Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 06-26 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularA G E N D A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 22, 1990 II. OLD BUSINESS: A. Plan Review: Proposed Dwelling _ 4209 Country Club Road (B-90-11) III. NEW BUSINESS: A. Minnesota Statute 471.193, Municipal Heritage Preservation IV. OTHER BUSINESS: V. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, David Gepner, Lois Wilder and Walter Sandison MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn Curtis, Cy Stuppy and Donald Wray STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya OTHERS PRESENT: Art Bartels, Paul Curran and Kathy Curran I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: David Gepner moved for approval of the minutes from the May 22, 1990, meeting. Lois Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. OLD BUSINESS: - Plan Review: Proposed Dwelling - 4209 Country Club Road (B-90-11) Chairman Nyberg reminded the Board that the subject proposal had been continued from the May 22, 1990, to afford the architect an opportunity to draft final plans for the home. Mr. Art Bartels architect for the proponents, Mr. and Mrs Paul Curran, reviewed the history of the proposal, reminding the Board that the subject lot was the product of a lot division of the Thomas Vennum property at 4209 Country Club Road. A five foot side yard variance was approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in May to allow for construction of the home on the lot which measures 70 feet in width (5 feet less than the 75 foot lot width minimum allowed by ordinance). A condition of the variance approval was for the Heritage Preservation Board to review and approve the design plans. Moving on to the presentation of the proposed dwelling, Mr. Bartels pointed out that the house is proposed to be an American Colonial. The body of the house will be primarily brick with a small portion of the upper story rear to have siding. Some highlights of the home include the following: stone keystones, brick Lintels, brick sills, low arch windows, a palladin window picking up a two story foyer, and Copper down spouts and gutters. Mr. Bartels added that all materials are indicative of the area and in keeping with the streescape. A brick and wood attached garage is proposed for the site measuring 1 24' X 22' sited 12 feet from the rear lot line and 6 feet from the east lot line. Mr. Bartels, addressing the Board's request from its May meeting to research the possibility of constructing an attached garage, explained that alternatives were explored to site the garage more attached and behind the house, however that plan resulted in more pavement area in the back yard space. It was felt that neither neighbor would appreciate the excessive pavement. Now, with the proposed siting for the garage, the rear will be screened with a hedge and impact to easterly neighbor will be much less intense. Concluding his presentation, Mr. Bartels added that the Board has also expressed concern about the extent of siding vs. brick to be used on the home. Initially, only a brick front facade was proposed, however, now all but a small potion of the upper level in the rear will be brick. The proposed materials will be a blended brick with most likely a flemish bond with a nice tooled joint, to be more decorative and pick up the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Nyberg, complimented Mr. Bartels on the attention to detail and the care taken to blend the home into the neighborhood. Mr. Nyberg added that both garages ( 1) for the proposed dwelling and 2) the new garage to be built for 4209 Country Club Road to replace the tuckunder garage which must be removed) tie in very nicely to each home site. General discussion ensued among Board Members, all expressing complements for the proposal. Mr. Nyberg asked Mr. Curran, the owner if his intention was to reside in the home or simply building for speculation. Mr. Curran responded that he and his wife most definitely intend on residing in the home. He also pointed out that the process he has encountered has been a long one -seven meetings, which is nothing he would have pursued for a "spec" home. Lois Wilder then moved for approval of the proposed plans as presented. Walter Sandison seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: - Minnesota Statute 471.193, Municipal Heritage Preservation Ms. Repya advised the Board that the City Attorney, Tom Erickson had been reviewing the subject ordinance and asked if the City was abiding by all the regulations. She explained that to the best of her knowledge, the City was in compliance with the exception of Subd. 6 which instructs the Board to submit an annual report to the State Historic Preservation Officer, summarizing the Commission activities during the previous 12 month period. Ms. Repya pointed out that the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance No. 802-A2 does not refer to the requirement of an annual report to the state, nor has she found any evidence that an annual report has every been submitted. However, 4 Ordinance 802-A2 was passed in 1975, perhaps subdivision 6 of the state statute was enacted after 1975. In closing, Ms. Repya explained that Mr. Erickson had indicated there doesn't appear to be a penalty involved for not submitting an annual report to the state, however, he recommended that the Board be informed of the State Statute and decide what action, if any, should be taken in the future. The Board asked if the City has ever been approached by the state with "Where's your annual report?" questions. Ms. Repya replied that no such correspondence has ever been received. David Gepner stated that in his opinion, the Board should continue as they have for the past fifteen years and not submit an annual report to the state. Gary Nyberg agreed with Mr. Gepner asking what the reasoning would be for submitting an annual report. Discussion ensued relative to the necessity and justification for submitting the reports. The Board agreed that it would be interesting to find out if our neighboring communities are submitted reports to the state. Ms. Repya offered to poll the Heritage Preservation Commissions from surrounding communities to see if they report to the state, and then report her findings back to the Board. No further action was taken. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Country Club Tour David Gepner asked if the Board was still interested in touring the Country Club District. Board members agreed that a tour would be not only interesting, but very timely considering the most recent issues of massing and design review questions which have surfaced as of late. It was agreed that September would be a good month to plan a tour which could also include all the historic sites in the City as well. No action taken. B. Country Club Photographs Chairman Nyberg presented the Board copies of the original promotional literature used for marketing the Country Club back in the 1920's. He explained that his firm Smiley Glotter Associates was known as Liebenberg and Kaplan when they designed the eight model homes for the Country Club District. Mr. Nyberg added that he was fortunate to have had a meeting with Mr. Liebenberg several years ago, prior to his death, at which time Mr. Liebenberg conveyed very interesting stories about the development of the district. Board Members thanked Mr. N yberg for the brochures which included the original drawings of the homes as well as photographs. Ms. Repya added that the information will be a real asset to the Country Club files. 3 C. St. Patrick's Church - 7000 Cahill Ms. Repya explained that she has toured the old St. Patrick's church site with representatives from Ron Clark Construction Co., the prospective developers of the site. It was determined that the visible foundation from the 1924 reconstruction of the church was concrete block and poured concrete walls. Once the demolition of the church has begun, the architect of the interpretive center, Larry Kollmeyer, will determine what, if any original (1888) foundation is salvageable for use in the Center. Ms. Repya further stated that she would keep the Board posted on the demolition progress. General discussion ensued with no action taken. V. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990 The Board discussed postponing the next meet'ng date until the regular September meeting due to summertime conflicts. Lois ilder made a motion to forego July and Augusts regularly scheduled meetings, (unless of course, business which must be dealt with during the summer crops up) and schedule the next meeting for September when the Board can consider taking a tour of historic Edina. David Gepner seconded the notion. All voted aye; motion carried. VI. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 P.M. Joyce Repya 4