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