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