Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 10-01 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM MONDAY, OCTOBER I, 2012,7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. H-12-3 4525 Bruce Avenue — Revised plans for a new home with attached garage 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. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS VII. STAFF COMMENTS VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 9, 2012 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- 8861, 72 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina City Hall - Community Room Monday, October 1, 2012 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 11. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was Chair Carr, and Members Stegner, Davis, Curran, Anger, Moore, Christiaansen, Sussman, Johnson and Good. Absent was Member Mellom. Staff present was Planner Joyce Repya. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Curran moved to approve the meeting agenda. Member Moore seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Certificate of Appropriateness #H-12-3 4524 Bruce Avenue Request: Modified Plan for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to demolish existing home and construct a new home and attached garage Planner Repya reported that on July 9, 2012 the Heritage Preservation Board issued a Certificate of Appropriateness approval for the construction of a new home at 4524 Bruce Avenue. The decision for approval was appealed to the City Council and heard at their August 6th meeting. The City Council approved the appeal and on August 21st, adopted the following Findings in support of the approval: The materials board was not presented to the Heritage Preservation Board for their consideration. 2. The proposed home's use of a non-traditional exterior material is not appropriate because the two homes on both side of the proposed new home have real or traditional stucco. The proposed exterior siding, therefore, does not "relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes or respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street," as required in the District's Plan of Treatment. The front porch, as proposed, is not compatible with the Country Club neighborhood. It does not "relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes or respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street," as required in the District's Plan of Treatment. 4. The size of the third -story window is not appropriate for the District. Typically, third -story windows in the District are smaller; therefore it too does not "relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes or respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street," as required in the District's Plan of Treatment The proposed home should be redesigned and reconsidered by the Heritage Preservation Board. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 1, 2012 Ms. Repya explained that following the direction of the City Council, the applicant, JMS Custom Homes has submitted revised plans for a new home with attached garage. The revised plans have not changed with respect to the size, scale, and massing of the home which were found to be consistent with homes in the District and not subject to the appeal. Rather, the revised plans reflect changes to the design identified by the City Council in their Findings in support of the appeal — namely: I . The proposed house is now clad in traditional stucco rather than the Hardi-board stucco panels, thus considerably reducing the amount of false timbering on all elevations. 2. The front porch has been removed from the plan in favor of a small covered entry that emulates the air lock entries found on many Tudor inspired homes in the District. 3. The size of the third floor window and the scale of the dormer have been reduced 4. A material board will be provided for the Heritage Preservation Board's review. Ms. Repya observed that the revised plans do a good job of addressing the issues raised in the appeal of the original plan and reflect the direction provided by the City Council in their Findings. Approval of the revised plans dated September 20, 2012 is recommended subject to the following conditions: I. 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 final approved plans — any changes must be brought back to the H PB. 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. The HPB's staff liaison is provided a final inspection of the home prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Photographs of all elevations of the new construction shall be provided once the house is completed. Ms. Repya clarified that the recommendation for approval reflects the following changes made to the previously approved plan as directed by the City Council in the. Findings of Fact associated with the August 6, 2012 appeal of the COA decision: 1. The Hardi-board stucco material originally proposed for the exterior of the proposed home was replaced with traditional stucco which is appropriate and consistent with the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes. 2. The front porch was removed from the plan and replaced with a covered front entry which is compatible with the historic homes in the Country Club neighborhood. 3. The third -story window was reduced in size to typify other homes with third story windows in the District. 4. The redesigned home relates well with the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes and respects the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 1, 2012 Public Comment A. Bill Jadkwoski , 4610 Bruce Avenue Mr. Jadkowski explained that his wife Kitty O'Dea was unable to attend the meeting and asked that he read the following statement she prepared: In her statement, Ms. O'Dea explained that she has been out of the country and although Ms. Repya sent her the revised plans electronically, she was unable to open the file. However, she asked that when the HPB evaluates the plan they take into consideration not only how the home is compatible with the Country Club District's Plan of Treatment, but how the home compares to other Tudor style homes as well as the surrounding homes on Bruce Avenue. In her statement, Ms. O'Dea asked the board pay particular attention to the following issues: I . Ensure that the elevation at the front door is consistent with the neighboring homes. 2. Ensure that the building materials are consistent with neighboring homes with the use of traditional stucco and natural stone is appropriate with the surrounding homes. 3. Ensure that untypical forms such as a front porch, trim in the eaves are not included, and that the window and roof forms are consistent with the surrounding homes. Ms. O'Dea's statement concluded that although she had not seen the revised plans, she would encourage the HPB to vote for approval if they are completely comfortable with the design. However if there is any doubt, she encouraged a no vote; citing that the HPB should not compromise on a home that will stand for the next 50 years and change the face of the street. B. Ann Wordelman, 4522 Bruce Avenue — Abutting neighbor to the north Ms. Wordelman asked for clarification on the following issues: 1. The plans indicate that the 3rd floor window has been reduced. What is the size of that window? • Planner Repya explained that the original window was. 17.5 square feet in area, and now the proposed window measures 13.5 square feet. • Jeff Schoenwetter, JM S Custom Homes explained that the window has been reduced to the smallest egress window available. Ms. Wordelman observed that there are no other historic homes on Bruce Avenue that have 3rd story windows facing the front facade. New Tudor style homes built at 4602 Bruce Avenue and 4601 Drexel Avenue are very similar in design, however neither home has a 3rd story window. She added that this was not a major concern; however she wanted to make sure that everyone was comfortable with introducing this new element into the street scape. She added that natural light is provided from the windows on the south elevation of the 3rd story, thus it wouldn't be disastrous if natural light was not provided from the front fa4ade. 2. The plans indicate "stucco". Is that the traditional material found on the adjacent homes to the north and south? • Matt Hanish, JMS Custom Homes responded that the home will be clad in traditional stucco similar to the homes on either side. Mr. Hanish then presented a material board which demonstrated the materials to be used on the exterior of the home. 3. The plans indicate that the material used on the building's trim is LP SmartSide, a composite wood material rather than natural wood. She recalled that at the City Council meeting the use ® of composite materials was called into question. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 1, 2012 • Ms. Repya explained that the engineered wood product has the authentic look of natural wood, but is more durable, does not absorb water, thus is resistant to warping and bug infestation. Also, paint adheres very well to this product which requires less maintenance than a natural wood product. Ms. Repya added that the engineered wood trim product is the same product approved for the new home at 4624 Bruce Avenue earlier this summer. 4. Ms. Wordelman observed that the plans demonstrate a one foot increase in the first floor elevation which will site the home close to the same elevation as her home to the north, but 2.9 feet above the home to the south. She pointed out that she wanted to be sure that everyone understood the need to increase this elevation and was comfortable with that. Ms. Wordelman concluded that she was pleased to see that traditional stucco will be used on the home, and observed that through the feedback and iterations of the process, the modified project is an improvement. C. Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue Mr. Dulas questioned the following elements of the plan: 1. Mr. Dulas questioned the height of the proposed home. Jeff Schoenwetter responded that the 31 foot height to peak of the proposed home is actually I/ I Oth of afoot shorter than the existing home. Furthermore, the one foot increase in the first floor elevation is within the City's criteria for new construction. Mr. Dulas observed that although the peak of the existing home at 31 feet is comparable to the existing home; the mass of the proposed home at the top floor is much greater than the existing home which does not have living space on a third level, but rather the roofline comes to a sharp peak. 2. Mr. Dulas questioned where the grading and drainage from the downspouts would be directed on the property, noting that it may not be within the prevue of the Heritage Preservation Board, but he did not see where that information was provided in the plans. Mr. Dulas also questioned the width of the driveway and whether the half -wall on the front elevation was positioned on the driveway. Responding to the questions of the drainage and driveway width, Jeff Schoenwetter commented that the City's Engineering Department oversees the drainage on the site which will not be directed on adjacent properties, but would be contained on the site. Addressing the proposed driveway width, Mr. Schoenwetter explained that the half -wall will not be built on the driveway, a new curb cut will not be required, and the width is proposed to be less than 12 feet which is applicable to the city codes. 4. Lastly, Mr. Dulas asked if any of the existing trees on the property would be removed. Mr. Schoenwetter explained that the boulevard trees would remain, however a silver maple in the front yard would be removed. 4