Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 10-25 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularA G E N D A EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988 AT 7:30 P.M. GRIMES HOUSE, 4200 WEST 44TH STREET (Not Edina City Hall) I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 27, 1988 September 22, 1988 II. GRIMES HOUSE 1869, 4200 WEST 44TH STREET Final approval of plans for room addition and enlargement III. TERMS AND COMMISSIONS MEMO IV. SOUTHDALE MALL Consideration for National Register of Historic Places V. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING DATE November 25, 1988 at 7:30 A.M. VI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. THE GRIMES HOUSE: 4200 WEST 44TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Stuart, David Gepner, John Metil, Gary Nyberg, Cy Stuppy, Lois Wilder and Don Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Patsy M. Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Martha and Bill McLaughlin Roger Champa Bernie Eisenreich I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Stuart called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Stuppy moved to approve minutes from the regular meeting held on July 26, 1988. Mr. Wray seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Stuppy moved to approval the minutes from the special meeting of September 22, 1988. Mr. Wray seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. II. GRIMES HOUSE. 1869, 4200 WEST 44TH STREET: Mrs. McLaughlin opened the discussion of the final plans for the room addition and enlargement. Changes that had been made from the preliminary plans were to take some of the trim off the chimney, and the two windows that look from the family room out to the back yard were lengthened. Windows were changed so they would fit in better with the other windows on the back of the house. Mr. Champa indicated one other change in the plans included the addition of gingerbread for the outside of the addition and the enlarged family room. There were no structural changes made. Mr. Stuppy indicated concern for the pitch of the roof. Mr. Champa indicated the pitch is not much different than the garage and that there will be shingles on the roof that will have to be laid into a tar base. He also stated that the shingles will be on there for appearance and that even without the shingles on there it would be a waterproof roof. Mr. McLaughlin stated that they originally had looked at a flat roof but felt is didn't conform to the rest of the house. Mr. Stuppy asked if there were any way to raise the pitch of the roof but Mr. McLaughlin said not without removing the upper window. Mr. McLaughlin brought up that at the last meeting we had talked about a basement. They have decided not to put in a basement. The lack of underpinnings at this time and the fact that they would have to be put in is the main reason for not adding a basement at this time. More discussion followed regarding the step down into the family room and the feet of the pitch of the roof. It was determined the family room and the three -season porch will be on the same level and will be level with the backyard. Mr. Stuppy said he didn't see any reason to object to approval. Mrs. McLaughlin asked if the Board would like to go out to the porch/family room area and look at where the changes would be made. The group said they would and everyone went out to look at it. Discussion followed regarding the changes. Mr. Nyberg asked Mr. McLaughlin if they had considered a flat roof for the family room. Mr. McLaughlin said they had but felt that the roof presented in the drawing would tie in better with what they wanted to do. Mr. Champa indicated that there is still the option to go with a flat roof. Mr. Nyberg wondered if a flat roof would be better and more in keeping with the bay windows and everything else. He felt the pitch was foreign to the rest of the house. Mr. Eisenreich indicated that the pitch of the garage roof is 2 1/4 -12 and that this roof would be compatible. Mr. Nyberg felt the roof line showed a contemporary solution just as the garage does. Mr. McLaughlin pointed out the roof line that will be seen and said he felt it conformed pretty well with the roof line to the north. The roof to the north of the enlarged family room is the one they are trying to tie into. He felt that if they went with a flat roof, it would not tie in with the back. Mr. McLaughlin brought up having a railing around the roof line but they felt it didn't tie in with the bay window. Mr. Eisenreich asked the McLaughlin's if he would object to a flat roof or if they would prefer a pitched roof. Mrs. McLaughlin said she thought the proposed pitched roof fit in nicely. She said maybe they are just visually caught up with how it looks now. Mr. Nyberg said that his firm had done an addition to an older house that had the same problem and they did a flat roof on it and it turned out very nice. The roof had a very slight pitch to it. Mr. McLaughlin said that actually the roof they are proposing is a lot more work. He said all of the shingles will have to be laid in tar. Mr. Nyberg said he felt is was going to look like a California ranch style. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Nyberg if he was proposing that the roof be flat because it would be more in keeping with the character of the house. He said that was correct and observed that the porch that was on the house must have had that pitch. Mr. McLaughlin indicated it has less of a pitch. Mr. Nyberg asked if that was original to the house. Ms. Johnson said the porch appears to have been added just after the turn of the century. Mr. Nyberg added he didn't think it seemed to be in keeping with the time. Mr. McLaughlin added that if they go with a flat roof, the roof will have to come out 3 feet beyond the outside corner of the kitchen, also, the roof would be 19" below the upstairs windows. Mr. Nyberg said he thought that would be better. With the pitched roof there is roof all the way up to the window. My Nyberg felt it would be of benefit to have the siding showing. He didn't think anyone would normally build a roof right up to and tuck it under a window. Also, there would be snow laying up there in winter. Mr Nyberg indicated there is probably not an ideal way to do this. Mr. Stuart asked about a roof over on the east side of the house that the slant would match up with. Mr. McLaughlin showed the rear elevation of the house and where it would come out. Mr. Nyberg expressed concern how, from a construction standpoint, this could be done. Discussion followed regarding stepping down to the floor of the family room so the ceiling height in that room would be adequate. Mr. Stuppy made a motion to approve the plans as presented. Ms. Wilder seconded the motion. Mr. Stuart asked for any discussion. Mr. Stuart wanted his opinion noted that the proposed addition is located on the backside of the house, therefore, it will not negatively impact the public passer-by, nor will it negatively impact neighbors. He added he did not feel the house would be changed drastically. Ayes; Mr. Stuart, Mr. Gepner, Mr. Metil, Mr. Stuppy, Ms. Wilder, Mr. Wray. Nays; Mr. Nyberg. Motion carried 6-1 III. TERMS AND COMMISSIONS MEMO: Mr. Stuart referred to the meeting of July 26, 1988 when Ms. Wilder asked about the length of terms of commissions for board members. Mr. Stuart indicated this will be his last term because he can no longer be a member. IV. SOUTHDALE MALL: Mr. Stuart indicated that the material distributed for this topic dealt primarily with how to go about nominating buildings or areas that are less than 50 years old, and that exceptions were listed as to how to get around this 50 year criteria. Mr. Stuart asked Ms. Johnson what she had found out as to the question of listing Southdale, even though it is not 50 years old. She reported that it might be possible for all of Southdale to be designated on the National Register of Historic Places, but to designate the inner mall area that the Board had originally requested, seemed nearly impossible because of the partial status. Mr. Nyberg asked why. Ms. Johnson said that the research done indicated that the National Register took more of an all or nothing approach to designation. Discussion followed as to the pros and cons of this approach. The rationale of taking only the inner court is that the rest of the mall has undergone changes already, but why let the inner portion go also without designation. Discussion followed about past plans for Southdale and the current plans for remodeling. Ms. Wilder said that she thought we should pursue some type of designation. It was requested by Mr. Metil that we arrange a meeting with the owners of Southdale to discuss their possible interest in a designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Nyberg indicated that Southdale is managed by the Center Companies. Discussion followed as to when to have this meeting. It was decided that this meeting would take place at the earliest convenient time for the owners of Southdale. With the advent of the holiday season, it was recommended that this occur either in the next two weeks or after the first of the year. Mr. Nyberg asked if there was something short of National Register status that could be given to Southdale, perhaps a commendation that did not -have the restrictions that National Register status has. Ms. Johnson indicated that perhaps a kiosk, letter of commendation from the mayor or some other recognition could be given. Mr. Nyberg said that this would then give Southdale the recognition that it deserves and yet give the owners the freedom they very likely want to maintain. It was suggested that this meeting then should occur at everyones' earliest convenient time. Mr. Stuart asked if there was any further business to come before the house. Mr. Metil asked about a house on Country Club Road that he felt was being substantially changed in its' exterior. He said that it had had wood shingles or shakes, all of which had been stripped. It is being stuccoed and it looks like the roof is being changed. It also looks if it is being changed into a Spanish style house. He would like to know why id did not come before the Heritage Preservation Board because it seems to be the kind of thing that has been talked about previously in different circumstances and has been strongly objected to. Ms. Wilder also indicated that this is within the Country Club District which is on the National Register. Mr. Metil felt that it was a major change to the house and wanted to know why it was not brought before the Heritage Preservation Board, (HPB). Mr. Nyberg said that there are many changes to houses in the Country Club area that do not come before the Board and the only ones that do are ones that were either model homes or are on Edina Boulevard or one of the big streets to the west. He indicated there are a lot of houses that have undergone changes that were not brought before the Board. Mr. Metil went on to say that one of the things that the HPB has expressed concern about is the appearance of the front, the facade, which in this case is being totally changed and why didn't this case come before the HPB to at least talk about it. Ms. Johnson said that she could not answer that question because she was not aware of the changes to this house and asked how long this had been going on. Mr. Nyberg said that it had been at least a couple of months and that there had been a large addition put on the back. He also wondered if they didn't get sick and tired of stripping paint and that they wanted something more durable and that he didn't blame them for what they did. Mr. Nyberg said that he felt that it didn't come before the HPB because the body that approves the plans didn't tell them that they needed to. Ms. Johnson said that the chain of events at City Hall is that the builder comes in to the Building Department with plans and applies for a permit. The plans are then reviewed by them and then they go to the Planning Department for review and that she would have been the one to review them. She also said that she did not recall these particular plans coming through but would check into this situation. Mr. Metil said that it had changed from a Colonial House to a Stucco House. Mr. Nyberg asked how did he know and Mr. Metil replied that it sure looked like it. In his opinion Colonial Houses were not made out of Stucco and Mr. Nyberg asked if he meant American Colonial or what kind of Colonial. Mr. Nyberg said that he wasn't sure also what they are going to do with the roof but it looks as if they are going to tile it. Mr. Metil said that his point is that there was a major change made and that those kinds of things ought to at least get passed by the HPB and he would like to know why it didn't. He also feels that those kinds of things should be passed by the HPB because that is their role for the City. Ms. Johnson said the Country Club District is watched pretty carefully by the Planning Department due to the stringent ordinances for additions and changes to the houses because of the small lot sizes. Ms. Wilder indicated that she thought that this was started before Ms. Johnson came into the Planning Department. Mr. Gepner asked if the procedure is such that if there is structural change in the Country Club District then the HPB will be advised and it will come up before them. Discussion followed as to what the HPB can or cannot allow regarding certain changes to homes in the City. It was discussed that the HPB, as are all of the Boards and Commissions, are advisory in nature. Mr. Nyberg and Mr. Metil discussed the fact -that it is a value judgement as to whether or not this is an improvement. The fact that the Country Club District is on the National Register, and not each individual house, was discussed. This designation is more ambiguous than if each house was designated. Mr. Stuart asked if Ms. Johnson would look into the house on Country Club Road. Ms. Wilder asked if she would look into what the role of the HPB is in this matter. Mr. Stuart pointed out that the role is defined in the establishment ordinance. Discussion followed that all members have a copy of this ordinance. Mr. Nyberg wanted to know what is the difference between the whole district being designated and the Grimes House designation. Discussion followed regarding what houses were on Register. More discussion ensued about why the houses that are on the National Register were nominated for this status. Ms. Wilder indicated that the BiCentennial Committe indicated which homes to choose after doing careful research. She was involved as a member of the Historical Society. Mr. Stuart asked if there was any further business to be discussed. Mr. Stuart indicated that he would not be able to attend the next meeting. It was decided that unless additional information on Southdale or something else came up, the meeting in November would be postponed. The same would apply to the meeting in December. V. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made and seconded to adj urn the meeting at 9:00 P.M. L� Patsy M. r hnson