HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 02-04 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
HELD FEBRUARY 03 1976,
EDINA CITY HAL
Members Present:- Foster Dunwiddie, Chairman, Paul Mucke, Gordon Stuart, James
McWethy.
Staff Present: Harold Sand, Planning Assistant
Mr. Dunwiddie called the meeting to order and explained that a special meeting
was called at this time to consider the alternatives available for use of Community
Development funds. He stated that the staff consulted with Tom Martinson and himself
and as a result proposed two heritage preservation projects that would be eligible for
this federal funding.
The first proposal was an architectural and historic building survey of the entire
community. Mr. Dunwiddie explained that this survey is a necessary tool that is basic
to the operation of the Heritage Preservation Board. The survey will research the
city; history and locate significant buildings and places that should be identified
and possibly preserved.
Mr. Stuart asked about the history of the city considering that it appeared to be
primarily modern suburban development.
Mr Dunwiddie explained that the city has a rich history dating from the 1850`s as a
farming and milling community. The history has been partially researched by the Edina
Histdrical Society, however, there is a great deal of research that remains to be done.
Several possible examples include the McCabe House, the old Calvary of Cahill Lutheran
Church, the Michael Delaney Cabin from 1854 and Indian trails through the region.
He explained that the Edina Bicentennial Commission has been awarded $3,000 in matching
funds for a total of $6,000 that will be used to locate historical buildings and erect
historical markers. He suggested that it may be possible to combine the board's effort
with the bicentennial program.
Mr. Dunwiddie explained that the second proposal was a reconstruction of the Edina Mills
building which was located in Dwight Williams Park at Browndale Avenue, north of W. 50th
Street. The mill was erected in 1857 and comprised a major factor in the early
development of Edina and was representative of a major economic factor in the Minneapolis
region. He explained that the mill became idle and was demolished in 1932, however, it
is anticipated the foundation and turbine blades are still in place. There is also
a great deal of equipment from the mill in storage and there are many photographs
and witnesses that would facilitate the reconstruction. Mr. Dunwiddie stated that
there is no similar operating mill in the Hennepin County area,.a fact that increases
the importance of the project.
Mr. Sand explained the Community Development Block Grant Program, eligible projects,
application procedures, other requests for funding, and the time constraints that
must be considered. The architectural and historic building survey request was for
$5,000 and the Edina Mills reconstruction request was for $6,199.00. However, the
Community Development Coordinator recommended a $4845 allocation for either or both
proposals at the first public hearing held by the City Council February 1, 1976. Mr.
Sand concluded that this would probably be the maximum amount allocated by the City
Council if any funding was granted. This necessitates a decision by the Board to
determine which project should be funded.
Y
2-
,Y-76 Heritage Preservation Board Minutes, page 2
Mr. Sand stated that the survey is fundamental to the operation of the board, however
it may bedifficultto locate a person capable of reporting on both the 19th and 20th
century development in Edina which are of equal importance. In addition, the Board
has not completed the definition of criteria for property eligible for "H" zoning
designation. Mr. Sand explained that there may be difficulty combining the bicentennial
historic markers program because of the differing goals, yet it is unwise to begin a
survey that could be redundant to the bicentennial effort. He suggested that it may
be advantageous to wait for the bicentennial report, which will identify critical
areas of concern,. provide a base of information to work from and allow time for
adequate consideration of the Board's criteria and time to conduct an in-depth
survey that will satisfy the Board's continuing purpose. Mr. Sand stated that the
mill reconstruction is easy to identify as a worthy project because it is probably the
most important historical site in the City and has significance as a county landmark.
The mill project will be easier to begin because the labor necessary is not as
specialized. In addition, in the past it has been easier to gain state and federal
funding for projects ..involving surveys and reports whereas funding for actual
construction projects is not as readily available.
Mr. McWethy commented that the survey would be logical unless there is money available
now for the mill reconstruction that will not be available later. Mr. Sand explained
that the community development program may be discontinued after 1977 which means the
first phase of development must be initiated in the summer of 1976 to enable the Board
to have a firm proposal for 1977. On a staff level, they have been discussing an
allocation of $25,000 for the mill in 1977, which will provide a good base for
acquiring funding from other public and private sources.
Mr. Sand indicated Mr. Martinson could not be in attendance, however, he considers
the mill reconstruction valuable if an authentic reproduction of an operating grist mill
is the end product; otherwise the survey was paramount. Mr. Burke, who also could not
be in attendance, previously indicated that the mill reconstruction would be a worth-
while project.
Mr. Sand recommended that the Board select the mill reconstruction project for the
previously stated reasons and because the survey can be initiated and conducted in its
preliminary stages by the commission. The request for the mill renovation should,
however, be rephrased to include a feasibility report that will consider such things
as the construction costs, operating procedures, neighborhood impact and funding.
The alternatives to reconstructing the building should also be investigated in the
event it is determined that full reconstruction is unfeasible. With this information,
the Heritage Preservation Board can properly approach the neighborhood, the Park
Board, Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Commission, City Council and
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Board of Managers for all the required approvals and permits.
The feasibility study would be concluded with an excavation of the foundation to
determine the condition and precise location so that a final decision can be made.
A possible alternative to reconstructing the mill is to locate the foundation and
identify the site with an informative kiosk or display of mill artifacts.
Mr. McWethy suggested consideration of annual operating costs and staffing require-
ments for the structure. Mr. Dunwiddie agreed, indicating that an admission could be
charged or it could be manned by volunteers like the Cahill School.
Mr. Stuart inquired about the elevation of the building in relation to Browndale
Avenue and if any other body was considering the reconstruction of the mill. Mr.
2-
,,Y-76 Heritage Preservation Board Minutes, page 3
Dunwiddie illustrated the building location and height, adding that he has preliminary
drawings and cost estimates that will facilitate the completion of the feasibility
report. The estimated cost is between $70,000 and $100,000.00. He stated that the
reconstruction was not being considered by any other organization, however the state
Historical Society was conducting a survey of mills in the state with the possibility
of, rebuilding one. The Edina mill could be chosen because it is in the metropolitan
area and it is partially funded from sources such as the City.
After a general discussion of the feasibility study, neighborhood reaction to the
project, sources of funding and alternatives, the Board generally agreed that the
mill project should be pursued with the.historic survey an alternative use of funds
if major obstacles are encountered.
Mr. McWethy made a motion that the Board adopt the mill reconstruction project as
the primary choice between the two Heritage Preservation Board proposals for
expenditure of Community Development funds. Mr. Stuart seconded the motion. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
Mr. Sand stated that discussion of criteria for Heritage Preservation designation
was also on the notice that was posted for this special meeting, however, material
for this discussion was not available at this time.
No further business to discuss, Mr. Mucke moved the meeting be adjourned, and Mr.
Stuart seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Respe_ctfD�uf��llyP;'AP'tted,
Harold Sand