyn provided photographic evidence supporting his contention that the home at 4505 Arden Avenue no longer contributes to the historical significance of the Country Club District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, and inappropriate additions and/or alterations. Once Mr. Busyn concluded his presentation, members of the Heritage Preservation Board shared their opinions. The general consensus of the group was that if the Pronleys chose to pursue declassifying the home a heritage resource they would have to make a very strong case that the home suffers from deterioration, damage, and/or inappropriate additions or alterations that cannot be rehabilitated. The Board stressed that information provided should be supported by the technical evaluation of a registered architect or engineer. Planner Repya pointed out in his letter to the HPB dated November 9, 2009; Mr. Busyn stated that the subject property "no longer contributes to the historical significance of the Country Club District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, and by inappropriate additions or alterations." In his opinion, these defects have rendered the existing home "unsafe and uninhabitable" and therefore unworthy of preservation. Mr. Busyn has now provided 2 extensive reports of the subject home. The first, by Building Environmental Management, Corp. evaluated the home with respect to mold and moisture. The second report by structural engineer and architect Jared Larson provided an evaluation of his visual inspection of the home, including a list of the existing deficiencies and building code violations found in both the interior and the exterior of the home. Both reports were presented to support Mr. Busyn's contention that the existing house should be demolished. In an evaluation of the reports, Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel observed that missing from both assessments of the property was consideration of the subject property's location within a designated heritage preservation district. Also, neither report referenced the relevant historic preservation standards or heritage resource management practices. Much of the information presented related to the condition of the interior of the house which would be irrelevant when assessing its historic integrity. Mr. Vogel also pointed out that regarding the exterior conditions of the home, the observations and recommendations were presented out of context, having little bearing on the question of whether or not the house possesses historic integrity. Edina's chief building official, Steve Kirchman reviewed the reports provided by Mr. Busyn and determined that while there are numerous components of the dwelling requiring repair or replacement, that would not be unusual for a home built in the 1920's. He pointed out that while rehabilitation of the home would require demolition of a great deal of that which currently exists, it is possible. HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Kirchman added that the architect's report raised concern as to the structural integrity of the foundation, however no evidence was provided relative to the extent of the foundation's deterioration. Furthermore, Mr. Kirchman pointed out that most residential dwelling foundations are over -designed and a limited amount of deterioration is not structurally significant. Lastly, Mr. Kirchman observed that he did not believe that the reports provided evidence to render a judgment that the home is unsafe or uninhabitable. RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Planner Repya concluded that taking into consideration the property reports provided by the applicant; the evaluation by Steve Kirchman, Edina's Chief Building Inspector; and the recommendation from Robert Vogel, the Board's Heritage Preservation Consultant, Staff recommends denial of the application for a CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS to remove the heritage resource classification of the home at 4505 Arden Avenue. Findings supporting the recommendation include: 1. The subject property is a heritage preservation resource and contributes to the historical significance of the Country Club District. 2. Built in 1926, the core of the house is a representative example of the Tudor Revival style homes constructed in the District during its period of historical significance (1924-1944). The street fagade is preserved intact, despite some deterioration caused by weathering and apparent deferred maintenance. 3. The City's chief building official reviewed the submitted reports and opined in his memos dated January 6, 2010 and January 11, 2010 that based on information in the reports the home at 4505 Arden Avenue could be rehabilitated, and is "safe and habitable". 4. The structural additions made to the house in 1938 and 1948 are architecturally incompatible with the Tudor style fagade, but have not destroyed the distinguishing original qualities and historic character of the property. Structural additions are a common feature of historic homes in the Country Club District and document the history of the neighborhood and individual properties. In this case, although the additions are over fifty years old, they lack architectural distinction and have no preservation value in their own right. 5. The physical condition of the core of the house makes it a good candidate for preservation. The original street fagade has survived largely intact and the visual impact of the inappropriate structural additions (located on the rear) is reversible. 6. The deteriorated condition of some of the property's historic character -defining exterior features does not justify demolition. The preferred treatment is rehabilitation, encompassing repair or replacement of the deteriorated features, construction of an architecturally appropriate rear addition and garage, and abatement of serious building code problems. Compliance with modern energy efficiency, drainage, and accessibility standards should not endanger the architectural integrity of the fagade and modifications to the historic appearance of the house from the street should be minimal. HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 4 of 9 7. The owners of 4505 Arden Avenue could rehabilitate the core section of the historic house. This may result in demolition of the 2 -story addition and attached garage, which would require a Certificate of Appropriateness; the new construction would need to meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation and follow the design review guidelines in the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. A Certificate of Appropriateness would not be required for work that would not result in the removal of more than 50% of the surface area of all exterior walls or the principal roof. The preferred preservation treatment for the house at 4505 Arden Avenue is rehabilitation, which is also the recommended treatment strategy for the Country Club District as a whole. Rehabilitation is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a heritage preservation resource through repairs, alterations, and/or additions, while preserving those portions or features which convey the property's historical, cultural and architectural values. The underlying reason for rehabilitating rather than tearing down the house is the recognition that the older homes give the Country Club District its special character and cultural depth. Once a heritage resource is demolished, it cannot be replaced, and architecturally compatible new homes are not an appropriate substitute for preserved historic homes, regardless of how attractive they look to the modern eye. In more utilitarian terms, rehabilitation of older homes also saves energy and raw materials, to say nothing of time and money, over new construction. Applicant Presentation Mr. Busyn thanked everyone for attending the meeting and told the Board in his opinion the subject home is in the worse condition he's seen. Mr. Busyn stated over the years the home has suffered tremendous deterioration and damage. Mr. Busyn also pointed out the inappropriateness of the additions and "other" alterations to the home. Mr. Busyn delivered a power point presentation cataloging the deterioration to the home. Mr. Busyn pointed out the following issues found with the house: • Widespread exterior and interior water damage • Mold growth contamination • Structural deterioration and failure • Overall deterioration of exterior and interior finishes. • Roof failure • Multiple code violations to include a stairway that is too narrow, no handrail, unsafe landings, no fire protection between garage and home, exposed electrical, exposed asbestos • Chimney deterioration. The chimney should be removed and replaced. • Settling • Too many dogs in the home • Mice Mr. Busyn stated these deficiencies have been confirmed and documented by licensed architects/engineers and residential environmental health experts. Mr. Busyn further HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 5 of 9 explained that a thermal imaging camera was used to detect moisture intrusion inside the walls. Continuing, Mr. Busyn clarified that Mr. and Mrs. Pronley do not own the property; they are the applicant and have entered into a Purchase Agreement with the Trustees. Mr. Busyn said the Pronleys are not against historic preservation, they believe in it. Mr. Busyn referred to the Plan of Treatment and noted that it states the City promotes voluntary compliance with historic preservation as long as it is possible to make an efficient, contemporary use of older homes. Mr. Busyn alleged that this isn't possible with 4505 Arden Avenue. He added that the property has suffered so badly from deferred maintenance that it has gone past the tipping point. Mr. Busyn said a reasonable person would allow the property owners to have the choice to either rehabilitate the home or raze the home and replace the home with a new home. Mr. Busyn asked the Board for their support. Public Comment Carol Hancock, 4503 Arden Avenue, addressed the Board and pointed out that in the Country Club District there are numerous homes with additions to the original house. She said in her opinion the "non -historic" additions of the subject house could be removed and the core of the original house preserved. Continuing, Ms. Hancock referred to Mr. Busyn's comments on mold found in the house and asked if the mold growth had been documented. Ms. Hancock commented.on the thermal photos presented of the interior of the house adding she would have liked to see thermal images of a "normal" house for comparison. Concluding, Ms. Hancock pointed out the property next door is for sale, adding she is sure all historical houses have some code deficiencies. Joyce Mellom, 4506 Arden Avenue, asked the Board if they received her two letters. Chair Rofidal responded in the affirmative. Dan Engel, Florida, informed the Board he is one of the Co -Trustees of the property, informing the Board his parents purchased their home in 1959. Mr. Engel acknowledged his parents were poor stewards of the property, adding the Trust as it's established doesn't have the assets to improve the home. Continuing, Mr. Engel stated the Trust is in a dire situation and the alternatives are limited. Concluding, Mr. Engel stated in his opinion there aren't many options available for this property; sell the house to Mr. and Mrs. Pronley, or rent the house and leave the key with the bank. Steve Lundberg, 4517 Arden Avenue, stated in his opinion the "horse is out of the barn", pointing out there are a large number of homes in the district that have already been modified without HPB review. Mr. Lundberg said forcing rehabilitation isn't even common sense because in reality if the house is "rehabilitated" the majority of home will be "gone" and what's left is just fagade rehabilitation. Kathie Cerra 4522 Arden Avenue, addressed the Board and stated over the past 10 years there has been continuous construction noise in her neighborhood from HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 6 of 9 teardowns and additions to existing homes. This constant noise and construction vehicle traffic has completely disrupted the tranquility of the neighborhood. Ms. Cerra suggested that the Board deny the request and recommend that the City purchase the property to create a small park or an oasis of open space. Lee McGrath, 4619 Moorland Avenue, stated he is a believer in the 5th Amendment and the individual rights of property owners. Mr. McGrath said in his opinion the current recommendation infringes on those rights, adding an individual's property right vs. the community should be balanced. Concluding, Mr. McGrath encouraged the Board to uphold the rights of the property owner by allowing them to tear down the house and build a new house. Chair Rofidal asked if anyone else would like to speak to the topic. Being none; Member Forrest moved to close the public meeting. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion approved. Discussion, comments, questions from the Board Chair Rofidal asked if the mold growth had been documented. Planner Repya responded and acknowledged that mold was found in the home; however, no toxicity report was presented on the type(s) of mold found or exact location. Chair Rofidal suggested that Mr. Busyn consider providing.a thermal image of a different house for comparison purposes. Member Forrest agreed that would be a good idea, adding winter and summer thermal imaging photos can be different and could also indicate a lack of insulation. Mr. Busyn agreed. Member Kojetin commented that he can't speak to the 5th Amendment; however, he believes that the majority (if not all) people living in the District are aware of its landmark designation and the restrictions placed on the District. Member Kojetin said the intent of the landmark designation is to preserve the look of the neighborhood; which in part is preservation of the front facade of the home. Member Kojetin said the Plan of Treatment doesn't prevent a homeowner from maintaining their house or adding on to it, reiterating that preserving the front fagade and its scale is of the utmost importance. Concluding, Member Kojetin stated he believes the subject house can be rehabilitated leaving the front facade intact, adding in his opinion the house as it exists today does have value. Member Schwartzbauer asked Member Kojetin if he would be in favor of the applicant keeping the front fagade as is, and building back or tearing down the existing house and rebuilding the house with an identical front facade. Member Kojetin said he thinks he would be in favor of either, adding maintaining the front streetscape is important to him. Member Rehkamp Larson said in her opinion the Board is preserving more than just the front fagade, adding old houses have smaller pieces and parts of significance. It isn't only the fagade one has to maintain. Member Rehkamp Larson said she believes there is an audience for restoring old houses, adding she has worked with these clients. HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Member Schwartzbauer observed if this request is considered a "whole house issue" in his opinion it has been demonstrated that extensive deterioration has occurred. Member Schwartzbauer referred to language in the Plan of Treatment that indicates "unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage or by inappropriate additions or alterations." Member Schwartzbauer said in reading that language one must also believe that the additions made to the home are inappropriate and would qualify the house for demolition. Concluding, Member Schwartzbauer reiterated that in his opinion the integrity of the house at 4505 Arden Avenue has been compromised and if any home in the District is a candidate for demolition this one is. Member Rehkamp Larson commented that in her opinion "the horse isn't out of the barn", adding there's a lot to preserve in the District. Member Rehkamp Larson said the District consists of 550 strings that together hold up the landmark designation. Member Forrest stated as she understands the Plan of Treatment, the job of the Heritage Preservation Board is to preserve not only the fagade of District houses, but to preserve the entire building and its place in the District. Member Forrest agreed significant "issues" were found with the house; however, the City's building official didn't render the building uninhabitable. Continuing, Member Forrest also pointed out economics is not the charge of the Board. Member Forrest concluded that in her opinion there is no evidence addressing the lack of historic significance of the home, adding people preserve old houses all the time, it's a fact of life. Concluding, Member Forrest said she agrees with City staff and Consultant Vogel that the house can be rehabilitated, adding she can't support the request to remove the heritage resource classification of the house. Member Blemaster said the role of the Board is to preserve and protect the historic features of homes in the District. She added the Board needs to be aware of the "slippery slope", and shouldn't consider economics in the decision making process. Member Blemaster stated she believes this particular home can be rehabilitated; the additions could be eliminated leaving the original house intact. Member Schwartzbauer stated he doesn't believe anyone is disputing the relevancy of the Plan of Treatment. It is relevant; however the argument this evening is with the application to declassify the house to facilitate its removal to make way for a new house. Continuing, Member Schwartzbauer referred to the two reports presented that indicate the additions aren't historically significant and are not appropriate and the house is in a serious state of deterioration. Member Schwartzbauer said if the Board is viewing the house "as a whole" the additions compromised the historic relevancy of the house "as a whole". Member Blemaster pointed out the additions were added to the core of the home and if removed the "historic home" would remain. Member Montgomery commented that there may be historic integrity in the additions, HPB Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 8 of 9 pointing out they were constructed in the 1930's and 1940's. Member Forrest stated that the architecture of the home was significant and if one looks at the Secretary of Interior's standards, the core of the house as it exists today continues to maintain its historic significance. Chair Rofidal said to the best of his knowledge the significance of the streetscape has been discussed many times by this Board, adding it's his understanding that the street scape is what can be seen from the front street. Continuing, Chair Rofidal acknowledged a recent teardown in the District at 4615 Wooddale Avenue that received a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild a new home in its place, adding these two cases are different in a number of ways. 1) The process was different, 2) Consultant Vogel recommended approval, and 3) The house at 4615 Wooddale was not an historic resource and would not qualify for its own designation. Continuing, Chair Rofidal stated this request is a struggle, acknowledging the property at 4505 Arden has deteriorated, and the additions added to the home are not appropriate. Member Forrest also added with regard to 4615 Wooddale that Thorpe used different standards for that house. Member Stenger told the Board at the last meeting when this issue was raised, he had expressed concern regarding safety; however, those concerns have been answered and the building inspector has indicated that the house is habitable. Member Stenger acknowledged that rehabilitation is inconvenient and expensive, but the charge of the HPB is to preserve. Member Rehkamp Larson noted the Plan of Treatment was revised recently, acknowledging there is a learning curve to the process. Member Rehkamp Larson thanked Mr. Busyn for his excellent presentation, which was clear, and the issues were thoroughly documented; however, she added that she could not support the request to declassify the historic significance of the house to make way for its removal. Action Member Forrest moved denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the heritage resource classification from the home based on staff and consultant findings. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. Ayes; Fukuda, Montgomery, Rehkamp Larson, Kojetin (want front facade maintained), Forrest, Blemaster, Stegner, Rofidal. Nay; Schwartzbauer. Motion carried. Ill. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Chair Rofidal reported he has been participating in the review process to appoint new members to fill the vacancies left by members Fukuda, Blemaster and Kojetin, and has found during the process that Edina has some very talented and interesting residents Hp B Minutes January 12, 2010 page 9 of 9 with very different backgrounds. He stressed that the Board will miss the fine qualities an d expertise Connie, Lou and Bob have exhibited, and thanked them for their service to the City of Edina and the Heritage Preservation Board. Chair Rofidal also reported that in March members of the HPB will need to elect a new ch air when his term as chair expires. Member Kojetin told the Board he has enjoyed his time on the HPB. Kojetin explained that he also serves on the Historical Society Board, and he encouraged the HPB to become members. Membership applications were passed out to all with Kojetin stressing that the annual fee was only $15 — a great deal!l Board members thanked Kojetin for his years of service to the HPB, and agreed membership in the Historical Society would be a good way to support the community. V. NEXT MEETING DATE: February9, 2010 A. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9: 55 PM Respectfully submitted, jnr,�e H-oogen,2 ,der AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 12, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-2 4519 Arden Avenue * New Detached Garage * New Front Entry Portico III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. LEGACY GRANT: Tupa Park ADA Improvements V. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Update VI. OTHER BUSINESS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE: VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2010 March 10, 2010 — Boards & Commissions Dinner IX. 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. �1 iia. MINUTES � Regular Meeting of the o e Heritage Preservation Board yTuesday, February 9, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room �`"roR... 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Jean Rehkamp Larson, and Joel Stegner MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Kojetin, Bob Schwarzbauer, and Elizabeth Montgomery STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 12, 2010 Member Blemaster moved approval of the minutes from the January 12, 2010 meeting. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificate of Appropriateness A. H-10-02 4519 Arden Avenue, Edina, MN • New Detached Garage • New Front Entry Portico Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home, an American Colonial Revival, was constructed in 1942, and currently has a 2 -car detached garage constructed in 1964, that is accessed by a driveway on the north side of the property. The Certificate of Appropriateness request is two -fold; including a new detached 2 car garage, as well as a new front entry portico. Ms. Repya commended that the Board consider each request separately. DETACHED GARAGE: A 2 -story addition is proposed for the rear of the home for which a COA is not required. However, the addition will necessitate removing the existing 550 sq. ft. detached garage which is set approximately 20 feet from the rear lot line and 7 feet from the wall of the proposed addition. A new 484 sq. ft. detached garage is proposed to be set back three feet from the rear and side lot lines. The new 2 -stall detached garage is proposed to measure 22'x 22' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the American Colonial Revival style of the home with James Hardie lap siding, and an asphalt shingled roof to match the house. Attention to detail with windows and/or doors is demonstrated on all four elevations. HPB Minutes February 9, 2010 Ms. Repya observed that the initial plan presented (Plan "B") demonstrated a building height at peak of 21'8", however, after meeting with the Planner and learning that the maximum height of the garage should be no taller than 10% higher than the average of the neighboring detached garages; it was determined that with a 24' garage to the north (approved by a COA in 2004), and a flat roof 11' garage to the south, the height of the proposed garage should not exceed 19.25'. Considering the need to lower the height of the garage, the pitch was reduced from a 12/12 pitch to a 9/12 pitch, lowering the peak height to 18' 11" (Plan "A"). A unique feature to the site, and an important element to considering when reviewing the proposed plan is the four foot change in grade from the front of the garage to the rear of the structure. Because the garage is set into the grade at the rear of the property, the height at the front of the garage is four feet taller than at the rear of the garage. Due to the grade change from the front to the back of the structure; one should also average the height of the building which would provide a 16'11" average height at peak for Plan "A" (the revised plan); and 19'8" average height for Plan "B", which is the homeowner's preferred plan. Consultant Vogel reviewed both Plan "A" and "B" for the garage and opined that both plans meet the requirements of the District Plan of Treatment with respect to placement, size, proportions, massing, and architectural character. He added that he would recommend approval of the garage plan Planner Repya recommended approval of garage Plan "B" with an average height at peak of 19'8". Findings supporting the recommendation included: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed garage. • The proposed garage is consistent with garages previously approved in the District. • Comparative plans were provided demonstrating the different design elements required with height variations. • The reduced height of Plan "A" causes the windows on the front and rear elevation to be scrunched into the peak of the gable; losing the molding and keystone above the windows. Conditions to the recommendation included: • Subject to the plans presented. • The condition that a year built (2010) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage. Jacqueline & Kevin Bidgood, 4519 Arden Avenue, owners of the property advised the Board that they would prefer the taller garage because the new garage at 484 square feet will be 66 square feet smaller than the one it is replacing, and the additional height will provide storage space they will lose on the garage floor. They added that they believe the taller garage looks better than the lower profile design. Member Rehkamp Larson agreed that it would not be fair to consider the adjacent flat roof garage in the height criteria, noting that in the future, a replacement for that garage HPB Minutes February 9, 2010 would most likely have a pitched roof. She added that the 19'8" height proposed with Plan "B" is consistent with the heights of garages previously approved by the HPB. Member Forrest appreciated the smaller footprint of the proposed garage and agreed that the need for more storage space is reasonable. Motion & Vote: Detached Garage Member Forrest moved approval of the new garage - Plan "B" with a 19'8"height at peak, subject to the conditions outlined by Staff. Member Stegner seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. NEW FRONT ENTRY PORTICO: Continuing with the Certificate of Appropriateness request, Planner Repya explained that in addition to the detached garage, a new 68 square foot front entry portico is planned which requires a COA because it is a structural change to the street facing far.ade of the home. The design includes 12 inch square colonial style columns, crown and dental molding, and a flat roof surrounded by a 2 foot high wood railing. Pilasters consistent with the style of the portico columns are provided on either side of the entry door. The roof will project 68" from the wall of the home, and the concrete entry stoop will project 6 feet into the front yard. The overall size and proportion are in keeping with similar front entries found in the neighborhood. Ms. Repya explained that the homeowners have the original plans for the home dating back to 1940 which have influenced the design work undertaken for their home. When viewing the plans, it was discovered that a very similar front entry portico and brick cladding for the exterior walls had been planned; however when the home was built, the builder deviated from the plan deleting the portico, and using lap siding instead of brick. In a memo provided by Consultant Vogel, he reported that after reviewing the plans he believed that the new work would be compatible in size, scale, building material, and architectural character with the historic house. Furthermore, no significant historic architectural features will be removed or destroyed, and the new additions and exterior alterations should not impair the historic significance or integrity of nearby historic homes. Mr. Vogel also reported the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for rehabilitation clearly state fagade alterations should be considered appropriate when new additions are kept to a minimum and designed to be compatible with the character of the historic building and the neighborhood. Porches in a variety of forms frequently occur on Colonial Revival style homes throughout the Country Club District, almost always as part of symmetrically balanced facades with centered, accentuated front entrances. Porches with flat roofs supported by columns, similar to the design of the proposed new porch at 4519 Arden, are also common nation-wide on suburban Colonial style homes built during the early 20th century. Mr. Vogel added that the proposed front portico meets the HPB Minutes February 9, 2010 relevant preservation standards for rehabilitation of historic homes, and recommended approval of the COA request. Planner Repya concurred with Mr. Vogel's observations and recommended approval of the plans for the front entry portico. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The front entry portico will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The original plans for the home were considered when designing the portico. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Plan of Treatment and Zoning Ordinance. Conditions associated with the approval recommendation include: • Subject to the plans presented. The homeowner's Kevin & Jacqueline Bidgood shared the original building plans with the Board. Board members were impressed that the original plans included a front entry portico and brick siding. Member Rehkamp Larson commented that she believed the 12" posts on the portico and 6" posts on the top railing are too chunky, adding that 10" to 8" posts for the portico and 4" posts on the top railing would be preferable. Referring to the original plans shared by the homeowner, Rehkamp Larson pointed out that the details were much finer and appeared more historic — concluding that getting the right balance is important. The applicant's architect, Terry Scholz commented that he believed that the narrower posts would be weak and not preferable. Member Rofidal commented that his first impression when viewing the plan was that it looked big when compared to the house. He further opined that the front elevation of the house appears flat and plain, as though something is missing. A new front entry portico will be a good addition. Member Forrest observed that the project will provide more substance to the home. Member Blemaster commented that she did not feel the Board should re -design a project. Motion & Vote: Front Entry Portico Member Stegner moved approval of the new front entry portico subject to the plans presented and the conditions outlined by Staff. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. Members Fukuda, Forrest, Blemaster, Stegner and Rofidal voted aye. Member Rehkamp Larson voted nay. The motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None eM HPB Minutes February 9, 2010 IV. LEGACY GRANT: Update - Tupa Park ADA Improvements Planner Repya reported that architects affiliated with Consultant Vogel's firm have inspected the existing handicapped ramping system that connects the Cahill School with the Grange Hall. There is a general opinion that the ramp, constructed at least 15 years ago is inefficient and detracts from the historic buildings, hence Consultant Vogel has directed the architects to look at alternative locations for handicapped accessibility to both buildings. Park Director John Keprios and Park Superintendent Vince Cockriel have been involved in the discussions and agree that a more efficient and appealing design is needed. Superintendent Cockriel has pointed out that the timing is perfect since the ramp is in need of maintenance. The City has provided the architects site information, and a plan is currently in the works. Chair Rofidal asked who would be paying for the design. Ms. Repya explained that she understands that the architects are providing this plan to Consultant Vogel's firm as an example of their work. If down the road, the Legacy Grant is approved, the design work could be folded into the project. Ms. Repya added that Mr. Vogel will have more information at the next meeting. Board member thanked Ms. Repya for the report and agreed that they looked forward to seeing more information on this project. No formal action was taken. V. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Update Planner Repya reported that Consultant Vogel was to have provided an update to the Board, however due to his inability to attend the meeting, the update will be continued until the next meeting. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. 4602 Bruce Avenue — Minor change to a COA Planner Repya reminded the Board that on April 14, 2009 a Certificate of Appropriateness was approved at 4602 Bruce Avenue to construct a new home on the site. Andy Porter, the owner and builder has reported that a prospective buyer of the new home has asked for a wood burning fireplace. To accommodate the request, a chimney is required on the north side of the home that is shown to simply project from the roof. The only change required on the north elevation would be to separate two double hung windows to accommodate the fireplace. Mr. Porter provided plans that demonstrated the home as approved as well as with the proposed chimney. HPB Minutes February 9, 2010 The Board briefly discussed the proposed change all agreed that the change was very minor and did not interfere with the historic integrity of the home, nor would it have an impact on any of the surrounding properties. Member Rehkamp Larson moved approval of the request to add a chimney to the new home plan originally approved on April 14, 2009, subject to the plans provided to the Board. Member Stegner seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Changes to a Certificates of Appropriateness Board members discussed the fact that subtle changes to a plan, particularly for a new home are not uncommon. It has been suggested that an administrative approval by Planning staff and Consultant Vogel would be efficient from a time standpoint for both the property owner and the HPB, however, currently there is not a procedure set in place. Member Stegner observed that in order to provide consistent and fair regulations, language needs to be devised that provides direction for all. Board members agreed with Stegner and decided to come to the next meeting with ideas for criteria to establish how and when an administrative approval would be appropriate. Planner Repya agreed to research preservation commissions from other communities to see if any have administrative approval policies. No formal action was taken. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair Rofidal made the following announcements: 1. March 10th Boards and Commissions Dinner 5:00 p.m. at Braemar Club House Invitations will be mailed shortly. 2. A call for Heritage Award Nominations has been sent to the Sun Current for publication. The deadline for nominations is Tuesday, April 6th with the HPB deciding on the winner at the April13th meeting. The City Council will make the award presentation at a meeting in May which is National Preservation Month. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2010 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM Respectfully submitted, ,Joyce Repya AGENDA THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairman & Vice Chairman II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 9, 2010 III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. BY LAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE: Amended V. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Vogel's presentation to Twin Cities Bungalow Club VI. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: Past Members Kojetin, Blemaster & Fukuda VII. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Procedures to address changes VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. CORRESPONDENCE: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 13, 2010 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 Annual Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Bob Schwarzbauer, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Jean Rehkamp Larson, and Ross Davis STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairperson Planner Repya called for nominations for the office of Chairperson. Member Rofidal moved to nominate Joel Stegner. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. Member Stegner agreed that he would be willing to serve as Chairperson of the HPB. All voted aye. The motion carried. Vice Chairperson Chair Stegner called for nominations for the office of Vice Chairperson. No nominations were made. Member Carr volunteered to serve as Vice Chairperson. Member Rofidal moved to nominate Member Carr to the office of Vice Chairperson. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. 11. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February9, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the February 9, 2010 meeting. Member Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: Kitty O'Dea, 4510 Bruce Avenue Ms. O'Dea commented that she could not find the agenda for the current meeting on the City's web site. Planner Repya apologized to Ms. O'Dea for her inability to access the agenda; explaining that the agenda was sent to the City's Communications Department on the Friday March 5th for posting on the site. She agreed to check into the situation and make sure that in the future the agenda is available. HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 IV. BYLAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE: Planner Repya explained that since the last meeting, the Mayor received a letter from Bob Kojetin requesting to be appointed an ex -officio member of the Heritage Preservation Board. The City's ordinances do not provide for ex -officio members for any of the advisory boards or commissions. However, the Bylaws & Rules of Procedure for the HPB does cite such a provision. City Manager, Gordon Hughes pointed out that the provisions in the Bylaws should not go beyond what is allowed for in the city code. Mr. Hughes and Planner Repya reviewed the Bylaws for inconsistencies with city code and provided an amended copy to the board for their consideration. As the Board discussed the revised document, several members questioned the proposed omission of "Membership". Planner Repya explained that criteria for membership on the HPB was omitted from the proposed document because that information is covered in the city code. Members Forrest, Carr and Rofidal agreed that typically, membership is addressed in a bylaws document. Member Forrest questioned section 4.3 under "Procedures" which sets out the following provisions for a "Quorum": "A simple majority of the voting members serving five (5) shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the HPB". Ms. Forrest pointed out that by including the number 5, it is assumed that there is a full complement of members serving on the Board; however there are times when there are fewer active board members due to an event such as a resignation, and to require at least 5 voting members could be a hardship. Member Forrest moved to delete "five (5) serving" from the provisions for a Quorum. Member Carr seconded the motion. A general discussion ensued. Member Schwartzbauer raised the point that if several members were to resign and only 4 members made up a quorum, a decision by so few members could be problematic. Several members agreed with Mr. Schwartzbauer. Member Forrest amended her motion to only delete the word "serving", so the section would read "A simple majority of voting members, five (5) shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the HPB". Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Returning to the discussion about the omission of "Membership" from the document, Member Carr observed that since the proposed "Purpose" section of the bylaws was changed to read the same as the city code; likewise, it would seem appropriate to have the "Membership" section read the same as the city code. A brief discussion ensued with Board members in agreement. Member Rofidal moved to add a "Membership" section as item "D", which should read identical to 801.5 of the code. Member Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye. The HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 motion carried. Member Rofidal then moved to approve the new Bylaws and Rules of Procedure as amended. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member Carr observed that the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure require the Board to vote on the meeting calendar for the year at the annual meeting. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to address the 2010 meeting calendar later in the meeting under "Other Business." V. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Planner Repya explained that Robert Vogel had been invited to speak to the Twin Cities Bungalow Club about bungalow style homes in the metropolitan area, and specifically about the Morningside Bungalow Study currently underway through a CLG Grant. The talk was very well received, and Ms. Repya suggested that he present the information to the HPB as an introduction for the newest board members. Mr. Vogel's presentation centered around two main themes: First, identifying the significance of bungalow style architecture, particularly as it pertains to Morningside; and secondly, explaining why bungalow style homes are worthy of preservation. 1. Some interesting facts provided defining the bungalow style and Morningside: • 1887 the first bungalow style homes were constructed in Massachusetts. • American lifestyle became more informal — perfect for compact (< 1,000 sq. ft.) homes. • 1905 Morningside first platted from 3 original farmsteads (today - 700 total properties). Coincided with height of bungalow craze. Associated with the extension of the streetcar line — a means to commute to work in downtown Minneapolis. • Streetcar line was owned by real estate developers — provided motivation to develop housing "If you build it, they will come." Builders were the realtors too. • Many developers were associated with Morningside, whereas one (Samuel Thorpe) created the Country Club District. • Few architects designed the homes — vernacular architecture, many from mail order catalogs. Homes have many common characteristics. 2. Why are bungalows worthy of preservation? • The bungalow homes are a tangible marker for important points in American history. HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 • Materials used created a standardization of millwork (nails, windows, wood floors, stained glass.) • Domestic engineering was employed — educated women were requiring amenities in the homes to simplify housekeeping. • Bungalows aggressively promoted social betterment — small, comfortable homes for smaller families. Fewer persons per household - No longer the large farm families. • Progressive style of architecture — very green structures — made from local materials; Chicago bungalows are predominately brick vs. Minneapolis which are predominantly wood. • Furniture was created for the homes — craftsmen style "Stickley". • Built in cabinets, piano windows, etc. • 1920's — Mortgages (20 yr.) were invented to allow the average family to afford a bungalow. Up until then, only the wealthy could afford to own — the majority rented. • 1970's was hard on historic architecture — everyone wanted new; lack of appreciation for what we now call "vintage". • The close proximity of homes had controlled changes out of respect for neighbors. • The lifespan of a typical suburban home is 85 years, whereas, a bungalow style is 300 years (tough and durable). In closing, Mr. Vogel stressed that by means of the Morningside Bungalow Study, the HPB will prepare a pathway for the owners of bungalow homes in Morningside to designate their homes heritage landmarks - preserving an important element of history; not only for the Morningside neighborhood, but for the City of Edina, and the State of Minnesota as well. Chairman Stegner observed that Morningside has a very different history from that of the Country Club District, thus the approach for designating the bungalow homes will be unique. Board members agreed with Stegner pointing out that with by -in from the residents of the neighborhood, and a positive attitude toward preservation, the designation process should be a smooth one. Member Forrest recalled that the Edina Historical Society presented a Morningside exhibit in recognition of their 100th anniversary in 2005. She added that the Historical Society would be an excellent source for data on the neighborhood. Board members suggested a "walk -about" in the Morningside neighborhood to gain a true perspective on the built environment. Consultant Vogel observed that in 2003 when the HPB initially researched the Morningside neighborhood, several walking tours on weekends were provided with the residents invited to participate. He added that a similar exercise would be particularly beneficial to the board members and residents who did not participate in 2003. HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 Board members agreed that when the weather warms up, to schedule a Morningside tour with the neighborhood invited to attend. All in attendance thanked Mr. Vogel for his report. No formal action was taken. VI. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: Planner Repya prepared Resolutions of Appreciation for the three out -going members of the HPB: Bob Kojetin, Connie Fukuda, and Lou Blemaster. Board members signed each of the resolutions, as they shared their appreciation for the contributions Bob, Connie, and Lou provided toward the work of the HPB. No formal action was taken. VII. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Procedures for Changes Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the February meeting, they discussed how to address changes proposed to a project once a COA has been approved. Currently, Edina's regulations require an applicant to come back to the HPB for a new COA for the review of any change to the plan approved. Last month, the Board agreed that for some small changes, it might better serve the applicant as well as the HPB to provide for some level of administrative, or staff review, and asked staff to provide them with research on how preservation commissions from other communities deal with changes to COA's. Responding the Board's request for information, Planner Repya provided information from the cities of Minneapolis; Fort Wayne, IN; and Raleigh, NC. Minneapolis, MN The City of Minneapolis addresses changes to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness by requiring that minor changes are reviewed by the planning staff; whereby other changes are reviewed by the HPC. (a) Minor changes. Minor changes to an approved certificate of appropriateness may be authorized by the planning director where it is determined by the planning director that the changes are not significant and are consistent with the approval made by the commission. (b) Other changes. Changes to an approved certificate of appropriateness other than changes determined by the planning director to be minor, shall require an amendment to the certificate by the commission. The requirements for application and approval of a certificate amendment shall be the same as the requirements for original approval. A definition of minor changes was not found. It appears that the determination is left to the discretion of the planner. HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 Fort Wayne, Indiana This community does not address changes to an approved COA, however they do set out that an initial Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is approved by either staff approval or commission approval, depending upon the type of work that is proposed. Wake County - Raleigh, North Carolina This community differentiates between "Major Works" and "Minor Works" when addressing COA's. For Major works, involving the change in the appearance of a structure, the Commission must review the COA application. For minor works, the preservation staff can review the application. Ms. Repya included a lengthy list defining both major and minor works. Consultant Vogel commented that nationally, preservation commissions are striving to be more efficient, and providing a level of administrative review can be one step toward that goal. Member Forrest opined that she is torn on this issue. On the one side she would like to see as efficient a process as possible; however there is an expectation for the design as approved. Perhaps not requiring the same procedures as a new COR (application fee and notification of surrounding properties), while having the HPB address and vote on the proposed change would provide for efficiency; yet keep the decision within the public record — perhaps by Staff reporting to the Board when minor changes have been approved would be sufficient. Member Rofidal observed that the HPB has created a fair system of dealing with COA's, and it is important that if changes are made to that process, the Board be kept in the loop. Member Carr asked if changes to COA's have been a problem for the Board. Board members discussed how a change to a COA is not as problematic for the Board as it is for the applicant, since the Board only meets once a month. Planner Repya explained that when a project is under construction, the delay of a change decision until the next HPB meeting can cause a hardship for the property owner. Consultant Vogel pointed out that changes can arise when the vision an architect has presented is actually impractical from the construction standpoint. A certain level of flexibility would allow the process to flow more smoothly. Member Curran stated that she likes the approach taken by the City of Minneapolis, however wondered if allowing the Staff to approve minor changes would be consistent with Section 850.20 of the city code that addresses the Heritage Preservation Board. She then wondered if the Board might want Staff to get the opinion of the City Attorney regarding how to address changes to COA's. Member Schwartzbauer stated that he would be in favor of allowing staff to evaluate a HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 proposed change to a COA, and if it is determined to be minor, approve the change and report the change to the Board. However, if staff determines that the change is more extensive, bring that change back to the Board for a decision. Kitty O'Dea, 4510 Bruce Avenue, stated that she would not like to see a change in the way COA's are reviewed. She pointed out that she lives next door to a new home that received a COA. The builder wanted to make some changes which he felt were minor in nature; however they abutted her home and were not minor to her. The proposed changes were addressed in the public forum, and in her opinion, the process worked. Following a brief discussion, the Board asked Planner Repya to gain the opinion of the City Attorney regarding whether a staff review of changes to a COA would be in keeping with the city codes, and report back to them at the April meeting. No formal action was taken. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. HPB on the City's Website Planner Repya reminded the Board that they have long had the goal of improving the HPB presence on the City's website, and now they have the perfect opportunity to get the job done. Elizabeth Montgomery, the student member of the Board has proposed to undertake the project of upgrading the HPB web presence as her "May Term" project for school. Member Montgomery explained the May Term program pointing out that it is offered to Edina Seniors during the last three weeks of school. The student must apply for approval of their project which may include one of the following areas: Cultural study, Service, Fine Arts, Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, or an internship. Planner Repya pointed out that she and Ms. Montgomery discussed the criteria of the May Term program, and agreed the web page upgrade would provide an excellent opportunity for her to not only exhibit organizational and leadership skills, but to also benefit the HPB and community at large, by providing a more user-friendly web presence. Fortunately, the May Term Committee approved Member Montgomery's project proposal. Planner Repya will supervise Ms. Montgomery who will report to City Hall daily for the three week "May Term" starting on May 19th — April 9th. The end product will be presented to the public in a "fair type" of an environment — the Board expressed an interest to attend. In preparation for evaluating the content currently available on the website, Planner Repya explained that she will email an evaluation form for the Board to use to critique HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 what they like about the current site, as well as what they feel is lacking. Ms. Repya added that she has had contact with several residents who have had some suggestions regarding the HPB presence on the web, and she will ask for their input as well. Board members applauded Ms. Montgomery on choosing such a helpful and worthwhile project. All agreed that they looked forward to providing their input. No formal action was taken. B. 2010 Goals & Objectives Planner Repya explained that traditionally the goals and objectives for the coming year are established by the Board at the April meeting. In preparation, and because there are several new board members, Ms. Repya provided a listing of the goals and objectives annually approved by the Board since 2005. A general discussion ensued among the Board. It was suggested that the outcome of each goal be included in the listing to include whether the goal was accomplished, pending, or deleted. All agreed that would be helpful information. Planner Repya agreed to provide that information and place the "2010 Goals and Objectives" on the April meeting agenda. No formal action was taken. C. 2010 Meeting Calendar As pointed out earlier in the meeting, the Bylaws and Rules of Procedure for the HPB require that the meeting calendar for the year be set at the HPB's annual meeting. Planner Repya reported that the HPB is scheduled to meet on the second Tuesday of the month with the exception of the August meeting which has been moved to the second Monday, the 9th due to political primaries which will be held on the usual meeting date. Member Schwartzbauer moved to approve the meeting schedule as proposed. Member Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. D. 2010 Heritage Award Planner Repya explained that it has been advertised in the Sun Current and on the City's website that nominations are being taken for the 2010 Heritage Award. Nominations will close on Tuesday, April 6th with the HPB making a decision a decision of the winner at the regular meeting on April 13th. A plaque will be awarded to the winner by the Mayor and City Council at their May 4th meeting. A brief explanation of the Heritage Award program and previous recipients was provided for the new board members. Consultant Vogel pointed out that while last year's winner, the owners of the Coddington House, 300 Blake Road nominated their home, typically, and nominations come from the HPB. 0 HPB Minutes March 9, 2010 A brief discussion ensued regarding potential nominees. Planner Repya agreed to provide nomination forms to all the board. No formal action was taken. IX. CORRESPONDENCE: None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 13, 2010 XI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM Respectfully submitted, ,Joyce R.epya 0 I:Te�D11[ THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 9, 2010 II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Procedures to address changes (continued from 3-9-2010) III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. 2010 HERITAGE AWARD V. GOALS & OBJECTIVES: 2010 VI. CLG GRANT "WOMEN OF EDINA": Approved VII. CLG GRANT "MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY": Update VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. CORRESPONDENCE: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 11, 2010 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. A,1MINUTES 91�f�� Annual Meeting of the o e Heritage Preservation Board y Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Bob Schwarzbauer, Claudia Carr, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Ross Davis, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Colleen Curran STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 9, 2010 Member Schwartzbauer moved approval of the minutes from the March 9, 2010 meeting. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Procedures for Changes Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the March meeting they had discussed several approaches to dealing with changes to a project that had previously been approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. The Board asked Staff to research the best approach to address the changes within the provisions of the City Code. Ms. Repya reported that she and Planning Director Teague agreed it would make sense to have the procedures adopted by the Heritage Preservation Board be consistent with the procedures used by the Planning Commission and City Council when they are confronted with a change to a previously approved plan. Ms. Repya provided the Board with the following approach for consideration: 1. If an applicant proposes a change to plans previously approved for a Certificate of Appropriateness, a minimum of ten days prior to the regular meeting of the HPB they shall submit a letter explaining the proposed change along with a revised plan. (No fee will be charged at this time.) 2. A notice will be sent to the same neighbors that were notified of the initial COA, advising them that a proposed change to the previously approved plan will be considered by the HPB. 0 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board April 13, 2010 3. At the HPB meeting, the applicant will present the proposed change to the COA plan previously approved. After considering the proposed change, the Heritage Preservation Board may: 1. Approve the proposed change to the plan, 2. Deny the proposed change to the plan; or 3. Determine that the change is significant enough to warrant a new Certificate of Appropriateness application, which would start the process over. (A new fee would be charged.) Board members briefly discussed the proposed procedures presented by Planner Repya, agreeing that they liked the consistency with the practices of the Planning Commission and City Council. Member Schwartzbauer moved approval of the procedures as proposed by Planner Repya. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: Bob Kojetin, 5016 William Avenue Mr. Kojetin thanked the Board for the Resolution of Appreciation he received as an out- going member of the Heritage Preservation Board, stating that he thoroughly enjoyed the time spent serving the HPB. Mr. Kojetin added that he will continue to attend meetings as an observer representing the Edina Historical Society. Mr. Kojetin added that several projects he is interested in pursuing with Legacy Grant funds, with hopes the HPB will agree, include building a replica mill on the Edina Mill site; and reconfiguring the handicap accessibility to the Cahill School and Grange Hall at Tupa Park. Board members discussed ways in which the Historical Society could be kept abreast of the activities of the HPB. Planner Repya pointed out that minutes from the HPB meetings are available on the City's website once they have been approved. Planner Repya agreed to see if likewise, minutes from the Historical Society's meetings might not be available to the HPB. IV. 2010 HERITAGE AWARD: Planner Repya presented a nomination for the Heritage Award for the home or Peter and Sandy Cochrane at 4611 Arden Avenue. She reminded the Board that they had approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage and front entry portico at the property in July 2009. Board members commented that the project is a very good example of how the Certificate of Appropriateness process is working in the Historic Country Club District. The project was designed to protect and enhance the historic integrity of the American Colonial home while at the same time, provide for 21St Century livability. or Minutes Heritage Preservation Board April 13, 2010 Member Schwartzbauer and Davis expressed concern regarding a contractor benefitting from the Heritage Award. Member Forrest observed that there will always be a contractor involved with a project. As in this case, the homeowner had a vision for the property which the contractor fulfilled. Discussion ensued regarding to whom the award was being presented. Planner Repya explained that the homeowner's were being nominated, however the project was a team effort with the designer/contractor, Kuhl Design Build carrying out the Cochrane's vision for their home. Following a brief discussion, Member Carr moved that the Peter & Sandy Cochrane, 4611 Arden Avenue receive the 2010 Edina Heritage Award. Member Forrest seconded the motion. Members Rofidal, Rehkamp Larson, Carr, Stegner, and Forrest voted aye. Members Schwartzbauer and Davis voted nay. The motion carried. V. 2010 GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Chairman Stegner explained that defining and understanding the goals and objectives is an important function of the Board, thus he had asked all members to take the 10 goals and objectives that were suggested at the March meeting and choose their top 3; choose one to delete; and add one new objective. Board members were instructed to return their suggestions to Planner Repya who would have the results available tonight. Results of the suggestions proved that the top 3 goals were those that led the original list: 1) Complete the Morningside Bungalows multiple property study. 2) Start work on the CLG grant -funded thematic study of heritage resources associated with Edina women. 3) Revise and update the heritage preservation information on the city website. The recommended goals to delete were varied with no item receiving more than one vote. Board members recommended the following additional goals: Identify architecturally and culturally significant buildings representing each decade of Edina history, creating a history and photographic record for each. "Architecturally Significant "— Architect designed buildings that represent the best design of a decade. "Culturally Significant" — Representative buildings in various categories — school, church, store, single family housing, and multiple housing units. Min Utes Heritage Preservation Board April 13, 2010 2. Develop a calendar of activities/decisions for the Board, so that we all know when we are going to have our first discussion about awards, first discussion about May Historic Preservation Month, etc., and when those are to be implemented. 3. Create awareness of Edina Heritage Resources through such activities and events as volunteers speaking at local schools and Edina City Hall, creating Heritage Preservation tours and walks in Edina, perhaps historic preservation committees or associations from other cities to speak to our Board. This concept of creating awareness is similar to the current goal of sponsoring preservation month in May, but is much broader in scope and not limited to one month. It also incorporates the updating of our website. 4. Provide a "Bungalow Tour", and explore ways to create more general public awareness of the unique properties in the District and their significance to the Community. Discussion ensued regarding the exercise in evaluating and defining goals. Chairman Stegner observed that some of the items were goals and others objectives to fulfill the goals. He suggested that the goals fall within five categories: 1. Review Projects (COA's, etc.) 2. Research (CLG Grants) 3. Educational Activities (Preservation Month — Heritage Award; Conferences) 4. Communication (HPB's website presence) 5. Funding ( Legacy & CLG Grants) Board members agreed that the 10 goals and objectives suggested fell well within the five categories; furthermore, the classification of the goals would be helpful in evaluating the work of the HPB. Chairman Stegner offered to provide an organizational structure for the goals and objectives for the Board to refine at the May meeting. Board members agreed that would be a very good idea. No formal action was taken. VI. CLG GRANT "WOMEN OF EDINA": Approved Planner Repya reported that the Minnesota Historical Society has approved a $5,000 matching grant request for a thematic study of heritage resources associated with Edina women. The MHS Grants Office will prepare the CLG Grant Agreement for the project which will be presented to the City Council once received. A general discussion ensued in which the Board expressed their pleasure with the news; noting that the project will address several of the HPB's goals surrounding Min utes Heritage Preservation Board April 13, 2010 research and education. It was suggested that the local women's organizations have an opportunity to contribute to this study. No formal action was taken. VII. CLG GRANT "MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY": Update Board members received a report from Consultant Vogel which outlined the progress to date on the Morningside Bungalow Study. The report explained the research undertaken thus far. Analysis of the historical data is ongoing, and broad patterns and stages in local history relating to the Morningside Bungalow are becoming apparent. Vogel reported that as the project enters its middle phase, the tasks will shift away from basic research toward preparation of a written narrative of the relevant historic contexts, description of bungalow subtypes ad their historic significance, and landmark eligibility requirements. To ensure public participation, Vogel proposes a future community outreach activity event. Once the grant report is complete and presented to the State Historic Preservation Office (end of July), the HPB will be ready to make a presentation to the owners of Morningside bungalows, to provide results of the study and to identify individual properties which qualify for designation under established criteria. Board members briefly discussed Mr. Vogel's report. All agreed that they would appreciate a walking tour of the neighborhood to get a first hand view of the study area. It was suggested that in addition to the residents of Morningside, outreach include realtors who specialize in the Morningside neighborhood. No formal action was taken. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Small Area Study — Public Works Garage, Eden Avenue Member Rofidal reported that he represents the Heritage Preservation Board on a committee that has undertaken a small area study of the soon to be vacated Public Works Garage on Eden Avenue. Rofidal explained that through this process, a vision will be formulated for the entire Grandview district. The process has been compacted in to numerous meetings over a three week period; after which a report will be presented to the City Council. Board members discussed the small area study process. Mr. Rofidal explained that thus far there have been exchanges of ideas as to the best use of the PW building as well as the future of the surrounding properties. Moving forward, the committee will engage in design exercises with the assistance of Planning Commission members as Minutes Heritage Preservation Board April 13, 2010 well as professional designers. He added that if it is determined that the PW garage should be torn down, it is important that prior to demolition the building is photographed and well documented. Rofidal promised to keep the Board advised on the status of the project. No formal action was taken. IX. CORRESPONDENCE: None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 11, 2010 XI. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce R.epya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN 5:00 — 7:00 Grange Hall / Cahill School Tour & Ice Cream Social in recognition of Preservation Month 7:00 Regular meeting at Edina City Hall I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 13, 2010 II. GOALS & OBJECTIVES: 2010 III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. CLG GRANT "MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY": Update V. CAHILL SCHOOL & GRANGE HALL: Accessibility Improvements VI. CLG GRANT "WOMEN OF EDINA": VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 8, 2010 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 Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, May 11, 2010,7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Claudia Carr, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Ross Davis, Colleen Curran, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Schwartzbauer and Arlene Forrest STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT. Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 13, 2010 Member Carr moved approval of the minutes from the April 13, 2010 meeting. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. It. GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Chairman Stegner provided the Board with the goals and objectives discussed at the April meeting reorganized into four major classifications with underlying tasks to address each goal. The Board discussed each item and made changes to provide clarity. All agreed on the following list of goals and objectives to pursue in 2010: 1. Communicate to and educate the Edina community and schools about the benefits of heritage preservation. A. Revise and update heritage preservation information on the Edina city website. B. Sponsor Preservation Month (May) educational activities. C. Conduct walking tours of the Country Club and the Morningside neighborhoods. D. Represent Edina at the 301h Annual Minnesota Preservation Conference (Sept 16-17 in Winona). 2. Research and document current and additional heritage resources. A. Complete the Morningside Bungalows multiple property study. B. Revise and update the Historic Context Study reflecting changes since 1999. C. Identify significant buildings and landmarks representing each decade of Edina history. D. Nominate at least one property for heritage landmark designation. E. Document city and school district properties on Eden Avenue. 3. Advise and review proposed changes impacting heritage resources. A. Advise and assist historic property owners on conservation and rehabilitation issues. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board May 11, 2010 B. Approve renovation plans that are sensitive to heritage preservation guidelines. C. Develop an annual calendar of commission and other heritage preservation activities. 4. Identify and increase resources devoted to Edina heritage preservation. A. Apply for Legacy Grant funds for improved accessibility for Cahill School and. the Grange Hall. B. Complete the CLG funded thematic study of heritage sources associated with Edina women. C. Explore potential Edina civic organization support for heritage preservation. Further discussion ensued regarding prioritizing the goals with some board members choosing activities for which they would be responsible. Member Davis volunteered to review the existing historic tours of the city. Member Carr expressed interest in beginning research on the next property to be designated a heritage landmark. Member Curran expressed interest in organizing the annual calendar. No formal action was taken. IIL COMMUNITY COMMENT: None IV. CLG GRANT "MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Update Consultant Vogel explained the monthly progress made on the bungalow study and provided the Board with a list of significant events in the state and country that coincided with the development of Morningside from 1905 — 1940. Board members found it very interesting to see the growth of the neighborhood in context with what was happening in the world. Mr. Vogel observed that the bungalow style in addition to providing affordable housing is known for addressing gender architecture - One the first design styles driven by home economics, which has an interesting correlation with the women's movement in the 1920's. Striving to liberate women from the drudgery of housework through the design, most of the living space is found on one floor, and the dining room, bedrooms, kitchen and bathrooms are clustered around the central living room. Following a brief discussion, Board members thanked Mr. Vogel for his report and expressed continued interest in the bungalow study. V. CAHILL SCHOOL & GRANGE HALL: Accessibility Improvements Mr. Vogel reminded the Board that they had asked him to research the possibility of applying for a Legacy Grant to improve the accessibility to the Cahill School and Grange Hall. Since the first of the year, the monies for the initial phase of funding have been pretty well depleted with more requests for funding received than the State had expected. That being said, the project is still under consideration, targeting the submittal of the application for the Legacy Grant in June with the next wave of available funds. Mr. Vogel provided a site plan demonstrating the removal of the existing ramp -way system that joins the Cahill School to the Grange Hall. The new plan allows for ADA accessible entrances Minutes Heritage Preservation Board May 11, 2010 at the rear of both the Cahill School and Grange Hall with an ADA accessible plaza between the two buildings to allow for outdoor activities with unlimited accessibility. Following a brief discussion, Board members agreed that the proposed ADA improvements will not only enhance the programming for the school activities that take place at the buildings and in the historic park, but also enhance the historic integrity of the Cahill School and Grange Hall. No formal action was taken. VI. CLG GRANT "WOMEN OF EDINA": Responding to questions raised at the April meeting when Consultant Vogel was not in attendance, Mr. Vogel advised the Board that the CLG grant approved by the Minnesota Historical Society will focus on heritage resources associated with women's history. The information generated by the study will be used to educate the public about significant historic properties associated with Edina women, and will help shape new strategies for interpretive and educational programs. Vogel added that prior research of Edina's history has resulted in quite a bit of information regarding the significant influence of women in the Minnehaha Grange, Morningside, the Edina schools, as well as commerce in the city - it will be very beneficial to pull that information together, and delve deeper into the impact women have had on the Edina community. Vogel explained that he has conducted a similar study for other communities in the State which have been very well received by both the community, and the State Historical Society (SHPO). Following a brief discussion, the Board thanked Mr. Vogel for his explanation. No formal action was taken. VI1. OTHER BUSINESS: A. May Term Project — Planner Repya reminded the Board that Elizabeth Montgomery, the HPB student representative has chosen the updating of the HPB pages on the City's website for her May Term project. Under Planner Repya's supervision, each of the 15 pages will be evaluated and rewritten to include photos, maps, forms, and up to date information on each historic resource. Ms. Montgomery will take into consideration the website evaluation forms completed by the Board as well as input received from several citizens. The project is scheduled for May 1 gth — June gth. On June gth Elizabeth will present the completed project at the Edina High School where the projects are evaluated on a pass/fail basis. B. Heritage Award — Planner Repya reminded the Board that the presentation of the 2010 Heritage Award to the home of Peter and Sandy Cochrane, 4611 Arden Avenue will be made at the May 18 City Council meeting. Repya encouraged Board members to attend the meeting when the Mayor will also present a proclamation for "Preservation Month — May 2010". Minutes Heritage Preservation Board May 11, 2010 C. Small Area Study — Public Works Garage, Eden Avenue — Member Rofidal, the HPB representative on the study group for the Public Works garage on Eden Avenue reported that the study group, made up of Edina residents has been meeting daily for the past three weeks, and has created several conceptual designs for the area addressing some of the following issues: • Provide for a more pedestrian friendly connection over Highway 100 to City Hall. • Build over the railroad tracks. • The current inadequate parking is a huge issue to be addressed. • The school's bus garage is a huge problem — right now it isn't a high priority for the School District because there is not a benefit to education. That being said, the School District has expressed a willingness to look at moving if the right opportunity were to occur. Rofidal concluded by observing that he has enjoyed being part of a fascinating process which he hopes the community appreciates. Moving forward, it will be very interesting to see how this first exercise involving residents in the vision proceeds. Board members thanked Mr. Rofidal for representing the HPB on the committee and agreed that the outcome of the process will be very interesting. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 8, 2010 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce Re pya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010, AT 6:30 P.M. WEUER PARS WARMING HOUSE 4� 15 GRINS AVUE Note change of time and place I. WALKING TOUR OF MORNINGSIDE: 6:30 — 8:30 p.m. As part of the Morningside Bungalow Study, this tour of the Morningside neighborhood will orient the HPB to the unique characteristics of the area. The history of the neighborhood will be discussed, and many bungalow style homes will be identified. Materials will be provided at the meeting. Questions: Contact Joyce Repya, Associate Planner Jrepya(aci.edina.mn.us 952-826-0462 AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 11, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-3 4623 Bruce Avenue - New Detached Garage III. NEIGHBORHOOD WALKING & COMMUNITY WALKING TOURS: IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting V. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16 -17th in Winona VI. OTHER BUSINESS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE: Donation of reference materials for HPB from Kuhl Design Build — "Get Your House Right" by Marianne Cusato & Ben Penreath VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 14, 2010 IX. 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. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Monday, August 9, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Ross Davis, Bob Schwartzbauer, Arlene Forrest and Elizabeth Montgomery Jean Rehkamp Larson, Claudia Carr, and Colleen Curran Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 11, 2010 Member Davis moved approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2010 meeting. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificate of Appropriateness A. H-10-03 4623 Bruce Avenue - New Detached Garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home was constructed in 1927 and currently has a 3 -car detached garage accessed by a driveway on the north side of the property. Ms. Repya pointed out that the home has the original 1927 footprint of 835 square feet while the detached garage is almost as large at 794 square feet. It is the homeowner's desire to increase the livability of their home by adding a 666.5 square foot addition to the rear. In order to comply with maximum 30% lot coverage requirement, the large detached garage will be removed to be replaced by the proposed 484 square foot structure moved to the northeast corner of the yard which will also provide a more livable back yard space. The plans propose to demolish the existing 3 -stall garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard and building a new, 484 square foot detached 2 -stall garage in the northeast corner. The plan illustrates the new structure will maintain appropriate setbacks, and will be compatible in size, scale, and texture with the historic Tudor Revival style house and with other historic homes in the district. Attention to detail is provided on the south, east and west elevations. The undecorated north wall is partially screened by the fence that runs along the south property line. The clipped or "jerkin head" gable proposed for the east and west elevations nicely matches the shape of the roof on the house and the garage door and lanterns are appropriate for the property. A new curb cut will not be required since the proposed garage will be accessed by the existing driveway. While not subject to COA review, the homeowner provided the plans for the addition to the rear of the home for the board's information. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board August 9, 2010 Ms. Repya added that Consultant Vogel has reviewed the plans, and he along with Staff recommended approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new detached garage. She pointed out that the plans are not unlike those previously reviewed for homes in the Country Club District, and will enhance both the subject property as well as the neighborhood at large. Furthermore, the proposed plans clearly demonstrate the homeowner's desire to provide for a more livable home both on the interior as well as in the rear yard. The recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions: • The plans presented. • The condition that a year built (2010) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage as well as the addition to the home. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Member Schwartzbauer stated that while he understands that under the current procedures for Certificates of Appropriateness in the Country Club District the addition to the home is not subject to review, he wanted to go on record expressing his opinion that he feels strongly that additions to homes in the district should undergo the same COA review as the new garages. Following a brief discussion, Chairman Stegner agreed that Member Schwartzbauer brought up a point of interest to several members of the board and suggested that the topic of amending the procedures for a COA to include additions visible from the public right-of-way be included on the September meeting agenda. Member Rofidal raised the following questions: 1. No architectural detailing is provided on the north wall of the garage because it is abutting a privacy fence. What if the fence is removed? Lon Oberpriller, from Replacement Homes representing the owners explained that the fence belongs to the abutting property owner, and if they chose to remove the fence, and did not like the blank wall of the proposed garage, they could replace the fence. 2. Since the owners of the home have recently purchased the property, how did they know that a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for their project? Planner Repya explained that she and Mr. Fu had several conversations as his family was contemplating purchasing the property. He was encouraged to research the updated Country Club District information on the City's website which provided detailed information on the COA requirements and procedures. Lon Oberpriller from Replacement Housing Services Consortium, representing the new owners explained that he is aware of the COA procedures, and he too provided guidance for Mr. Fu and Ms. Ge as they were planning the project. Mr. Oberpriller added that this project was designed to enhance the livability of the home, maintain the property's historic integrity, and compliment the entire neighborhood. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board August 9, 2010 Following a brief discussion, Member Rofidal moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new detached garage at 4623 Bruce Avenue subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be placed on the garage. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. III. NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY WALKING TOURS: Chairman Stegner observed that the Board's walking tour of the Morningside neighborhood during the July meeting was a wonderful opportunity for the HPB to get out from the meeting room and see first-hand the neighborhood currently under study. He added that such a tour would no doubt be of great interest to the community, and something that should be included in future work plans. Member Davis reminded the Board that he volunteered to research city tours that are currently in the planning files, and in doing so, discovered several city-wide tours as well as a tour of the west side of the Country Club District. Mr. Davis provided board members with copies of the tours, pointing out that they needed to be updated, but provided a good framework from which future tours could be created. Mr. Davis also pointed out that he knows a gentleman who does professional voice-overs, and he may be willing to record some of the copy for the tours at no cost. Member Rofidal added that perhaps the City's Communications and Marketing department could assist in producing the tours. The Board agreed these were all good ideas. A general discussion of city tours ensued. It was mentioned that an historic bike tour might be well received due to the current activities of the "Bike Edina" taskforce. Member Forrest observed that providing walking and/or biking tours would fit in well with the city's initiatives promoting healthy lifestyles — a great green project. Planner Repya pointed out that the Edina Historical Society has been working on creating an historic driving tour of the city. She suggested that perhaps the Historical Society and the HPB could work together since the tours would include information on important historic resources (the HPB's charge) as well as the history of Edina residents (the Historical Society's charge). Ms. Repya offered to contact the Historical Society regarding the status of their tour project and report back to the HPB. IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None V. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16-17 in Winona Planner Repya reminded the Board that the 2010 Minnesota Preservation Conference is scheduled for September 16 & 17 in the City of Winona. Because Edina is a Certified Local Government, attendance at the annual conference by at least one board member is mandatory. In the past, board members have attended the Friday session of the conference; however the State Historical Society is providing a matching grant to cover the registration fee and mileage for those attending on both Thursday and Friday. The city's match can include the time spent by board members at the conference, thus there may not be a cash match required. Ms. Repya pointed out that Friday, August 13th is the registration deadline for early registration. She asked Board members to check their calendars and report to her by August 13th if they would be able to attend. Ms. Repya also encouraged those interested to consider car-pooling to 3 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board August 9, 2010 Winona, and offered to assist organizing the drive. A brief discussion ensued. Ms. Repya offered to send an email reminder from which the Board could respond. No formal action was taken. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. 4602 Bruce Avenue —House tour Member Rofidal reported that he attended a neighborhood open house for the newly, constructed Country Club District home which received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HPB in 2009. He observed that when one compares 4602 with the home at 4608 Bruce Avenue approved through a COA in 2006, the revised COA procedures have really paid off — the newest 4602 home fits in well with the district, whereas 4608 appears taller and less in keeping with its surroundings. He added that the new home is evidence that the influence of the HPB can make a difference in the district for the better. Member Rofidal then suggested that Andy Porter, the builder of 4602 Bruce Ave. be invited to a future meeting of the HPB to share photos of the completed home, as well as input he could provide regarding the COA process. Board members agreed that would be a good idea. 2. COA Procedures — Reviewing what is visible from the street Board members continued the discussion from earlier in the meeting regarding the desire to reevaluate the possibility of requiring a Country Club District COA review of not only changes to a street facing fagade, but any change visible from the street; which would then include changes to the sides of the homes. Member Rofidal opined that side walls have been important when reviewing new homes, and he welcomed a broader discussion on the topic. Member Forrest agreed, pointing out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards address what is visible when standing in front of the house. Member Schwartzbauer offered to draft possible language that would address the review of changes to what is visible from the street, rather than only to changes on street facing facades. Board members agreed that they looked forward to a discussion on this matter at the September meeting. 3. Signs Identifying Cahill School & Grange Hall — In disrepair Chairman Stegner observed that the informational signs on the exterior of the Cahill School and Grange Hall are quite weather beaten, and in need of upgrading. Planner Repya explained that the signs were installed by the Edina Historical Society. She offered to convey Mr. Stegner's observations, see if there are plans for making improvements to the signs, and report back to the board. 4. Student HPB Members - Farewell & Welcome Planner Repya recognized student member Elizabeth Montgomery who after serving the HPB for two years, was attending her last meeting. Ms. Montgomery stated that the thoroughly enjoyed her time with the Board, and will stay informed through the HPB's new and improved Minutes Heritage Preservation Board August 9, 2010 website. Elizabeth added that in September she will begin her freshman year at Concordia College in Moorhead, MN. Board members offered their thanks for Elizabeth's many contributions to the work of the HPB and wished her the very best in her future. Planner Repya introduced Lauren Thorsen, a senior at Edina High School, and one of the two new HPB student board members. Lauren was invited to observe the August meeting, and will begin her one year term in September. Board members welcomed Lauren and expressed their delight in working with her in the coming year. VII. CORRESPONDENCE: 1. Donation of reference materials for HPB from Kuhl Design Build — "Get Your House Right" by Marianne Cusato & Ben Penreath Planner Repya explained that the HPB received a donation of 10 copies of the book "Get Your House Right" for board members to use as a resource guide. The books were provided by Kuhl Design Build, the company responsible for the work recognized in the 2010 Heritage Award at 4411 Arden Avenue. The Kuhl Design Build team expressed their appreciation for the work of the HPB and offered the book as a tool to assist board members when undertaking design review. The board gratefully received the books, and agreed that when their terms expired, they would return the book for use by future board members. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 14, 2010 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN WELCOME NEW STUDENT MEMBERS: Katherine McLellan & Lauren Thorson I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 9, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT PLAN OF TREATMENT: Process Clarification III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Draft Report Review VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting V. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Elizabeth Montgomery VI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16 -17th in Winona VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 12, 2010 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. 2010 Page 19 MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Arlene Forrest, Bob Schwartzbauer, Colleen Curran, Ross Davis, Katherine McLellan, and Lauren Thorson MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Carr STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 9, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the August 9, 2010 meeting. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: COA Process Clarification Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the August meeting they agreed to continue a discussion regarding the potential of expanding the requirement of a COA review to include all changes visible from the street. Currently, when reviewing a COA such as a new detached garage and an addition to the rear of the home that is visible from the street, only the detached garage would be subject to review. A majority of the Board expressed frustration that if an addition occurring as part of a project requiring a COA is visible from the street, it too should be subject to the review of the HPB. In an effort to address this concern, Member Schwartzbauer presented the Board with a draft resolution that would provide for the review of an addition if is part of a project requiring a COA, and visible from the street. Consultant Vogel, unable to attend the meeting, provided his opinion of the resolution in an email to the Board in which he cautioned that requiring a COA for additions visible from the street would increase the workload for staff and the consultant; and might require an amendment to the District's Plan of Treatment, as well as a definition of the term "new construction". Addressing Mr. Vogel's concerns, Member Schwartzbauer clarified that what he is proposing does not include a review of all additions visible from the street; rather only those that are part of a project that requires a COA (such as the moving a detached garage or the construction of a new garage.) Discussion ensued in which the following comments were expressed: • During the joint work session with the City Council they were very clear in stating that the HPB should take the lead in managing the Country Club District plan of treatment. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board September 14, 2010 • The proposed resolution is a clarification of policy for the review of projects currently subject to COA review; not a requirement increasing the projects needing a COA. • Including the review of an addition visible from the street that is part of a COA application is a change that Planner Repya will convey to the applicants during the meeting that is required prior to making application. • The proposed clarification of what is reviewed as part of the COA application also needs to be clearly defined on the HPB's web site. Board members agreed that the proposed resolution did a good job of addressing the frustration they have experienced when reviewing COA applications. Member Schwartzbauer volunteered to continue working with staff on incorporating any suggested changes to the draft resolution. Board members stated that they appreciated Member Schwartzbauer's work on the resolution, and expressed their desire to continue the discussion until the October meeting when Consultant Vogel will be available to weigh in on the discussion. No formal action was taken. III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Draft Report Review Consultant Vogel provided the Board with a draft copy of the "Historic Bungalows of the Morningside Neighborhood" that was submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society in fulfillment of the CLG matching grant which assisted in funding the project. In a memo to the Board, Mr. Vogel explained that the MHS requirements for the document vary somewhat from the planning needs that have been expressed by the city, thus he requested the Board provide opinions regarding how the study could be enhanced to best meet the goals the HPB has for the project. A general discussion ensued when the following suggestions were provided: • Include a map outlining the Morningside neighborhood (including Individual lots) • Provide photos and/or sketch plans for the various bungalow classifications. • Include a list of the homes in the Morningside neighborhood that have been identified as being bungalow style. • A great report, but a lot of text — provide more visuals (photos, graphics, etc.) Addressing the landmark eligibility requirements, concern was expressed regarding the work entailed, and the related costs in determining the eligibility of potential landmark properties. Questions were also raised regarding the potential workload involved in the event 25 or so bungalow homeowners request landmark designation of their homes at the same time. Planner Repya agreed to forward the Board's comments and questions to Consultant Vogel. Board members agreed that they looked forward to continued discussion of the study with Mr. Vogel at the October meeting. No formal action was taken. I Minutes Heritage Preservation Board September 14, 2010 IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None V. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: Elizabeth Montgomery Board members signed a resolution of appreciation thanking Elizabeth Montgomery for serving as a student member on the HPB for two years, during her junior and senior years at Edina High School. VI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16-17 in Winona Planner Repya reported that Chairman Stegner and Members Davis, Carr and Curran will represent the Edina HPB at the State's Preservation Conference in Winona at the end of the week. Board members expressed their gratitude to those attending and agreed that they looked forward to a report on the conference at the October HPB meeting. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Zoning Ordinance Update Committee Open House — September 15th, 7:00 p.m. Member Forrest announced that the Planning Commission's Zoning Ordinance Update Committee will hold an open house on September 15th to present the results of their work in three areas: I. An alternate Setback Standard 2. Driveway Width Regulations, and 3. Planned Unit Development Ms. Forrest pointed out that the alternate setback standard and driveway width regulations are both issues that will have an important impact in the Country Club District because the neighborhood consists of many lots that do not meet the current zoning ordinance requirements with respect to setbacks and driveway width. It is hoped that if the City Council approves the proposed changes, non -conforming setbacks and driveway widths will be less of a problem in the future. Member Rehkamp Larson asked if the committee was addressing the setback criteria relative to building height, noting that the current standard prohibits the construction of a gable end Colonial style home on a narrow lot — a real drawback since that is an important architectural style In the Country Club District. Member Forrest explained that she has raised that issue with the committee on several occasions, and will continue to do so. All agreed height/setback calculation is very important for the Country Club District. Following a brief discussion, Ms. Forrest agreed to keep the HPB advised about the Proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Board members thanked Ms. Forrest for her report, and agreed that they looked forward to some relief from the tight restrictions regarding setbacks and driveway width which currently have a negative impact on the historic Country Club District. 3 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board Sept.ember 14, 2010 2. Mid -Century Edina —1950 & after Chairman Stegner observed that since the Heritage Preservation Board was created in 1976, the focus of the Board's activities has centered on the time period from pre -1888 until approximately 1944. The City's Historic Context Study reflects that observation with an emphasis on the growth of the community prior to the 1950's and 1960's. Mr. Stegner pointed out that since Edina experienced its most prolific period of growth and development in the post-war, baby boomer era, perhaps when the Board is working on goal setting, a consideration for adding a mid-century emphasis should be considered. Board members briefly discussed Mr. Stegner's comments; agreeing that a future emphasis on mid-century Edina is worthy of consideration when setting goals. 3. 4602 Bruce Avenue — New Home Member Rehkamp-Larson observed that she toured the new home at 4602 Bruce Avenue that was subject to a COA review by the HPB, and was very pleased. She explained that the scale of the home in context to the surrounding homes is very compatible. Furthermore, she commended the builder, Andy Porter for listening to comments and concerns of the neighbors and HPB; adding that the finished home would serve as a good case study for future projects. Board members expressed their agreement with Ms. Rehkamp Larson, noting that the new home is a credit to the HPB's efforts in the Country Club District. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 12, 2010 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE )INA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD UESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN 6:00 — 7:00 p.m. 4602 Bruce Avenue — New Home Tour I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 14, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-4 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an Attached garage B. H-10-5 4512 Casco Avenue — Construct a new detached garage in the rear yard and review changes to a front entry portico III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT PLAN OF TREATMENT: Process Clarification (continued from 9-14) IV. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Draft Report Review (continued from 9-14) COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting VI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16 -17th in Winona Attendees Reports VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 9, 2010 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- "7-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. d iNA, MINUTES 9�11�� Regular Meeting of the o e Heritage Preservation Board o Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 7:00 PM �y Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Arlene Forrest, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, Ross Davis, Katherine McLellan, and Lauren Thorson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 14, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the September, 2010 meeting. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-04 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an attached garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of the Casco Avenue and Sunnyside Road. The home, constructed in 1926 is an English Cottage style with a 2 -car detached garage accessed by a driveway off of Sunnyside Road. The proposed plans for the home include removal of the detached garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard and constructing an attached 3 -stall garage with a master suite above. The proposed addition of a 3 -stall attached garage is planned to continue access off of Sunnyside Road. A second story master suite is designed to be constructed above the garage. Setbacks provided for the addition are shown at 56.9 feet for the rear yard (a minimum 25 feet is required), and 20 feet from the north property line which is the minimum allowed for a garage abutting a side street. The proposed addition demonstrates a design that continues the English Cottage architectural style of the home with stucco clad walls, decorative stonework at the foundation, and designer overhead garage doors. However, the 943 square foot addition with a height 32 feet" to the peak appears to dominate the original home which has an 850 square foot footprint and a height to peak of 29.6 feet. Furthermore, the survey for the property illustrates an elevation of 910.8 feet at the south wall of the addition, while the home to the south (4503 Casco Avenue) has an elevation of 905.3 feet at their north wall — a difference of 5.5 feet. Taking into consideration the difference in grade, the peak of the subject home is currently situated 35 feet in height relative to Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 the southerly lot. The addition as proposed would be 37.5 feet in height when viewed from the abutting property. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed plans and observed that the home at 4501 Casco Avenue contributes to the historic significance of the Country Club District but is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. The existing detached garage does not contribute to the historic significance of the house and is not considered a heritage preservation resource; therefore, demolition would be an appropriate undertaking. Regarding the proposed new construction, attached garages are common in the Country Club District, where a substantial number of houses with attached garages were constructed during the district's period of historic significance (1924-1944). The addition of living space above attached garages is also characteristic of historic homes in the district, where the earliest structural additions above attached garages probably date from the 1930s. From the perspective of the district's historic context, therefore, adding second -story living space above an attached garage would need to be considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. Mr. Vogel added that unfortunately, the proposed addition falls short of the design requirements for new construction. While it minimizes the loss of historic fabric (the area of the house that will be altered does not meet the plan of treatment's threshold for demolition) and is compatible with the mass, texture and materials of the original house, the plans presented with the COA application depict a structure that will add approximately 2 feet to the height of the house. If allowed to be built, this would allow the addition to overpower the original house, altering the scale and character of the property and making it incompatible with the other historic homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Vogel pointed out that although the preservation standards used in evaluating applications for COAs are neither technical nor prescriptive, they are intended to provide philosophical consistency to design review decisions. New additions need to be designed for compatibility with the character of the building and the neighborhood: the best practice, therefore, is to avoid adding new height to a building, particularly when the new work is visible from the street. There has been a tradition of enlarging homes in the Country Club District, where the most common house styles (Tudor and Colonial) typically accommodate large structural additions on their side and rear elevations without detracting from the architectural character of the houses or the integrity of the district as a whole. Although roof height is by no means uniform along any street in the district, relatively few homes have received additions that are taller than the original construction. When viewed from the public right-of-way, the facades are usually dominated by the primary roofs. In my opinion, it would be reasonable for new construction to respect this long-standing design tradition. Mr. Vogel concluded that design review needs to recognize the special problems inherent in carrying out large structural additions to historic homes in the Country Club District. Lowering the height of the addition to 4501 Casco may require altering the shape of the roof and the height of the walls. It is important to remember that 2 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 preservation standards do not require new construction to duplicate the forms and shapes of the original building—compatibility does not mean exact reproduction of historic architectural details. It should be possible to redesign the addition so that the roof profile is not visibly higher than that of the original house when viewed from Casco or Sunnyside. Planner Repya added that both she and Consultant Vogel recommend denial of the COA application for the new attached garage as proposed. Findings support the denial recommendation included: • The plans presented with the COA application depict a structure that would exceed the height of the house by 2 feet. If allowed to be built, this would allow the addition to overpower the original house, altering the scale and character of the property and making it incompatible with the other historic homes in the neighborhood. • It is possible to redesign the addition so that the roof profile is not visibly higher than that of the original house when viewed from the street. Homeowners, Charles and Raquel Layton, 4501 Casco Avenue Comments: The Laytons spoke in support of their COA proposal - pointing out that their desire is to construct an addition to their home that is in keeping with its architectural details and compatible with the surrounding properties. Mr. Layton explained that they wish to create an attached garage addition that is sensitive to the mass of the home. He added that they have struggled with the design of the addition, and presented the Board with several alternative plans which they had considered, but rejected. Jim Bizal, Bizal Construction, contractor for the Laytons explained that the restricting element driving the design is the southerly roof line on the existing home. As presented, the higher roof of the addition actually reduces the mass of the addition due to the sloping roof on the east or rear elevation. He added that the alternative plans where the roof of the addition was reduced created living spaces that did not flow with the original home. Board Member Comments: Member Forrest expressed agreement with the comments of staff and the consultant, and pointed out that there are many homes in the district that have reduced the height of additions by incorporating a flat roof at the peak. Member Rehkamp Larson stated that she too shared the concerns expressed by staff. She added that she was also concerned about the south wall which is designed to be over 80 feet in length with no relief provided. Ms. Rehkamp Larson opined that the homeowner has expressed a desire for an addition that is sensitive to the mass of the home; however the plan proposed does not meet their desire. She added that there is a way to design an addition that would both meet the Laytons needs for living space, while at the same time demonstrate sensitivity to the height of the original home, and Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 provide some relief on the south elevation by stepping back portions of the wall area. Members Carr, Stegner, Davis, Curran, and Rofidal agreed with the comments expressed by Member Rehkamp Larson. Member Carr asked if the homeowners would be willing to table the item until the November meeting when they could submit an alternative plan that would address the concerns expressed. Mr. and Mrs. Layton agreed that they would prefer the Board not vote on the COA as proposed, but rather come back with an alternative plan at the November meeting. Member Rehkamp Larson moved to table the subject COA request until the November 9, 2010 meeting; affording the applicant time to research a plan that would address the concerns expressed by the HPB. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. H-10-05 4512 Casco Avenue — Construct a new detached garage and review changes to the front entry portico Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the 4500 block of Casco Avenue. The existing home, constructed in 1938 had a 2 -stall, tandem detached garage, measuring 14' x 43' (602 sq. ft.) in area and accessed by a driveway on the southerly side of the property. In 2008, the garage was demolished and a COA (H-08-08) was approved for a new 2 -stall 576 sq.ft. garage; along with a plan to build a front entry portico, and add a shed roof with brackets over the windows on the 2nd floor. As the project progressed, the homeowner decided that they wanted a different plan for the garage - they were advised from the start, any changes to the plans would require a new COA. The proposed plan is similar in size and mass from that which was approved in 2008, and reflects the new garage the homeowner would desire. Ms. Repya pointed out that in 2008, changes to the front facade were completed; however unbeknownst to city staff, the plan for the front entry portico that was approved with COA (H-08-08) was modified without city inspections or the required COA review. The completed front entry portico is presented with this COA application along with plans for what had been approved. The COA request involves two projects that are subject to review: 1. Construction of a new detached garage 2. Revisions to the front entry portico that had been approved in 2008 1. New Detached Garage Planner Repya explained that the proposal includes construction of a new garage that Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 maintains a 6 foot setback from the rear (west) lot line, and a 4 foot setback from the side (southerly) property line. A new curb cut will not be required since the proposed garage will utilize the existing driveway. The new 2 -stall detached garage measures 24'x 24' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the American Colonial Revival architectural style of the home with James Hardie shake and lap siding, support brackets, and a cedar shake roof to match the house. Two east facing dormers similar in character to the small eyebrow roofs at the second floor of the home with identical brackets are proposed. Attention to detail with windows and/or doors is demonstrated on the north, south and east elevations. On the west elevation, a 2.5 foot extension of the roof with brackets is proposed. Ms. Repya added that a slight revision has been requested to the west elevation with the addition of doors that will provide access to the garage from the rear. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 16.9 feet at the highest peak. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 11.5', and a height of 7' is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 24.5' in length, and the roof is designed with a 9/12 pitch. The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 30%. Construction of the proposed 576 sq. ft. garage will create total lot coverage of 27% - within the limits allowed by city code. 2. Revised Front Entry Portico Addressing the front entry portico, Ms. Repya explained that in 2008, the HPB approved a change to the front entry of the home that included replacing an overhang that was added to the home sometime after 1960, with a gabled front entry canopy projecting 4.25 feet out from the front building wall. The gabled end was to be open with vertical slats — the design complimenting the gable ends of the proposed garage (that was not built). Brackets were shown to support the roof structure with no posts or pillars. Photos were provided illustrating the front entry portico that was constructed. The gable end with vertical slats was replaced with an arched opening supported by square columns on either side with stone ledges (depicted in the 2008 plan) at the base. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans for the garage as well as photographs of the built front entry portico contrasted to the plans that were approved in 2008. Regarding the detached garage, Mr. Vogel observed that the COA application describes a building that is consistent with the design review guidelines presented in the district plan of treatment. The proposed work will not result in the loss of any historic fabric and, if built according to the plans presented, the proposed new construction would be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the subject property and the neighborhood. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 Addressing the front entry portico, Mr. Vogel opined that although the new entry portico does not match the plans approved by the HPB with the 2008 COA, it appears to meet the design review criteria for new construction in the Country Club District. He added that the new work is architecturally compatible with the historic character of the house and the neighborhood. Since the new construction did not meet the conditions of the original COA, it is appropriate that the city is requiring the owner to apply for a new COA. Planner Repya concluded that she concurred with Consultant Vogel's comments and recommended approval of the COA for the new detached garage subject to the plans provided, and the front entry portico as built. She also recommended the following conditions to the approval: • A year built (2010) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage. • Any changes to the approved plan MUST be brought back to the Heritage Preservation Board for approval. Ms. Repya added that findings supporting the recommendation include: • The plans provided for the detached garage clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The plans for the detached garage demonstrate design that abides by the requirements of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment and the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. • The front entry portico as built appears to meet the design review criteria for new construction in the Country Club District, and is architecturally compatible with the historic character of the house and the neighborhood. Homeowner, Dan Hollerman, 4512 Casco Avenue explained that the garage subject to the current COA changed from that which was approved in 2008 because they prefer the revised plan and feel it would be more complimentary with their home. Mr. Hollerman also explained the confusion that occurred in 2008 with his contractor which led to the front entry portico plan changing without the HPB's approval. Member Rehkamp Larson commented that the doors added to the rear of the garage make sense considering the kick -out roof overhang that is planned on that elevation. Addressing the front entry portico on the home, Ms. Rehkamp Larson stated that since the structure was built without COA approval, the HPB could require that it be removed and built per the original plans; however in this case, she believes revised design is more appropriate for the home. Board members agreed with Ms. Rehkamp Larson, but expressed concern regarding process and questioned how a project that was built to the approved COA plans could be completed without coming back to the HPB. Planner Repya explained that the need Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 for a new COA for revised plans is emphasized over and over to homeowners during the process. When the approved Certificate of Appropriateness is mailed to the homeowner and provided to the contractor, the document clearly states in bold letters that "Issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the plans approved. Any change in the scope of the work will require a new Certificate of Appropriateness." Board members agreed that the process provides sufficient notice, and noted that they do have the ability to require a structure violating a COA to be removed or brought into compliance with what was approved. Following a brief discussion, Member Forrest moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new detached garage subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be displayed on the exterior of the garage; and the front entry portico as built. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: COA Process Clarification Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the September meeting they discussed requiring the review of an addition if is part of a project requiring a COA, and visible from the street. Because Consultant Vogel did not attend that meeting, it was agreed that the discussion would be continued to provide Mr. Vogel an opportunity to comment. Mr. Vogel observed that it is within the Board's purview to require that if a project requiring a COA includes an addition to the original home, the HPB could review the addition. However, he pointed out that the design review process need not become overly complicated. He observed that in his opinion, residents have been sensitive to the district when designing additions to their homes. The greatest threat to the district comes from the potential teardown of historic resources in the district. Mr. Vogel suggested that the educating the residents and their contractors on the design goals outlined in the plan of treatment would go a long way to ensure that projects brought before the HPB uphold the historic integrity of the surroundings. Board members agreed with Mr. Vogel. After a brief discussion, Planner Repya stated that when reviewing an application for a COA, if an addition is included in the project, she will advise the applicant that the addition will be included in the HPB's evaluation of the project. IV. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Draft Report Review Consultant Robert Vogel observed that the Morningside Bungalow Study provides in- depth research into the history of the Morningside neighborhood and its built environment. The primary objective of the study was to identify the preservation value of the bungalow style homes in the Morningside neighborhood, and simplify the process for designating the historic bungalows as Edina Heritage Landmarks. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the recommended plan of treatment (POT) on pages 32-34 of the report is proposed to serve as a template for homeowners requesting landmark Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 designation for their bungalow homes. With use of the recommended POT, a final plan of treatment unique to each designation would be crafted - fine tuned to the homeowner's desires; it would become part of the overlay heritage landmark zoning for the property. A general discussion ensued regarding the proposed POT. Board members agreed that under the heading of "New Construction — Design of New Houses" they would like to remove statement #2 Reproductions of historic bungalows will not be encouraged. All agreed that the reproduction of historic bungalows in the Morningside neighborhood could be a positive for the area and should not be discouraged. Discussing the next steps, the Board agreed that they would like Mr. Vogel to add photographs of the various bungalow style homes, a reconnaissance list of bungalow homes in the Morningside neighborhood, as well as an executive summary of the study for placement on the heritage preservation web page. All agreed that they would also like the entire study provided as a PDF on the web site. Chairman Stegner suggested that at the November HPB meeting the Board establish a timeline to identify dates for presenting the research data to the Morningside neighborhood as well as a list of future actions. The HPB agreed with Chair Stegner's suggestion. Consultant Vogel promised to provide the information requested. No formal action was taken. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None VI. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE: September 16-17 in Winona — Attendee Reports Board members Joel Stegner, Colleen Curran, Claudia Carr and Ross Davis represented the Edina Heritage Preservation Board at the Annual Historic Preservation Conference in Winona, Minnesota. The attendees reported that a highlight of the conference came from the keynote speaker who spoke of a foundation he founded which identifies, purchases, and rehabilitates vacant historic homes in North Carolina. The before and after photos he presented provided evidence that even houses in total dilapidated condition can be beautifully rehabilitated. The information provided for a good discussion of rehabilitating historic properties, begging the question "Is demolition really necessary?" VII. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. League of Women Voters Reception for New City Manager, Scott Neal Member Forrest referred to an invitation the board members received in their packets from the League of Women voters of Edina. She explained that at a reception to be held on Monday, November 15th from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at Edina City Hall, the community will have an opportunity to meet and welcome the new City Manager, Scott Minutes Heritage Preservation Board October 12, 2010 Neal who will start working in Edina on November 8th. Board members appreciated receiving the invitation, and agreed that the event would be a good way to meet Mr. Neal. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 9, 2010 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9;20 PM Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE DINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD f UESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 12, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-4 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an Attached garage Continued until the December 14, 2010 meeting B. H-10-6 4901 Sunnyside Road — Demolition of existing home and construction of a new home III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Establish Goals and Timeline V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting VI. 2010 GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Review Accomplishments VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 14, 2010 (New City Manager Scott Neal will attend) 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 Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Bob Schwartzbauer, Arlene Forrest, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, Katherine McLellan, MEMBERS ABSENT: Ross Davis, and Lauren Thorson STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 12, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the October 12, 2010 meeting. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) A. H-10-04 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an attached garage Continued until the December 14th HPB meeting at the request of the applicant. B. H-10-06 4901 Sunnyside Road — Demolish existing home and construct a new home Staff Report Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the south side of the 4900 block of Sunnyside Road, abutting Minnehaha Creek. The existing home is a Ranch style with a walk -out basement constructed in 1948. A 2 -stall front loading attached garage is located on the east side of the home. The COA request involves demolishing the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage that meets the district's plan of treatment criteria. The existing home is not classified as an historic resource since it was constructed after the District's period of significance (1924 — 1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPB review and approval. The proposed replacement home is a 2 story, with an attached 2 -car garage accessed from a new driveway on the west side of the property. The applicant has not identified the Minutes Heritage Preservation Board November 9, 2010 home as a specific historic architectural style, however demonstrated attention to detail by incorporating design elements found on historic homes in the Country Club District and particularly along Sunnyside Road. The proposed height of the home at the peak is 29'6", consistent with the heights of the adjacent homes which measure 28'10" to the east and 29'6" to the west. A rendering of the streetscape was been provided depicting the proposed home and the two adjacent homes. The plans also demonstrated side yard setbacks of 10' to the east, and 5' to the west. The exterior materials proposed for the home include Hardi-board or cedar shakes on the exterior walls; trim bands; fascia and soffit, cedar brackets and gable finials; stone wing walls and trim; and asphalt or cedar shingles. Ms Repya pointed out that the proponent has contacted neighboring residents, and City notices were mailed to all property owners from 4600 – 4902 Sunnyside Road. Several neighbors came into the city offices to review the plans, and all were pleased with what they saw. Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans and observed that the new home would meet the design review guidelines for new construction in the district plan of treatment. Mr. Vogel pointed out this part of the Country Club District encompasses a wide variety of house types and styles—historically, the western portion of Sunnyside Road has always been the most architecturally eclectic sub -neighborhood in the district—and the design of the proposed new house appears to be sensitive to the streetscape, which is distinguishable from the rest of the district by the size, scale, orientation and massing of the houses. Most importantly, the design of the new house is a mix of traditional and contemporary elements, but it does not create an earlier appearance, meaning, it is not a modern house pretending to be an old house. Mr. Vogel recommended that the applicant provide the HPB with an architectural recordation of the existing home prior to demolition. The documentation (consisting of digital photographs, line drawings of the floor plan and principal elevation, and a brief written description of the house and its known history) would provide the city with a body of information that could be useful for research purposes and in educating the public about the physical history of the district. Planner Repya reminded the Board that the review process for the replacement of a non -historic resource home in the Country Club District entails a 2 -step process. The plans currently under consideration fulfill the first step. Ms. Repya concluded that she recommended the HPB provide the applicant with feedback on the proposed plans, identifying any desired changes. The applicant will then take into consideration the information received when drafting final plans to be presented for approval at the December 14, 2010 HPB meeting. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board November 9, 2010 ADDlicant Comments Andy Porter, 4010 Grimes Avenue, Refined LLC explained that his company purchased the subject home from the estate of a long time resident. The plans under consideration are not for speculation, but specific to the wishes of a buyer, Mr. Jason Conway. Mr. Porter shared the challenges he encountered when designing a new home on the property, stressing that he believes that the proposed home is compatible with its surroundings and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Responding to questions regarding the home's exterior materials, Mr. Porter stated that he intends to bring a material board to the December meeting, however they are proposing cedar shakes for the exterior cladding with stone accents not unlike that used for City Hall; Hardi board for the soffit/fascia and accents; and they would like the ability to choose between asphalt shingles or cedar shakes depending on the ultimate budget. He added that the color scheme will be a bluish grey with white trim. A brief discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Porter in which he clarified details of the design. Neighborhood Comments Arthur Brown, 4908 Sunnyside Road shared reflections of the Leonard Nelson the previous owner of the subject property. Board Member Comments Member Rehkamp Larson stated that she thought the proposed plan was great, with the mass and scale compatible with the surrounding homes. Member Forrest shared that she too liked the plan and stated that she would be in favor of allowing the option of either a cedar shake or asphalt shingle roof. The general consensus of the Board agreed with Ms. Forrest. Chair Stegner summarized the reflections shared by the Board, noting that no changes to the proposed plan had been recommended. Mr. Stegner commended Mr. Porter for the attention to detail with the proposed plan and stated that the Board looked forward to reviewing the final proposal at the December meeting. No formal action was taken. Ill. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Establish goals and timeline Planner Repya explained that now that the Morningside Bungalow Study has been completed, the HPB needs to prepare the information for a presentation to the Morningside neighborhood and ultimately for placement on the City's website. Recognizing that the board found the study to be full of valuable information, but heavy on text and in need of more photos and graphics, Ms. Repya shared information she found on the City of Chicago's bungalow districts. Board members agreed that the Minutes Heritage Preservation Board November 9, 2010 Morningside bungalow information could be presented in much the same format as Chicago's. A general discussion ensued among the Board regarding the elements they would like to see in the presentation. Member Curran offered to write an executive summary of the study, and Member Carr volunteered to organize the study into a format similar to that used by Chicago. Planner Repya agreed to work with Members Curran and Carr, providing any information or research they may need. Discussion ensued regarding the best time to present the information to the neighborhood. It was agreed that sometime after January 1 st would probably work best for the public. Planner Repya stated that she would contact Helen Burke, the Morningside resident that accompanied the HPB on the tour last summer who has expressed an interest in helping coordinate the neighborhood presentation. Board members agreed that it would be most helpful to have a Morningside representative included in planning the presentation. Discussing the landmark designation of bungalows in Morningside, several board members wondered how many properties could be designated at time - asking what would happen if there was a rush of applications? Consultant Vogel assured the Board that the designations of the Morningside bungalows would be on a first come first served basis, with the ability of designating 3 or 4 properties per year. Mr. Vogel added that such a timeline is typical for communities with historic landmark programs. Concern was raised as to how the additional work of designating properties in Morningside would fit into the budget established for heritage preservation. Mr. Vogel pointed out that there are small Legacy Grant funds provided by the State Historic Preservation Office for CLG cities such as Edina. These smaller grants are awarded on a monthly basis with no community match required. Board members agreed those funds would be helpful to meeting their designation goals. Following a brief discussion, board members agreed that they looked forward to continuing the work of preparing the Morningside bungalow study presentation at the December meeting. No formal action was taken. IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None V. 2010 GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Review Accomplishments Board members reviewed the goals and objectives targeted for 2010 to determine what tasks needed to be completed, or carried over to 2011. Of the fifteen goals identified, it was determined the following six goals remain to be completed: 1. Apply for Legacy Grant funds for accessibility improvements to the Cahill School and Grange Hall; continue in 2011 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board November 9, 2010 2. Explore potential Edina civic organization support for heritage preservation; continue in 2011 3. Provide walking tours of the Country Club District, Morningside neighborhood, and the city at large on the website; work ongoing — continue in 2011 4. Document city and school district properties on Eden Avenue; explore completing in 2010 5. Nominate at least one property for heritage landmark designation; begin notification of the process and benefits to at least 2 identified property owners. Discussion ensued regarding the desire to begin process of designating at least two single family homes which have been identified as eligible since the 1980 property survey of the city. Robert Vogel explained that the nomination information has been prepared for the Leeskov house at 4410 Curve Avenue and the Skone House at 4311 Eton Place. The board agreed that it would make sense to begin with those homes. Planner Repya agreed to compile the history of those properties and submit that information to the homeowners with the offer to pursue landmark designations. Continuing the discussion on designating landmark properties, the board also expressed an interest in pursuing the designation of the Wooddale bridge crossing Minnehaha Creek at Wooddale Avenue, just south of W. 50th Street. Consultant Vogel explained that the last word on this potential designation was from the City Engineer, Wayne Houle who was in the process of evaluating the structure. Planner Repya agreed to contact Mr. Houle regarding the potential for designating the bridge. Chair Stegner summarized that over all, the Board has done a good job of tackling the work plan for 2010. To continue the evaluation, he asked Ms. Repya to ensure that the 2010 - 2011 work plan be part of the agenda for the December meeting. No formal action was taken. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. League of Women Voters Reception for New City Manager, Scott Neal Member Rofidal reminded the Board that the League of Women Voters of Edina is hosting a reception to on Monday, November 15th from 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. at Edina City Hall, to introduce Scott Neal, the new City Manager. He pointed out that the public invited, and he encouraged his fellow board members to attend. VII. CORRESPONDENCE: None VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 14, 2010 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM Respectfully submitted, is Joyce Repya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE `INA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD .1ESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2010, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MN INTRODUCE NEW CITY MANAGER, SCOTT NEAL I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 9, 2010 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-10-4 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an Attached garage (continued from 10-12-10) B. H-10-6 4901 Sunnyside Road — Demolition of existing home and construction of a new home C. H-10-7 4408 Country Club Road — Demolition of existing home and construction of a new home III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting VI. 2010 — 2011 WORK PLAN: Continued from November meeting VII. 2011 CALENDAR & MEETING SCHEDULE VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Historic Resource Lending Library IX. CORRESPONDENCE: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 11, 2011 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 hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861, 72 hours in _,tvance of the meeting. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, December 14,2010,7:00 PM Edina Community Room 4801 50th Street West MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Bob Schwartzbauer, Arlene Forrest, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, Katherine McLellan, Ross Davis, and Lauren Thorson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 9, 2010 Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the November 9, 2010 meeting. Member Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. 11. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) A. H-10-04 4501 Casco Avenue — Remove a detached garage and build an addition with an attached garage Staff Report Planner Repya reminded the Board that this item was first heard at the October HPB meeting, when the applicant proposed the removal of an existing detached garage and a 2 story attached garage addition to the rear of the home. At that time, the Board expressed concern to the following elements of that plan: • The height of the proposed addition exceeded the height of the original home by two feet - creating massing that overwhelmed the original home; and • The south wall of the home with the addition appeared stark - being over 80 feet in length with no design relief. At the applicant's request, the COA review was continued to enable a revision of the plans to address the HPB's concerns. Ms. Repya reported that the plans presented for consideration address the concerns raised by the HPB, the revised plans demonstrate: • The roof of the addition has been lowered to match the roof height of the existing house. Minutes Heritage December Preservation Board 14, 2010 • The concerns regarding the starkness of the south elevation of the addition were addressed by avoiding a straight plane and adding-dimension/architectural interest with a bump out that mirrors one on the original home. The revised plan also provides a half-timbered gable roof on the south elevation. • A gable roof was added to the addition on the north elevation over the garage that is lower than the rest of the addition, thus reducing the mass. • The third garage stall on the east side was set back two feet from the plane of the other stalls and inset one foot from the south wall — reducing the mass. Additional changes made to ensure that the addition compliments the original home include: • The north gable peak repeats the half-timber theme from the west gable peak. • The entry door on the north elevation repeats the stone arch and gable tie-in theme from the main entry; and • More dimension and interest was provided on the north elevation by setting the garage back, bringing the front door forward and adding the gable. Upon evaluating the revised plans, Consultant Robert Vogel found that the applicant has redesigned the addition in response to the concerns expressed by the HPB. The plans now appear to meet the criteria established for new construction in the Country Club District, thus he would recommend approval. Ms. Repya added that Staff agrees with Consultant Vogel and too recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Findings supporting the recommendation include: 1. The proposed addition meets the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District. 2. The changes from the original proposal, including lowering the roof over the garage and adding dimension and architectural detail to the south elevation of the addition have addressed concerns expressed by the HPB. 3. The proposed addition is now compatible with the original home and neighboring historic homes. 4. Construction of an attached garage is in character and appropriate in the Country Club District. Staff further recommends that the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness be subject to: • The plans presented • A year built plaque displayed on the addition. Board Comments Several board members asked for clarification of design elements associated with the plans. �i • The concerns regarding the starkness of the south elevation of the addition were addressed by avoiding a straight plane and adding-dimension/architectural interest with a bump out that mirrors one on the original home. The revised plan also provides a half-timbered gable roof on the south elevation. • A gable roof was added to the addition on the north elevation over the garage that is lower than the rest of the addition, thus reducing the mass. • The third garage stall on the east side was set back two feet from the plane of the other stalls and inset one foot from the south wall — reducing the mass. Additional changes made to ensure that the addition compliments the original home include: • The north gable peak repeats the half-timber theme from the west gable peak. • The entry door on the north elevation repeats the stone arch and gable tie-in theme from the main entry; and • More dimension and interest was provided on the north elevation by setting the garage back, bringing the front door forward and adding the gable. Upon evaluating the revised plans, Consultant Robert Vogel found that the applicant has redesigned the addition in response to the concerns expressed by the HPB. The plans now appear to meet the criteria established for new construction in the Country Club District, thus he would recommend approval. Ms. Repya added that Staff agrees with Consultant Vogel and too recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Findings supporting the recommendation include: 1. The proposed addition meets the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District. 2. The changes from the original proposal, including lowering the roof over the garage and adding dimension and architectural detail to the south elevation of the addition have addressed concerns expressed by the HPB. 3. The proposed addition is now compatible with the original home and neighboring historic homes. 4. Construction of an attached garage is in character and appropriate in the Country Club District. Staff further recommends that the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness be subject to: • The plans presented • A year built plaque displayed on the addition. Board Comments Several board members asked for clarification of design elements associated with the plans. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 Member Davis opined that he had been concerned with the south elevation portrayed on the initial plans, and was pleased that the revised plans addressed those concerns. Member Stegner stated that he liked the plans as redesigned. Member Rehkamp Larson stated that she liked many of the changes to the plans, but pointed out that the gable on the addition's south elevation appeared wide and out of scale with the older home. She pointed out that by dropping the gable and providing a steeper pitch, that portion of the south wall would be more compatible. Ms. Rehkamp Larson also noted that on the east fagade of the north elevation, the placement of a window, serving the stairwell would make sense for both the exterior and interior design. Board members agreed that Ms. Rehkamp Larson raised some good design alternatives. Homeowner Comments Charles Layton, 4501 Casco Avenue explained that a lot of work went into the proposed plans to address the concerns the Board expressed at the October meeting. He appreciated Member Rehkamp Larson's suggestions for the plans and stated that he would like the ability to consider them, and if they do fit within their scheme, incorporate those changes with the final plans. Board Decision The Board briefly discussed Mr. Layton's request to allow for the possibility of incorporating the two changes proposed by Ms. Rehkamp Larson. Member Schwartzbauer moved approval of the proposed revised plans subject to the conditions recommended by Staff, to include the plans presented, with the ability to make the two changes to the south and west elevations suggested by Ms. Rehkamp Larson. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. H-10-06 4901 Sunnyside Road — Demolish existing home and construct a new home Staff Report Planner Repya reminded the Board that they had initially reviewed preliminary plans for the subject COA request at the November 9, 2010, meeting. At that time, the plans were well received with the Board requesting no changes to the final plans. The final plans provided for HPB approval demonstrate a few changes from those reviewed at the November meeting in the following areas: The building was repositioned on the lot one foot to the west, thus providing a Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 five foot (former six foot) side yard setback for the garage at the northwest corner, and an 11.25 foot (former 10.25 foot) side yard setback at the southeast corner. • All double hung windows now have muntins or grids on both the upper and lower sashes. • Additional windows were added to the garage doors to provide for more natural light. Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the final plans and concluded that they meet the criteria established for new construction in the Country Club District, thus he would recommend approval. Ms. Repya added that Staff too recommends approval of the plans for the replacement home at 4901 Sunnyside Road. Findings supporting that recommendation include: 1. The applicant has met all of the procedural requirements required for the replacement of a non -historic resource in the Country Club District. 2. The proposed plan meets the criteria set out in the design review guidelines of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. 3. Construction of an attached front loading garage is in character and appropriate with the homes abutting Minnehaha Creek in the Country Club District. Staff also recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Historical and architectural documentation of the existing house and garage is provided to include digital photographs and a written description of the house and its known history. 2. The home is built subject to the plans presented. 3. A sign (not to exceed 6 sq. ft.) with a rendering of the approved home is displayed on the property. 4. A year built plaque is displayed on the home. 5. Photographs of all elevations of the new construction shall be provided once the house is completed. Board Comments A brief discussion ensued regarding the shifting of the side yard setback. The Board also asked for clarification of building materials. Applicant Comments Andy Porter, Refined, LLC provided a material board representing the siding, trim and roofing materials proposed for the home. Mr. Porter asked the Board for flexibility in choosing either asphalt or cedar shake shingles for the roofing material. Mr. Porter added that he had presented the plans for the home to all of the surrounding neighbors and received no negative comments. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 Board Decision The Board briefly discussed the final plans presented - all agreeing that the proposed home would complement both its surroundings and the District as a whole. Member Forrest moved approval of the final plans for the new home at 4901 Sunnyside Road subject to the conditions outlined by Staff; adding that the roofing material may be either asphalt or cedar shake shingles. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. C. H-10-07 4408 Country Club Road — Demolish existing home and construct a new home Staff Report Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located northwest corner of Country Club Road and Moorland Avenue. The existing home is a split-level Ranch style constructed in 1955. A 2 -stall attached garage is located on the south side of the home facing Country Club Road. The COA request involves demolishing the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage that meets the district's plan of treatment criteria. The existing home is not classified as an historic resource since it was constructed after the District's period of significance (1924 —1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPB review and approval. The proposed replacement home is a two-story, Tudor style with an attached 3 -car garage accessed from a driveway in the same location on the south side of the property. The applicant has indicated that the home is being designed for a buyer and not on speculation. The proposed height of the home at the peak is 31'8". The adjacent home at 4622 Moorland Avenue has a ridge height of 29'4". When implementing the HPB's process for calculating the maximum height allowed at no more than 10% higher than the average height of the home, a maximum height of 32.2' would be permissible. Note that the new home (2003) built across the street at 4619 Moorland Avenue measures 36.4' from grade to the highest peak. The exterior materials proposed for the home include natural stone veneer and stucco walls; Hardi-board trim bands, frieze and fascia (option cedar); a 2 tiered brick stone cap on the south and east elevations; and asphalt (optional cedar or faux slate) shingles. Also, a stucco front entry, open on the sides with stone trim surrounding a wood front door is proposed. Ms. Repya reported that the applicant has contacted surrounding residents, and City notices were mailed to the same property owners. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed project and observed that 5 Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 the demolition of non historicfnoncontributing properties in the Country Club District is appropriate only when the new construction is designed to be compatible with the architectural character of the homes constructed during the district's period of historical significance. The plans presented show a house that would meet the design review guidelines for new home construction in the district plan of treatment. The proposed new house is in all respects a contemporary design, but it appears to be visually compatible with the historic period revival style homes in the neighborhood and should not detract from their historic character. New homes in the district are not required to imitate the character-defining Tudor, Colonial, or Mediterranean style details that contribute to the historic significance of the district: they only need to be compatible in scale, massing, size, and texture with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Vogel added the he believes the contemporary design submitted is appropriate and the COA should be approved with the usual conditions. He also recommended architectural recordation of the existing home prior to demolition. The documentation (to be provided by the developer) should consist of digital photographs, line drawings of the floor plan and principal elevations, and a brief written description of the house and its known history. This information would be useful for research purposes and for educating the public about the post-1940s history of the Country Club neighborhood. Ms. Repya pointed out that the review process for a replacement of a non-historic resource home in the Country Club District entails a 2-step process. The plans currently under consideration are fulfilling the first step. Staff recommends that the HPB provide the applicant with feedback on the proposed plans, identifying any desired changes. The applicant will then take into consideration the information received when drafting final plans to be presented for approval at the January 11, 2011, HPB meeting. Applicant's Presentation Andy Porter, Refined LLC explained that the proposed home is not being designed on speculation, but rather for a client. Thus, his firm has carefully worked on creating a home that blends the client's vision with the existing character of the historic neighborhood. The plans closely reflect the style of many of the original homes in the district, and compliment the stately street presence of neighboring homes on Moorland Avenue. Mr. Porter pointed out that they designed the home to meet the criteria for new construction set out in the Country Club District Plan of Treatment as well as the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Porter added that because the front door of the proposed home is parallel to Moorland Avenue, an address change to 4624 Moorland Avenue will be requested. The City's Building Inspector has advised Mr. Porter that as long as the front door abuts Moorland Avenue, the address change would not be a problem. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 Board Comments Board members asked Mr. Porter for clarification on several aspects of the proposed plans. Particular questions were raised regarding: • The south elevation to include the setback and long expanse of wall; and • The size and protrusion of the front porch (Mr. Porter's response — One of the appealing features of the lot is the sizable back yard that would be diminished if the setback for the south elevation was increased more than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.) Member Rofidal appreciated the streetscape that was provided for Moorland Avenue, and asked that a similar streetscape be provided for Country Club Road specifically showing the proposed home and the abutting home to the west at 4629 Browndale Avenue. Member Rehkamp Larson observed that she was not concerned about the placement of the home, however found the complexity of the roof to be lacking in execution and somewhat troubling. (Mr. Porter's response — There is a lot of depth to the plan that is not captured in the 2 dimensional plans presented. The intent of the design was to get away from having a long expanse of straight planes. The final plans will be 3 dimensional, and hopefully the roofing system will clearer.) Member Stegner stated that there doesn't appear to be continuity with the size of the windows on the south and north elevations. (Mr. Porter's response — Again, the depth of the structure not visible in the 2 dimensional plans alters the relationship of the windows. The 3 dimensional plans will demonstrate the varying planes and the lack of symmetry regarding the size of the windows will make sense.) Member Forrest stated that the placement of the windows makes sense on the elevations and planes where they are placed. She asked Mr. Porter if he would be able to provide the Board with a landscape plan, particularly of the south elevation due to the long expanse and prominence on the streetscape. Member Schwartzbauer stated that he found the proposed plans very fitting for the neighborhood and more in keeping than the 1955 home being replaced. Neighborhood Comments Member Carr observed that the Board received an email from Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue who had reviewed the plans and opined that the front entry appeared bulky. Joe Sullivan, 4409 Country Club Road explained that he lives across the street from the proposed home, and may be the most impacted of any neighbor. He stated that he has reviewed the plans, has no concerns, and believes it to be a fantastic project. Minutes Heritage Preservation Board December 14, 2010 Janet Asselstine Lederle, 4507 Browndale Avenue explained that her father is selling the home to Mr. Porter, and she appreciates the Certificate of Appropriateness process. She added that she is glad that the review process has a strong emphasis on maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Chair Stegner announced that the purpose of the current HPB review was to provide the applicant with feedback on the plans which will be used for designing the final plans. As a recap, the following issues were suggested to be addressed in the final plans: • A landscape plan of the south elevation • A 3 dimensional plan of the proposed home • Minimize the front porch e A streetscape of Country Club Road depicting the proposed home and 4629 Browndale Avenue; and • Evaluate the windows on the south and north elevations for symmetry. At the January 11, 2011 meeting, final plans will be presented, and at that time, the Board will make a decision. Member Rofidal suggested that the same neighbors who were notified of the December review of the plans again be notified of the final, January review. Planner Repya agreed to send notice of the January meeting. No Action was taken. III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: Planner Repya provided the Board with the following information relative to the Morningside Bungalow Study: 1) An Executive Summary of the Morningside Bungalow Study drafted by Member Colleen Curran. Board members agreed that Ms. Curran did an excellent job of consolidating the 40 page report into two pages that do an excellent job of laying out the important elements of the study. Member Stegner pointed out that while the summary references the CLG grant, it does not call out the dollar amount. Planner Repya agreed to check into the protocol for identifying funding sources. Following a brief discussion, all agreed that the summary should be included in the report when posted on the web site. 2) A tentative Communications Plan drafted by Member Colleen Curran. . Member Curran explained that she designed the Bungalow Study Communication plan with a template of a plan she uses in her workplace. Board members agreed that the plan would go far to keeping the project on task, and thanked Ms. Curran for providing her organizational skills and leadership. 3) A newsletter conveying important information on the Morningside Bungalow Study drafted by Member Claudia Carr. Member Carr created a newsletter using Microsoft Publisher which in 4 pages, communicated pertinent information from the Bungalow Study and explained the jth the t!on Board ejr delig w veyed s ht wa MlnUtes e ?re'2010embers e%Pres d hehin . jo,rmation con Berl 19, 2p10 m an er Board very inviting Qeemb PTO, iiitY,S nafio that the format was drr►ark des►g ument with the N1s. lan reefing d a copy Of the doc MS. Carrs work tion document, a9as „ right °n' that she share a who praised„newsletter the Nis. la►ned gennerott 1eCe as aAS an alternative %me er RepY hcom would be a one a exp. Jennifer to the P Pjann tions D►rector, referring fo►� ing• nice that by Id be this C°mmu e did con►mennext ►,sue w°Ubulletin” since , rationale• , Bennerott that the term Bennerotte s the C►ty s made using the with Ms' be published °n with could be a suggesteembers agreed to sjstency add a Bennerott m that for the do ceS t nprovW err°ber Carr agreed to publication• Board la►ned ke a few charas sion, Nl a further exP ill ma br1ef discussion iscus bulletin planner RMs Bennerotle w F ollowjng a inclusion in thetion A or 2�) d Marketing web site, oliof Morningside for hborhood. (gyp n jth the ublishing P neig "cations a o Edina's P hjstoN gide dine s COmmun streetcar w e tw the ornin9 Os depict a th section on os for the M created by Both log betty The logo o logo erences and on the potential log ted tw ►deo - hib hb rh°°d„ -The ►as preferable. 4) Repya Pr esMornjngs side Ne►9 at ppt�o i hborhpO the planner ',MOmk Board agreed th ornings►de ne 9O created for ,Department and the text ear "1905 bt e-, however thelevinjnformatjon tar he manner as the 109 leaf I used when c a e replaced' ►n the s W►11 b as they street SA insas District• COU ntN iTY COMMENT: None November Meeting o be coNIMUN ed from in the work t N - CTIVES: C°ntinu PB outUn g jot her work GppLs & OBOE al Work Plan thanked Ms. Ctrain don't slip a detall 2010 an annu HPB t sure items fin more V' created m°nth, The to making thew°rk Plan Member Curran month by t approach discuss Board fta en {or the wou d be an a reed that the' Would un that It Was ag and a9l he cracks a betty uaN meeting - .at the Jan ING SCHEDULE. to the Board A NpAR &MEET alanand ►neeting schedule LE V1. 20�� GA rated the 20'l� es verde prOP°sed. er Repya presented no change Planner s1On short discus that Willi be Prov B�SINEss: 11. OTHER Lending Librarylist of historic re sources O orut that the Edina V Resource With a pointed A• Historic rd s e a a resented the BS Website. M . R Py planne HPB se pion of the C Y on the nutes Heritage pr Deceraber 14 e2olo tion Board oFoundation provided fplemened wh munc�ran' to purchase ation s Haormed of the avrebY one sim�epartment resources for the It was su ailabili plY needs ' an electronic Check-out�n9 library additional two weested thatand instructed whequestry With the a ucte an item o system help weeks would make° week ti n they ma n line; the will be Board me me limit with Y Pick up the Y will be work on cOnbnualwere very pleas se for the programe ability to resew urCe at City epks, pamphlets, ma datin8 the library the pro posed for an V111. CpRRESP 8azines or web s►testh valuable historic libra►Y and IX. NEXT �NpENCie: None oris resourceagto include X A p EET I NG PATE: JOUR NMENT: January 11, 2011 The meeting adjourned at 9:25 pM Respectfully submitted, Joyce 2Z,�,ya • 10