Loading...
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