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