HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: NOVEMBER 27, 2001
II. HPB WORK PLAN:
A. REVIEW PROPOSED SCHEDULE
B. OPEN HOUSE PLANNING
III. 2002 CLG GRANT APPLICATION:
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
VI. ADJOURNMENT
•
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Donald Wray, Bill Crawford, John
McCauley, and Lois Wilder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings and Herman
Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Crawford moved approval of the minutes from the November 27, 2001
meeting. Member Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. HPB WORK PLAN:
A. REVIEW PROPOSED SCHEDULE
B. OPEN HOUSE PLANNING
Planner Repya presented a proposed the following work schedule for the
proposed changes to the heritage preservation sections of the city code:
January 22 Regular meeting — discuss open house for public
February 4 or 5 Special meeting — subcommittee to plan open house
February 11 Mail notification of upcoming open house
Special meeting to discuss open house
February 26 Regular meeting — open house to present proposed code
March 27 Planning Commission — Review proposed ordinance and
Pass recommendations on to City Council
May 7 City Council — Review and (hopefully) approve new
Ordinance, after which HPB begins work to designate
Country Club District as an Edina Heritage Landmark.
June 19 Country Club moratorium on teardowns expires.
I
Board members discussed the upcoming informational meeting, agreeing that
notices should be mailed to the Country Club neighborhood as well as to members of the
City Council and Planning Commission advising them of the opportunity to hear about
the proposed changes to the code. Planner Repya stated that she would work with
Jennifer Wilkinson, Communications Coordinator for the City to design an eye-catching
mailer. She also recommended that a notice of the meeting should also be published in
the Edina Sun Current, which would then serve to inform all the residents of the
upcoming meeting.
Regarding the content of the informational meeting, it was agreed that Robert
Vogel would be in charge of providing a history of heritage preservation, how
preservation has worked in the City of Edina, and the vision the new ordinance will
provide preservation in the future. Planner Repya and Mr. Vogel would then field
questions and comments from the attendees. That being the case, it was agreed that a
subcommittee meeting on February 4/5 would not be necessary. Furthermore, it was
agreed that an additional meeting on February 11 to discuss the open house would not be
necessary.
Member Wray asked for clarification of the goals for the informational meeting.
Mr. Vogel explained that at the meeting the changes to the code will be addressed which
will serve to lay the groundwork for the upcoming Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. The public will be given an opportunity to be part of the process early
on by providing their input before the code moves beyond the HPB. Oftentimes,
meetings such as these serve to not only generate public support, but also diffuse fears
and misinformation.
Discussion ensued as to how the new code would affect the activities of the
Heritage Preservation Board. Mr. Vogel explained that the new code will be much more
"user friendly" compared to the existing code. The board will work with the landmark
property owners not only at the time the properties are designated to establish a
preservation plan, but also on an ongoing basis, providing education and annual reports.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the "police approach" which is basically what currently exists
is far more time consuming are far less productive. Board members agreed, adding that
for the most part, people who purchase older properties, value the historic integrity and
are aware of the importance to maintain that, not only from a historic standpoint, but also
from a financial standpoint.
2
Board members agreed that they were pleased with the progress toward
improving the heritage preservation sections of the city code. No formal action was
taken.
iII. 2002 CLG GRANT APPLICATION:
Planner Repya reported that a draft proposal was submitted to the Minnesota
Historical Society for a matching grant to finance an architectural/historical survey of the
Morningside neighborhood. There has been no response from the state whether they
would support the grant request. As soon as more information is available, it will be
relayed to the HPB.
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: February26, 2002
V. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
3
i�
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
John McCauley and Donald Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle and Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
20 Interested Parties
I. Heritage Preservation Ordinance Revision
The purpose of this meeting was to provide information to the public regarding
changes to the Heritage Preservation Sections of the City Code, (Sections 800, and
850.20) which the Board will be proposed to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In preparation of the meeting, 600 postcard invitations explaining the nature of
the meeting were sent to residents of the Country Club District, as well as members of the
City Council, Planning Commission and Edina Historical Society. In addition, an article
was placed in the Edina Sun Current advising the public that the informational meeting
would be taking place.
Planner Repya welcomed 20 members of the community as well as members of
the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB). She gave an overview of the responsibilities of
the HPB, and then introduced Robert Vogel, the Preservation Planning Consultant who
has been working with the Board for the last year to revise the Heritage Preservation
sections of the city code.
Mr. Vogel began by offering a history of the heritage preservation movement in
the country, explaining that nationwide there are 4,000 units of government that have
heritage preservation ordinances; 30 programs exist in the State of Minnesota.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the existing heritage preservation sections of Edina's
• code have not changed since 1975 when they were created, and in his opinion are not in-
step with the rest of the city code.
No properties have been designated Heritage Preservation District since the mid -
1980's, and the Board has had a difficult time enforcing the code as it exists due to some
of the following deficiencies:
1. No terms are identified in the code.
2. No standards exist to guide decisions.
3. The registration process is cumbersome.
4. The review of building permits is difficult.
5. No provisions exist to provide participation in project developments.
6. District -wide designations are not addressed.
The proposed revisions will not restructure the Heritage Preservation Board,
however new members will be added to include representation from the Planning
Commission, Edina Historical Society, as well as a youth member. The intention of
adding these members is to improve the advisory capacity of the Board, providing better
interface with other departments in the city; operating less in a void.
To further facilitate the advisory nature of the Board, The Heritage Preservation
Section of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan should also be updated to reflect the
changes to the code. This will assist the City Council, who will ultimately be responsible
for appeals of decisions made by the HPB.
Mr. Vogel then explained the major changes to be reflected in the new code,
namely:
Owners of properties designated as "Heritage Landmarks" will be
required to seek approval from the Heritage Preservation Board
when applying for city permits to demolish or move
archeologically sensitive areas.
2. Building permits for construction of new homes in Heritage
Landmark Districts will require a "certificate of appropriateness"
to ensure that new buildings do not impair the historic character of
preserved properties.
3. Heritage Preservation Board approval will not be required for
remodeling work and additions to designated Heritage Landmarks.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that guidance will be provided from the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as well
as an individual preservation plan created for each historic landmark. The
preservation plan will be unique to each designation, identifying the historically
significant aspects of the landmark and a vision for the future preservation. The
WJ
f
N
preservation plan will be a collaborative effort including not only the research by
city staff, but also desires of the landmark's owners.
In closing, Mr. Vogel stated that the proposed changes to the Heritage
Preservation ordinances address a need identified by the Heritage Preservation
Board to not only bring these sections instep with the remainder of the City's
codes, but to also provide a more "user friendly" approach to preservation;
emphasizing a desire to bring about desirable outcomes through education and
voluntary compliance instead of imposing a " police power" type of an approach.
Mr. Vogel and Planner Repya then entertained questions from the
audience. Following are the questions, answers and comments:
Q. You indicated that approval for city permits to demolish or move a
historic structure must be sought from the Heritage Preservation Board,
yet you also said that the Heritage Preservation Board is advisory to the
City Council. Why aren't these permits approved by the City Council?
A. Planner Repya explained that while it is true that the HPB is advisory
to the City Council, the Council can delegate some responsibilities back to
the advisory boards. In this case, permit applications received by the
Heritage Preservation Board would be reviewed much like variance
requests from the Zoning Board of Appeals; the decision of the board is
final, however appeals of the decision go straight to the City Council.
Q. Why are you only requiring permits for demolitions and the construction of
new buildings? What about the large additions that have become so
prevalent?
A. Planner Repya agreed that the number of additions to Edina's housing
stock has increased over the years. However, to use the Country Club
District as an example, if a certificate of appropriateness were to be
required for every addition made to the 550 homes, the added costs to the
City and homeowners could be considerable. Not only would the review
process require a fulltime planner for the Heritage Preservation Board, but
also added delays in receiving a building permit could be costly for the
homeowner.
Q. Currently, in order to get around the requirement for getting a demolition
permit, some people leave one wall standing, which keeps the project in
the remodeling tract and not the demolition category. It might be possible
for people to take that route to forego getting approval from the Heritage
Preservation Board. How would you address situations such as these?
3
A. Mr. Vogel explained that some people will always look for ways to get
around requirements in the codes, and the city cannot create their codes
predicated on what someone may try to do. However, Ms. Repya pointed
out that this is an area that the city staff can review and perhaps draft some
language that is similar to what is found in the zoning code regarding the
rebuilding of non -conforming structures.
Q. The question was raised as to whether the youth member of the board
would be a voting member; pointing out that since decisions made by the
HPB have a significant affect on a property owners financial investment, to
have a youth involved in the decision making process didn't seem wise.
A. Ms. Repya explained that the board has gone back and forth as to whether
the youth member should be ex -officio or a voting member. There are
several youth already serving on city boards and commission, some of
whom are voting members. The decision as to whether the youth should
be a voting member is ultimately one to be made by the City Council.
Q. If the Heritage Preservation Board is only going to review permits for the
construction of new buildings, what's to prevent someone from painting
their house purple, and basically creating a neighborhood eyesore?
A. Mr. Vogel explained that the Heritage Preservation Board came to the
conclusion that Edina residents take pride in their homes, and have a
considerable financial investment involved when addressing upgrading
projects. The city has never taken the stance of being the "aesthetics
police", and feels that for the HPB to so strictly oversee ones property
rights as to tell them what colors can and cannot be used on ones home
would not be in keeping with the overall city policies. Planner Repya
added that the board is proposing to concentrate their efforts on educating
owners of landmark properties to encourage an awareness of the historic
integrity of their properties and a desire to uphold that integrity.
Planner Repya thanked all those who attended the meeting pointing out
that their questions and comments would be taken into consideration as the
Heritage Preservation Board forwards the proposed code revisions on to the
Planning Commission who is also advisory to the ultimate decision makers, the
City Council.
n
r
III. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: March 26, 2002
IV. Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 26, 2002
II. JOINT DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING HPB ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
III. OTHER BUSINESS
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 28, 2002
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings, Gary Nyberg,
Herman Ratelle and Lois Wilder
MEMBERS ABSENT: John McCauley and Donald Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Planning Commission Members: Helen McClelland,
David Runyan and Gordon Johnson
I. Approval of the Minutes
Member Jennings moved for approval of the minutes from February 26. 2002.
Member Ratelle seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion Carried.
H. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission — HPB Ordinance Amendment
Consultant Vogel provided members of the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB)
and Planning Commission (PC) background information highlighting the goals of the
proposed amendment to the Heritage Preservation section to the City Code.
Mr. Vogel then walked those present through the following processes associated
with designating properties to the Edina Heritage Landmark District as well as
maintaining those properties:
CREATING AN EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK
Step One entails conducting a survey to identify the heritage resource.
This would be accomplished by:
Gathering information needed to plan for the wise use of Edina's heritage
resources.
Develop an inventory of historic buildings, sites, structures, objects, and
districts within the city limits.
Collect information on the appearance, significance, integrity and boundaries
of heritage resources.
• Use historic contexts to target survey work (A historic context is a broad
pattern of historical development in Edina that may be represented by
significant heritage resources.)
Mr. Vogel continued by defining the following heritage resource types:
• Building = The whole house, church or similar construction that was created
principally to shelter human activity.
• Structure = Functional constructions made for purposes other than proving
shelter (ex. bridges, windmills).
• Site = The location of an event or activity.
• Object = Small-scale, primarily artistic in nature.
• District = An area containing multiple heritage resources that possess an
identity of time and place; a heritage landmark district may contain
individually significant heritage resources as well as non -historic or non-
significant resources.
Step Two includes evaluating the significance of the heritage resource by doing
the following:
• Survey the data collected in Step One to provide the raw material on which
evaluation decisions are made.
• Determine which historic context the resource represents.
• Determine whether the identified heritage resource meets the ordinance
criteria of historical, architectural, archeological and cultural significance.
• Four criteria for evaluation (eligibility):
a) Association with an important event or pattern of events
b) Association with an important person
c) Architectural distinction/high artistic value
d) Information value/archeology
• Determine whether the resource retains integrity of those features necessary to
convey its significance (location, design, materials, etc.)
• Sift through the inventory to select significant resources for Heritage
Landmark designation.
• If, after completing the evaluation process, the HPB finds that the property
qualifies for Heritage Preservation Landmark designation, it issues a
"determination of eligibility" for planning purposes.
The next step would then be to prepare a written nomination report.
Step Three brings the project to fruition by designating the heritage landmark.
Some important details involved with the designation include:
• Edina Heritage Landmark is the official city zoning designation for buildings,
sites, structures, objects and districts that have significance to the heritage of
Edina.
• storic significance and integrity maybe
Only properties that possess hi
designated Edina Heritage Landmarks.
4
• Only the HPB may nominate a property for designation as an Edina Heritage
Preservation Landmark.
• The Planning Commission reviews and comments on all Heritage Landmark
nominations before they are transmitted to the Council.
• Only the City Council can designate an Edina Heritage Landmark.
• Designation is by Council resolution after a public hearing.
• The Heritage Landmark nomination is accompanied by a heritage landmark
study that identifies and describes the heritage resource being nominated,
explains how it meets the heritage landmark eligibility criteria, makes the case
for its significance and integrity, and recommends a plan of treatment with
guidelines for design review.
PROTECTING A HERITAGE LANDMARK
Step One entails the review of permit applications relating to Heritage Landmark
properties only and are subject to the following criteria:
• Permit review (also called "Design Review") applies only to activities that
normally require a city permit.
• Heritage Landmark regulations apply only to permits for:
• Demolition (in whole or in part)
• Moving a building
• Excavation in proximity to an archeological site, and
• New construction
• Permit review regulations do NOT apply to building permits for remodeling,
additions, painting, construction of accessory structures, landscaping, or other
minor work.
• In the case of Heritage Landmark Districts, (i.e. multiple resource
designations consisting of groups of buildings, structures, or sites), permit
review regulations apply throughout the district.
• The ordinance requires that permit review by the HPB will be guided by the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan, and the heritage landmark
preservation study that was adopted at the time the Landmark was designated
by the Council.
STEP TWO deals with the review of applications using the following
preservation standards:
• The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties apply to the full range of heritage resource types and address
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction work.
• The Secretary of the Interior's standards are regulatory for:
• Permits to demolish historic buildings
• Permits to move historic buildings
• Permits to excavate at archeological sites
3
* Permits for new construction 40
• The City of Edina Comprehensive Plan establishes permit review procedures,
administrative policies and priorities.
• The heritage landmark preservation study adopted for each designated
Heritage Landmark provides guidelines and advice to be used by the HPB in
the permit review process.
• City staff and the HPB have 45 days in which to complete the permit review
procedure — if they do not act, the permit is issued by the City.
• The Planning Commission gives the HPB an opportunity to review and
comment on development projects (plats, rezonings, etc.) that may adversely
affect a designated Heritage Landmark.
STEP THREE, the final step entails the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness using the following criteria:
• No City permit for the types of work regulated by the ordinance can be issued
without a Certificate of Appropriateness signed by the City Planner and
approved by the HPB.
• The City Planner and the HPB may issue non -regulatory Certificates of
Appropriateness for work projects not covered by the ordinance (i.e.,
remodelings and additions) and that are submitted voluntarily by owners of
Heritage Resources.
• Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness may be appealed directly to the
City Council.
• It is a misdemeanor to demolish, move, excavate or erect new construction at
a designated Heritage Landmark without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Planning Commission member McClelland questioned the wisdom of the
Heritage Preservation Board reviewing all plans that come before the Planning
Commission, pointing out that a problem could arise with the 60 day time limit
for an item to move through the process. Mr. Vogel clarified that the HPB would
not be reviewing all items that go before the Planning Commission, only those
affecting Heritage Landmark designated properties.
Discussion ensued regarding the scheduling of the HPB meetings relative to
the Planning Commission meetings. Planner Repya explained that the HPB is
scheduled to meet on the fourth Tuesday of the month; however if the second or
third Tuesday would provide for better timing of items moving through the
process when both Heritage Preservation and Planning Commission are involved,
the change in meeting dates could be considered by the HPB.
The inclusion of a student member to the HPB was discussed. Mr. Vogel
explained that many heritage preservation boards and commissions include
student members and find it advantageous to do so for several reasons:
4
• Involvement in city government at a young age encourages understanding of
how city's function, and future involvement as adults.
• The youth add a fresh perspective to issues.
• Youth involvement on the boards fulfills a community service requirement
required by many schools for graduation.
Member Jennings agreed that a student member on the board could be
advantageous and suggested that the students should be either Juniors or Seniors
and have a teacher's recommendation.
Member Ratelle explained that he has spent his career as an attorney and has
dealt with many adversarial situations. It is the intention of the proposed code
revisions to avoid creating an adversarial system, but rather to work with affected
property owners toward a common goal. Through the means of clearly
identifying the significance of a site when designated historic and educating the
public, the ordinance should be much more efficient.
Planning Commission member Johnson asked if the HPB could run the risk of
having too many properties designated landmark district. Mr. Vogel indicated
that would not be a problem. An historic building survey of the City was
completed in the early 1980's which identified the historically significant
properties in the City. There are two residential districts, Morningside and the
Country Club District which could be easily managed. In addition, there are
probably several dozen individual properties which might qualify for landmark
status, again, very manageable.
Planning Commission members Runyan, McClelland and Johnson thanked
Mr. Vogel for his presentation, stating that the "Workshop" approach helped to
clarify questions that were raised at their last meeting. Planner Repya explained
that the proposed code revisions will again be heard by the Planning Commission
at their May 1 st meeting, with their recommendation going forward to the City
Council on June 4th
III. Next Meeting Date: May 28, 2002
IV. Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 23, 2002
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
III. ROBERT VOGEL, PRESERVATION CONSULTANT'S CONTRACT
IV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
V. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION
VI. SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING: July 23, 2002
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Don Wray, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
and Lois Wilder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg, John McCauley, and Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Wilder moved approval of the minutes from the April 23, 2002, meeting.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Member Crawford moved to reelect Gary Nyberg as Chair and Donald Wray as
Vice Chair for another term. Member Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
III. ROBERT VOGEL, PRESERVATION CONSULTANT'S CONTRACT:
Planner Repya advised the Board that Robert Vogel's contract with the City has
expired. Mr. Vogel has presented a proposal for services and a work plan that will last
through December 2003. Mr. Vogel is proposing to address three areas during that time
period, namely, historic properties inventory, heritage landmark registration and design
review. Mr. Vogel is proposing to be compensated on an annual retainer basis, based on
a monthly fee of eight hundred dollars ($800.00), representing a minimum of twenty (20)
hours of professional services. Furthermore, Mr. Vogel will bill the City his standard
hourly rate of forty dollars ($40.00) per hour for all other historic preservation work not
included in the scope of services.
Board members discussed the proposal for services agreeing that Mr. Vogel has
clearly identified the tasks to be performed and the work schedule for getting the job
done. Member Jennings stated that Mr. Vogel has done a marvelous job for the Heritage
Preservation Board and the City of Edina thus far, and looks forward to working with him
as the new ordinance is put to work; the remainder of the Board concurred. Member
Jennings then moved to accept Mr. Vogel's Proposal for Services. Member Wilder
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
Planner Repya reported that the City Council, at their June 18th meeting, approved
the proposed amendments to the Heritage Preservation sections of the City Code with
two changes from the original proposal presented to them. The two changes included:
1. Deleting the definition for "Alteration", since the code does not address
alterations.
2. Deleting the ex -officio status for the Planning Commission member as well as
the student member, changing the number of voting members from 7 to 9.
Planner Repya further explained that while the Council approved the ordinance
amendment, they are not comfortable with the disregard for the review of additions and
asked the HPB to report back to them as to the rationale for not including a design review
of proposed additions on Landmark properties.
Planner Repya explained that since the Council meeting she had been researching
the number of building permits issued in the Country Club District during 2001 in hopes
of determining the extent of work involved if indeed additions were included in the
review process for landmark properties. Her findings included the following data:
During 2001 a total of 190 building permits were issued in the Country Club District; of
those, 10 permits involved additions to the principal structure or new garages. Member
Jennings found those results interesting and observed that perhaps the review could be
triggered by the size of the addition, such as those additions in excess of a certain % of
the gross floor area of the home. Planner Repya responded that if only the larger
additions were considered, those 10 permits might be reduced to 5 or less which would
require review.
Board members discussed the concerns raised by the Council and agreed that the
HPB should include this topic in the forthcoming work plan as they move toward the
designation of the Country Club District for Landmark status. No formal action was
taken.
V. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
Planner Repya, referring to the Work Plan submitted by Robert Vogel, advised
the Board that during September and October Mr. Vogel and the City Staff will begin
to assemble all of the information necessary to nominate the Country Club District for
landmark designation.
2
During the November -December time frame, the BPB will need to approve a
historic district plan (including design review guidelines) and submit the draft
registration documents for public review before seeking City Council action on
designating the Country Club District as a heritage landmark.
The final designation of the Country Club District is scheduled to be completed in
early 2003.
Board members briefly discussed the work plan, expressing confidence that the
designation process, led by Consultant Vogel should move forward smoothly. No
formal action was taken.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE:
Due to vacation schedules during the month of July, the Board agreed that the
July meeting would not be held. The next meeting of the BPB will be held on Tuesday,
August 27, 2002.
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 7:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Joyce Repya
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: July's Meeting CANCELLED
DATE: July 18, 2002
I'm sending you a reminder that the regularly scheduled meeting for July 23 d has
been cancelled. Remember to mark your calendars for Tuesday, August 27th when
we will dig in to the new ordinance.
Hope you're enjoying your summer!!!
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 25, 2002
II. WORK PLAN SCHEDULE
A. ESTABLISH REVISED HPB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
B. PRIORITIZE SURVEY AND REGISTRATION OBJECTIVES
III. COUNCIL CONCERNS REGARDING REVIEW OF ADDITIONS
IV. MINNESOTA STATE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — SEPT. 12 & 13
OWATONNA, MN.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
VII. ADJOURNMENT
0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, John McCauley, Herman Ratelle and
Donald Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lois Wilder
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Wray moved approval of the minutes from the June 25, 2002,
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. WORK PLAN SCHEDULE:
A. ESTABLISH REVISED HPB POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:
Planner Repya presented the Heritage Preservation Board's Bylaws which
were last amended on January 21, 1993. Now that the HPB regulating ordinances
have been recodified, the Bylaws need to be amended to addresses the changes in the
code.
Board members reviewed each section of the document to determine the
changes to be addressed. Mr. Vogel suggested that whenever the Board is acting on
an item that will make a recommendation to the City Council, the action should take
the form of a resolution instead of a motion; the rationale being that a resolution more
clearly defines the Board's actions for the City Council. Board members agreed that
would be a good policy.
Following further discussion Mr. Vogel stated that before the next HPB
meeting he would review the proposed changes to the Bylaws and compare them to
the new HPB ordinances to ensure that they are consistent. He also indicated that he
would compare Edina's Bylaws with several other cities and return to September's
meeting with revised Bylaws to consider. No formal action was taken.
B. PRIORITIZE SURVEY AND REGISTRATION OBJECTIVES:
Mr. Vogel explained that since the Heritage Preservation Codes have been
changed, it will be necessary to again register all the properties previously zoned
Heritage Preservation to the Edina Landmark District. He recommended that the City
owned properties — Cahill School and the Grange Hall, be the first properties to be
considered; pointing out that once those properties have gone through the process, the
Board will be familiar with the procedures and the registration of the privately owned
properties would go much smoother. Board members agreed that would be a wise
approach.
Referring to the work plan, Mr. Vogel pointed out that during the months of
September and October he will prepare the necessary nomination documents to create
an Edina Heritage Landmark at one on the city owned historic sites. He will also
work with city staff to begin assembling all of the information necessary to nominate
the Country Club District.
During the months of November and December, with the Country Club
District nomination documents in hand, the HPB will need to approve a historic
district plan to include design review guidelines. Then, the draft registration will be
submitted for public review prior to seeking City Council action on designating the
Country Club District as a heritage landmark.
In closing, Mr. Vogel explained that the year 2003 will start with the HPB
reviewing the city's historic preservation program goals and objectives to identify
critical issues and information needs. The resulting 2003 work plan will clearly
identify the order that the remaining historic properties will be re -registered to the
landmark district as well as defining new properties to be designated. No formal
action was taken.
III. COUNCIL CONCERNS REGARDING REVIEW OF ADDITIONS:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that the City Council questioned why the
review of additions was not included in the new HPB ordinance; and they asked the
Board to revisit the subject, and to explain the rationale for the exclusion.
Chairman Nyberg observed that concern regarding the review of additions
was expressed at the neighborhood meeting held for the Country Club District
residents, as well as in their survey responses. So, in addition to teardowns and new
construction, the majority of the residents would like the HPB to have the authority to
review additions to the homes. For clarification, Chairman Nyberg indicated that
remodeling that does not include an increase in floor area or building mass was not a
concern for design review.
2
Mr. Vogel pointed out that clearly, when writing the design review
guidelines, the Board will have to create a formula to identify what activities will
necessitate design review by the HPB.
Chairman Nyberg reminded the Board that the historic significance of the
Country Club District has centered on the entire district to include the planning and
streetscape of the area. Mr. Vogel pointed out that collectively, all the 550 homes are
significant as they make up the district, however they are considered redundant
historic resources, which are protected equally.
Member Jennings stated that she had an article from "Atlantic Monthly"
addressing historic districts that she would be willing to share with the Board. She
then pointed out that it would be interesting to see how other cities deal with their
historic districts and suggested that perhaps the Board should check into that.
Member Ratelle asked for clarification as to the concerns the Council
expressed relative to the additions to historic properties. Planner Repya explained
that the ability to control the size, or massing of projects appears to be their major
concern, specifically as it relates to the Country Club District. Mr. Vogel interjected
that it appears that the Council is looking for the HPB to have more regulatory
powers. Chairman Nyberg added that it seems the Council would like the HPB to
serve as a watchdog to control massing which has been a looming issue in the
Country Club District for the past 20 years. Board members agreed, pointing out that
while the major concern in the District used to be the streetscape, what is happening
in the rear yards has become equally important to a large number of people.
Mr. Vogel warned that it will be very important to clarify in the design
review guidelines what is and is not required to be reviewed; pointing out that it
would be very easy to become the "aesthetic police" which would be a very slippery
slope. There is nothing harder or more politically sensitive than to evaluate the
aesthetics of a project.
Member Wray stated that if the Board begins concerning itself with
whether an addition is blocking an abutting property's daylight, heritage preservation
is no longer the main concern. Board members agreed with Mr. Wray and expressed
concern that the review process may move out of the realm of preserving the historic
integrity of a property or district. Chairman Nyberg added that many of the issues
regarding the size and massing of projects are addressed and controlled in the Zoning
Ordinance already; questioning whether it is necessary or wise for the HPB review to
be more restrictive than the Zoning Ordinance.
Board member discussed whether the inclusion of reviewing additions
should be incorporated within the HPB Ordinance or simply part of the preservation
plan for the Country Club District. Mr. Vogel stated that he has discussed this very
topic with attorneys and the general consensus has been that a preservation plan
should address unique features to a property or district, whereas the ordinance should
include everything that is regulated and the regulations should be enforced citywide.
So, if the Council determines that additions should be included in the review process,
it will be necessary to amend the city code. He added that it is important to keep in
mind that the recommendation as to whether additions to landmark properties should
be included in the review process comes down to the determination that whatever is
done must be doable with the resources available to the city and the HPB. In a worse
case scenario, the regulating process for the landmarks might become so complex that
all of staff's resources would be swallowed up with regulatory activities.
Following a brief discussion regarding the potential work load for the
HPB and staff, as well as the identified work plan for the coming months, Mr. Vogel
stated that at the next meeting he would provide the Board with some sample design
review guidelines from local historic districts to provide an insight into how other
cities address historic design review. No formal action was taken.
IV. MINNESOTA STATE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE —
SEPTEMBER 12 -13, 2002, OWATONNA, MN.
Planner Repya advised the Board that the annual State Historic Preservation
Conference will take place in Owatonna on September 12 & 13th this year. As a
Certified Local Government city Edina is required to send at least one member of the
Board and/or staff to the conference. Several sessions, which will be of particular
interest to Edina, include one on "How Heritage Preservation Commissions Make
Good Defensible Decisions" as well as one on "Design Review from A to Z".
An invitation was extended to all Board members interested in attending the
conference. Planner Repya stated that the City would pay the $40 registration fee.
Ms. Repya indicated that she was planning on attending the conference.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 24, 2002
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r.
rd
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002, 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL
LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. Call to Order — 7:00 P.M.
II. Approval of the Minutes of August 27, 2002, Regular Meeting
III. Bylaws & Rules of Procedure — Resolution HPB-02-001
IV. Determinations of Heritage Landmark eligibility — Resolution HPB-02-002
A. Cahill School
B. Minnehaha Grange
C. County Club Historic District
D. Jonathan Taylor Grimes House
E. Edina Mills Site
V. Discussion of Design Review for Additions — Consultant Memo
VI. Report on Minnesota Preservation Conference — Staff
VII. Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, John
McCauley, Herman Ratelle and Ann Swenson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings, Lois Wilder and Donald Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nyberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Planner Repya
introduced Ann Swenson, the newest member of the Board. Member Swenson will serve
on the Board as a representative of the Planning Commission.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the August 27, 2002,
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. BYLAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE — RESOLUTION HPB-02-001
Planner Repya advised the Board that the copy of the revised Bylaws & Rules of
Procedures which they had received in their packets takes into consideration the
discussion and comments from the August meeting as well as research Consultant Vogel
has done regarding necessary language for Heritage Preservation Board Bylaws.
Prior to adopting the resolution to request City Council approval of the Bylaws,
Repya asked that the Board consider a new meeting date that would provide more time
between the HPB meeting and the meeting of the Planning Commission. Currently, the
Planning Commission meets the day after the HPB which does not provide the time
necessary to communicate when heritage preservation business must go before them.
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved to change the regular
meeting date of the Heritage Preservation Board from the fourth Tuesday of the month to
the second Tuesday of the month, with the change taking effect on November 12, 2002.
Member Ratelle seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Member Ratelle introduced the following resolution requesting the City
Council approve the new Bylaws and Rule of Procedures, and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION HPB-02-001
ADOPTION OF HPB BYLAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE
RESOLVED: The Edina City Council having amended the City Code #801 authorizing
new duties and responsibilities for the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB), the Board
finds it necessary to adopt rules of procedure to replace its old bylaws; therefore, we
request the City Council approve the "HPB Bylaws & Rules of Procedure" adopted by
the Board on September 24, 2002.
Resolution moved by: Member Ratelle
Resolution seconded by: Member Crawford
Board members voting in favor of the Resolution: Nyberg, McCauley, Swenson, Ratelle
and Crawford
Board members voting against the Resolution: None
IV. DETERMINATION OF HERITAGE LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
RESOLUTION HPB-02-002
A. Cahill School
B. Minnehaha Grange
C. Country Club Historic District
D. Jonathan Taylor Grimes House
E. Edina Mill Site
Consultant Vogel explained that after having adopted the new HPB codes the
Board must now proceed with the redesignation of the local properties which were
previously zoned Heritage Preservation District to the Edina Landmark District. The
proposed resolution shall serve somewhat as a letter of intent to the Council, advising
them of the order in which the first redesignations will take place.
It was felt that the Cahill School and Grange Hall would be redesignated first
since they are city owned. Going through the process with these two properties would
provide the Board good experience prior to redesignating privately owned sites.
2
Mr. Vogel pointed out that in addition to the redesignations, the Board would
simultaneously work to designate the Country Club District as a Landmark, due to the
time constraints imposed by the moratorium on teardowns.
Following a brief discussion regarding the time schedule for the designations,
Member Swenson introduced the following resolution to identify the first five
properties worthy of landmark designation:
RESOLSUTION HPB-02-002
DETERMINATION OF HERITAGE LANDMARK ELIGIBILILTY:
CAHILL SCHOOL, MINNEHAHA GRANGE, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT,
GRIMES HOUSE AND EDINA MILL SITE
RESOLVED: Pursuant to 850.20, subd. 3, of the City Code, the Heritage Preservation
Board (HPB) has determined the following properties meet one or more of the heritage
landmark eligibility criteria and retain sufficient historic integrity to be worthy of
preservation:
1) Cahill School, Frank Tupa Park, evaluated as historically significant within
the historic context "The Cahill Settlement: Edina's Irish Heritage
2) Minnehaha Grange No. 398, Frank Tupa Park, evaluated as historically
significant within the historic context "Agriculture and Rural Life".
3) Country Club District, vicinity of W. 45th and W. 50th Streets, evaluated as
historically and architecturally significant within the historic context
"Country Club District: Edina's First Planned Community".
4) Jonathan Taylor Grimes House, 4200 West 44th Street, evaluated as
historically and architecturally significant within the historic context
"Agriculture and Rural Life".
5) Edina Mill Site, Dwight Williams Park, W. 50th Street, evaluated as
historically and archeologically significant within the historic contest
"Agriculture and Rural Life".
The Board directs staff to prepare the necessary planning reports and nomination
documents.
This determination of eligibility is made for planning purposes and does not constitute
nomination of any property for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark.
Resolution moved by: Member Swenson
Resolution seconded by: Member Ratelle
3
Board members voting in favor of the resolution: Crawford, Nyberg, McCauley, Ratelle
and Swenson
Board members voting against the resolution: None
V. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that the City Council has directed the HPB
to consider an amendment to the city code which would regulate additions to historic
buildings designated as Edina Heritage Landmarks or included in Edina Heritage
Landmark Districts. Currently, the ordinance does not require design review for
additions or alterations.
As a general rule, historic preservation is concerned with protecting the original
qualities and character of historic properties. The City has adopted the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which regard alterations
(including additions) to historic buildings as appropriate when they preserve those
features of the property which are historically or architecturally significant. The goal of
the standards is to maintain the existing form of historic buildings, while allowing
contemporary design for new additions and alterations which do not destroy significant
historic features.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that if the Board finds that it is appropriate for the City to
regulate major additions to historic buildings, he would recommend amending City Code
Section 850.20, subd. 10(A) by adding: "5. Major additions to any building or
structure." He further recommended the adoption of an administrative definition of
"major addition" (preferably one which references another part of the existing zoning or
building code), which should also be addressed in the historic preservation element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Vogel warned that the implementation of such a design review requirement
will not be easy. Each property designated an Edina Heritage Landmark will need to
have its own design review guidelines, which must be adopted by the City Council at the
same time the landmark is designated. The guidelines themselves will need to be
prescriptive yet flexible, particularly with respect to defining such concepts as
"compatibility," "scale," "proportion," etc. For example, in each case, city policymakers
will need to decide, in advance, whether the permit review requirements will be applied
to any non -historic buildings which happen to be situated within the designated
boundaries of historic districts, or to older buildings which lack architectural distinction.
The "administrative overhead" of compliance will also be an issue - generally, the bigger
the historic district, the more difficult code enforcement becomes. If the city decides to
go down this road, the Board will need to give careful consideration to the increased
4
investment, both in terms of staff time and the politics of the public's participation in the
Board's decision making process.
That being said, Mr. Vogel then offered a list of possible design and construction
guidelines which could be implemented for the Country Club District.
Board members discussed the proposed guidelines and agreed that it will be difficult to
determine when an addition is large enough to trigger the design review process. Mr.
Vogel suggested that the same standard should be used that currently triggers other kinds
of permit review for projects in the city.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the goal of the guidelines should be to preserve
things that will naturally change over time, but not to freeze a property or district in time.
Normally historic districts are created because there are a group of historic properties that
lack individual distinction; they are all historic, but one does not stand out more than
another, so they are all treated the same. In historic districts one also finds in -fill
construction — modern buildings that were constructed on vacant lots which have no
historic significance; and the determination needs to be made whether these properties
should also be regulated. Board members agreed that over time, the "in -fill" properties
become an important part of the district and are equally important to the history of the
area.
Upon discussing how the design review would be handled, Mr. Vogel stated that
he envisions Staff doing most of the design review, with items moving on to the HPB that
are either questionable or don't meet the criteria of the guidelines. This approach would
be the same as that which the Planning Department currently implements when reviewing
all building plans for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; non-compliance with the
code is taken to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Member Swenson questioned whether Mr. Vogel foresaw a problem with the
requirement that " New additions should be designed by licensed professional architects".
Mr. Vogel stated that he did not foresee a problem; the wording indicates should, not
must, implying a preference for proposals prepared by licensed professional architects.
He added that this language has been used in other cities and has worked well.
Mr. Vogel explained that the design guidelines will lay out in a logical order,
how a homeowner should go through the process. The guidelines should be flexible and
non -prescriptive, to be used not unlike a cookbook.
Mr. Vogel then warned the Board against entering into arguments with architects
and homeowners about the aesthetics of a project — whether or not a plan is pretty, good
looking or makes sense is irrelevant. The job of the HPB will be to ensure that the
historic resource is not harmed.
Chairman Nyberg pointed out that the Board must also be concerned with the
affect a project will have on surrounding properties; remembering the neighborhood
outcry last year regarding the extreme height of the two new homes built in the Country
Club District when compared to the adjacent homes. The drawings for both homes
looked just fine, but the drawings did not represent the scale in relation to the surrounding
homes — that is something we will need to take into consideration.
Mr. Vogel explained that the new construction guidelines will be much easier
than those for additions and will require a demonstration of the visual impact of the
project from all site lines.
Following a brief discussion, Board members asked Planner Repya to share the
proposed guidelines with the Planning Staff and return to the next meeting with their
comments. No formal action was taken.
VI. REPORT ON MINNESOTA PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
Planner Repya reported that she attended the annual Minnesota Preservation
Conference on Thursday, September 12, 2002 in Owatonna, Minnesota. The conference
was held at the historic Minnesota State Public School for Dependent and Neglected
Children which operated from 1886 until 1946. The grounds, now referred to as "West
Hills" includes as a convention center, Owatonna City Hall, community center, day care
and senior center to name just a few uses. The history of the facility was presented by
Harvey Ronglien, who lived at the school from 1932 — 1943 ... truly a fascinating story.
The two presentations Ms. Repya found of most interest were those on " How
Heritage Preservation Boards Make Good Defensible Decisions" and "Design Review
from A to Z".
Ms. Repya encouraged Board members to attend future conferences which offer a
wonderful opportunity to hear from other communities, and gather a sense of heritage
preservation from the state perspective.
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 22, 2002
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
7q�
0
-TE i
EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION STUDY OF THE
CAHILL SCHOOL, 4923 EDEN AVENUE (FRANK TUPA PARK)
Prepared by Robert C. Vogel
Preservation Planning Consultant
For the Edina Heritage Preservation Board
22 October 2002
INTRODUCTION
The historic Cahill School was previously included in the city's heritage preservation
overlay district when it and the historic Minnehaha Grange Hall were designated as a
historic district in 1977. The Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) has recommended re-
designation of the schoolhouse as an Edina Heritage Landmark pursuant to the 2002
amendments to the city's historic preservation code.
The historic property recommended for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark is
described in detail in a Minnesota Historical Society historic site survey form prepared by
Foster W. Dunwiddie in 1970. Two photographs of the property showing current
conditions are attached to this report.
DESCRIPTION
The Cahill School building is a one-story, frame, -vernacular one -room schoolhouse with
a rectangular plan, a gable roof, and limestone foundation walls. The exterior walls are
finished with horizontal lap siding and the original wood shingle roof has been covered
over with asphalt shingles. The interior walls and ceiling are lath and plaster, with a
beaded wood wainscot, maple flooring, and slate chalkboards. The schoolhouse was
moved to its present location in 1970 and shares Frank Tupa Park (formerly known as
Edina Historical Park) with the historic Minnehaha Grange Hall. The schoolhouse,
which functions as a museum, has been slightly altered from its historic appearance but is
in a good state of preservation.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
The historic District 16 schoolhouse, commonly known as the Cahill School, was built in
1864 at what is now the southeast corner of 70'h Street and Cahill Road. It is a notable
example of a vernacular one -room schoolhouse and physically documents the history of
rural education in Edina's Cahill neighborhood between 1864 and 1953. After the rural
school district was dissolved, the old school property was sold to a developer and the
schoolhouse was acquired by the Village of Edina, which moved it onto the historical
park near the village hall for restoration as a museum.
1
EVALUATION OF LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
On 24 September 2002, the Edina HPB determined that the Cahill School meets the
Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria set forth in City Code §850.20 subd.2, on the
basis of its association with important events or patterns of events that reflect significant
broad patterns in local history and its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an
architectural design. The HPB evaluated the significance of the historic property within
the local historic context, "The Cahill Settlement: Edina's Irish Heritage (1850's to
1930's)," outlined in the Edina Historic Contexts Study adopted in 1999, and found that it
retains historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its historical and
architectural preservation values.
PLAN OF TREATMENT
1. The recommended treatment concept for the Cahill School is preservation in place,
applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity and material of the historic
schoolhouse. The most important architectural features to be preserved are its one -
room rectangular plan, one-story wall height, gable roof, wood lap siding, limestone
foundation, symmetrical fenestration, floor plan, and interior finishes.
2. The property should be maintained in a state of utility through repairs or minor
alterations which make possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those
features which are significant to its historical and architectural values. Deteriorated
architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced, and if replacement of
missing features is necessary, the new work should be based on accurate duplications
of original features, substantiated by historical or pictorial evidence.
3. As the property owner, the City should provide a compatible use for the schoolhouse
that requires minimal alteration of the building and its site. Future uses may be
accomplished through partnerships with other public agencies or private
organizations, and in such cases the City will take all steps necessary to insure that
the distinguishing historical qualities of the building will not be destroyed, removed,
or altered.
4. Changes that have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the building's
historical development and have acquired historical significance in their own right.
These include pre -1953 modifications and the building's relocation to Frank Tupa
Park.
2
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22,2002,7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL
LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. Call to Order — 7:00 P.M.
II. Approval of the Minutes: September 24, 2002, Regular Meeting
III. Cahill School Heritage Landmark Nomination — Resolution HPB-02-003
IV. Minnehaha Grange Hall Heritage Landmark Nomination — Resolution HPB-02-
004
V. Certified Local Government Annual Report
VI. Plans for HPB Annual Meeting
VII. Next Meeting Date: November 12, 2002 (Note Change)
VIII. Adjourn
7n
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman, Donald Wray, Peggy Jennings, John
McCauley, Ann Swenson and Lois Wilder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Crawford, Gary Nyberg and Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman, Donald Wray called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval of the minutes from the September 24,
2002 meeting. Member McCauley seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
III. CAHILL SCHOOL HERITAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION -
Resolution HPB, 02-003 and
IV. MINNEHAHA GRANGE HALL HERITAGE LANDMARK
NOMINATION — Resolution HPB 02-004
Mr. Vogel explained that the draft landmark nomination reports for the Cahill
School and Grange Hall are required by the new ordinance as part of the heritage
landmark study for properties proposed to be designated as an Edina Heritage
Landmark. Initially he had intended to recommend that the HPB forward the studies
on to the City Council for approval. However, he felt it was important to include
reference to the National Register status for both buildings, and a site plan map. Mr.
Vogel also pointed out that because the City owns both buildings, perhaps the Park
Board should represent the City as the owner as a contact for the HPB. Board
members discussed Mr. Vogel's recommendations and agreed that they all made
sense.
Mr. Vogel explained that once the HPB has agreed that the landmark
nomination reports are complete, a resolution will be adopted and the landmark
studies will be sent to the Minnesota Historical Society and the Edina Planning
Commission. The State has a 60 day time limit to review and report back, Planning
Commission does not have a time restriction. As soon as the 60 day period has
expired, and with the State and Planning Commission comments in hand, the
landmark designation applications will then be sent on to the City Council.
for,
The Board asked Mr. Vogel what would happen if the State did not agree that
a nomination was worthy of landmark designation. He explained that the State
review is really a courtesy; if the City determines that a property is worthy, then it is
worthy. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the property owner is a much more important
player in the designation process.
Regarding the Cahill School and Grange Hall nominations, the Park Board
will represent the owner and before the meeting next month, provide their input in the
preservation plan. When nominating the Country Club District, a mailing will need
to go out to the residents advising them of the nominating study being done and
offering them all an opportunity to participate in the creation of the preservation plan.
Member Swenson inquired about the procedure to inform new owners of
designated landmark properties. Planner Repya explained that in the past, a real
estate attorney representing the buyer has contacted the City. The attorney has been
sent the city codes addressing historic properties. Once the new owners have closed
on the house, a letter is sent to them from the Planning Department welcoming them
to the City and advising them of the significance of their property as well as their
responsibilities as homeowners of a historically designated site. With the new code,
and the potential for a district designation with 550 homes, it will be much more
difficult to keep track of new homeowners. Mr. Vogel pointed out that at the annual
meeting of the HPB, usually in January, all property owners could be invited to ask
questions and participate in the goal setting with the Board. Another good time for an
owner's meeting would be in mid-May which is Heritage Preservation Week.
Member Jennings observed that in addition to educating property owners, the
HPB should also educate realtors who will be selling the landmark designated
properties. If the realtors are made aware of the significance of the landmark
designation, they can in turn pass this information on to prospective buyers.
Following a brief discussion, member Swenson moved that the Cahill School
nomination study is sent on to the Park Board prior to submittal to the City Council
with the addition of a site map and reference to the National Register designation.
Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Member Swenson also made a motion that the Grange Hall nomination is sent
on to the Park Board for comment prior to submittal to the City Council with the
addition of a site map and reference to the National Register Nomination. Member
Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
2
J'
0 V. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT:
Planner Repya explained that because Edina is a Certified Local
Government, the City is required to submit an annual report to the Minnesota
Historical Society advising them of the Board's activities over the past year, from
October 1st — September 30th. The report was included in the Board's packet for
review. Board members briefly discussed the contents of the report. Ms. Repya
explained that a copy of the report is also submitted to the City Council for their
information. No formal action was taken.
VI. PLANS FOR ANNUAL MEETING:
Consultant Vogel recommended that the HPB hold an annual meeting in
January of every year to evaluate the activities of the previous year and discuss
goals and objectives for the coming year. He indicated that he would like to
Board to start thinking of goals and projects which they feel should become part
of the HPB work plan. Making plans for the annual meeting will be on the
agenda for the next few months to encourage discussion and planning for the
upcoming year.
Mr. Vogel explained that some cities choose to use their annual meetings
as an education and out reach opportunity. As he had explained earlier in the
meeting, owners of designated properties can also have a chance to participate in
the preservation process.
Member Jennings stated that she felt it was an excellent idea to offer
public participation in the preservation process. Board members concurred.
Addressing the plan for the coming year, Member Swenson offered that
she would like to see the Board work toward designating the Edina Theater sign
at 50th and France. The future of the theater is unclear at the present, however, if
the theater ceased to exist, the future of the sign should be secure. Board
members agreed with Ms. Swenson. Mr. Vogel indicated that the sign would
definitely be a line item for the coming year.
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 12, 2002
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
3
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OFT E
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002,7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL
LOWER LEVEL CONFERS CE ROOM
I. Call to Order — 7:00 P.M
II. Approval of the Minutes of October 22, 2002, Regular Meeting
III. Edina Park Board Comm nts on Cahill School/Grange Hall Nominations
IV. Cahill School Heritage L dmark Nomination — Resolution HPB-02-003
V. Minnehaha Grange Hall Heritage Landmark Nomination — Resolution HPB-02-
004
VI. Edina Country Club Dist 'ct Nomination
O VII. Plans for HPB Annual M eting
VIII. Next Meeting Date: December 10, 2002
IX. Adjourn
0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, John McCauley, Herman Ratelle, Ann
Swenson, Lois Wilder and Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Gary Nyberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. All
members were in attendance.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the October 22, 2002,
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. CAHILL SCHOOL/GRANGE HALL NOMINATIONS — PARK
BOARD COMMENTS:
Planner Repya advised the Board that she held a meeting on November 6,
2002, with John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director, Vince Cockreil, Superintendent
of the Parks Department and Robert Vogel. The purpose of the meeting was to provide
the owners of the proposed landmark properties with an opportunity to participate in the
development of a preservation plan for each site. Because the properties are City owned,
it was felt that the Park Department should represent the City since they are responsible
for maintenance of the structures.
Director Keprios explained that he has appropriated $128,000 from his budget
to go toward maintenance of both buildings. The most prominent maintenance issues
identified were:
• Replace windows (panes are falling out). Has received one bid so far for
$30,000 — wood replicas, sashes and glass.
• Roof — Replace down to roof boards.
• Siding/Soffits — Rot starting to appear (paint or reside?)
• Door Jams — On exterior doors - all need to be replaced
• Drainage — Both basements take on water (draintile/sump pump?)
Regarding the list of concerns, Mr. Vogel stated that when addressing the
maintenance of historic buildings, one should always start at the top and work down. The
roof should be the first work order to be undertaken. He pointed out that the shape of the
roof should not be changed, however asphalt shingles, particularly those with
architectural texture would be very appropriate for the buildings.
Mr. Vogel further commented that the water problem in the basements of the
buildings is caused by the shallow soffit areas which dump the rainwater and snow melt
right next to the foundation; gutters would solve that problem and would be much more
cost effective than a draintile system.
Mr. Vogel did warn that when replacing the windows and door jams, care
needs to be taken because often in nineteenth century buildings the windows and doors
were not built separately and added on to the building, rather they were integrated into
the architecture of the structure.
Mr. Vogel also pointed out that in the nineteenth century public buildings
were not maintained very well; often in need of paint, and repairs left until absolutely
necessary. That being the case, the problems existing today can often be traced back to
the early lack of care.
Member Swenson asked why it would be appropriate to add gutters to the
buildings when gutters were not part of the original architecture. Mr. Vogel explained
that the first thing to do when preserving historic buildings is to protect them from the
elements. Most of the deterioration seen on both structures relative to the siding,
windows and doors can be attributed to the shallow soffits and lack of a system to keep
the rain and snow away from the walls and foundation.
A brief discussion followed. No formal action was taken.
IV. CAHILL SCHOOL HERITAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION —
RESOLUTION HPB-02-003
V. MINNEHAHA GRANGE HALL HERITAGE LANDMARK
NOMINATION -RESOLUTION HPB-02-003
Mr. Vogel explained that the nomination reports for both the Cahill School
and Minnehaha Grange Hall have been redrafted since the October HPB meeting to
reflect the comments from the October 22nd HPB meeting. Furthermore, as a result of the
meeting with Parks Director Keprios it has been determined that the preservation plan
should include the requirement for plan review for all alterations requiring a building
permit, which normally will not be a requirement for landmark properties. It was felt that
because these are public buildings, as good stewards, the HPB should be apprised of all
alterations.
Addressing the process for review, Mr. Vogel explained that once the Board
approves the resolutions, the landmark nomination reports will be sent to the Minnesota
0
Historical Society as well as the Edina Planning Commission who have 60 days to
comment on the proposed nominations. After comments are received from the state and
Planning Commission, the nominations will move on to the City Council for the final
review and approval. Foreseeably, these nominations could be forwarded to the City
Council in February.
Responding to a question as to how the Planning Commission will handle
the review, Member Swenson stated that she foresees the Commission receiving the
nomination reports in their meeting packets. They will discuss the nominations at their
meeting and provide their observations and comments to the HPB at that time.
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson introduced the following
resolution recommending the Cahill School be designated as an Edina Heritage
Landmark:
RESOLUTION HPB-003
NOMINATION OF THE CAHILL SCHOOL FOR
DESIGNATION AS AN EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK
RESOLVED: Pursuant to 850.20, subd. 4, of the City Code, the Heritage
Preservation Board, (HPB) nominates the Cahill School for designation as an Edina
Heritage Landmark.
Resolution moved by: Member Swenson
Resolution seconded by: Member Crawford
Board members voting in favor of the resolution: Nyberg, Jennings, McCauley, Ratelle,
Wilder, Wray, Crawford and Swenson
Board members voting against the resolution: None
Member Crawford then introduced the following resolution
recommending the Minnehaha Grange Hall be designated as an Edina Heritage
Landmark:
RESOLUTION HPB — 004
NOMINATION FO THE MINNEHAHA GRANGE HALL FOR
DESIGNATION AS AN EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK
RESOLVED: Pursuant to 850.20, subd. 4, of the City Code, the Heritage Preservation
Board (HPB) nominates the Minnehaha Grange Hall for designation as an Edina Heritage
Landmark.
Resolution moved by: Member Crawford
Resolution seconded by: Member Ratelle
3
Board members voting in favor of the resolution: Jennings, Nyberg, McCauley,
Swenson, Wilder, Wray, Ratelle, and Crawford
Board members voting against the resolution: None
VI. EDINA COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT NOMINATION — Informational
Meeting:
Consultant Vogel advised the Board that the City Council addressed the issue of
design review for additions in the Country Club District at their November 4th meeting
and determined that additions should not be included as part of the proposed landmark
designation. That being the case, the Board can now move forward with the designation
process following the guidelines as set out in the code. It is required that a meeting take
place with the owner of a proposed landmark property to discuss the development of a
preservation plan for their property.
In the case of a district designation, an informational meeting for the district can
serve as the property owner meeting. This meeting is not considered a public hearing,
thus a mailing and notice of public hearing is not required, however it is wise to advertise
the meeting in some way to ensure that a good representation of homeowners are
included in the process. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the main purpose of this meeting
would be to explain the reasons for designating the district as an historic landmark, as
well as the process and ramifications of said designation.
Board members discussed a date for the informational meeting and determined
that the regular December 10th meeting of the HPB would be a good time.
Planner Repya suggested that Jennifer Wilkinson, the City's Communications Director
write an announcement of the meeting for the Edina Sun Current. She also indicated that
as a result of the Country Club Survey, she had a list of residents interested in offering
their assistance. Board members agreed that a phone call to those people advising them
of the meeting would be a great idea.
Mr. Vogel provided the Board with a proposed Plan of Treatment for the Country
Club District which will provide the framework for the informational meeting in
December. The plan sets out eight goals and objectives of the preservation plan for the
district. As part of the preservation plan, the HPB will have guidelines to address the
infrastructure of the district, which is basically all the City owned elements in the area,
i.e. streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, bridges, etc.
Mr. Vogel observed that the survey of the district done in the early 1980's during
the National Register process indicated that over 90% of the homes were classified as
"contributing" to the historic character of the area. He added that today, twenty years
later, one would probably find that the percentage of "contributing" properties would
still be close to 90%. Property owners have done a good job of maintaining the historic
character of their homes, and with the landmark designation, the City can ensure that any
new construction continues the same sensitivity.
4
Mr. Vogel further stated that beyond the district designation, there might be individual
homes within the district that would qualify for landmark designation. In those cases, an
individual preservation plan would be created that would be unique to the needs of each
individually designated home.
Member Swenson observed that the individual landmark designation of homes
within a designated district would do a good job of raising the public's awareness of the
historic preservation program in the City. Perhaps having a home with the landmark
designation will be something to strive for. A brief discussion followed. No formal
action was taken.
VII. PLANS FOR HPB ANNUAL MEETING — JANUARY 14, 2003
Consultant Vogel proposed the following items to be discussed at the Board's
Annual Meeting, (which will be the first meeting of each year):
• Election of Officers
• Goals & Objectives for 2003
• A Presentation on Historic Architectural Styles
• Heritage Preservation Resources Available — web sites, books, etc.
The purpose of the annual meeting in addition to conducting the basic
housekeeping tasks of electing officers and identifying goals is to provide an educational
forum to educate the public and city officials/staff regarding heritage preservation in the
community.
Board members agreed that with the landmark designation for the Country Club
District pending, a presentation on historic architectural styles would be perfect. A
discussion ensued regarding how to best get the word out about the public meeting.
Planner Repya indicated that in addition to a piece in the Edina Sun Current, the Board
could advertise the meeting on the City's website. No formal action was taken.
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 10, 2002
IX. ADJOURNMENT: 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
F1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002,7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. Call to Order — 7:00 P.M.
II. Approval of the Minutes of November 12, 2002, Regular Meeting
III. Edina Country Club District Nomination — informational meeting
IV. Plans for HPB Annual Meeting
V. Historic Preservation Week (May 5-12, 2003)
VI. Adjourn
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
John McCauley, Ann Swenson, Lois Wilder and Don
Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
7 Residents from the Country Club District
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nyberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Jennings moved approval of the minutes from the November 12, 2002,
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. EDINA COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT NOMINATION —
INFORMATIONAL MEETING:
Planner Repya introduced members of the Board to those in attendance and
provided a history of the 1980 National Register designation of the district.
She explained that after conducting a survey of Country Club District residents and
receiving data to support a rising concern about teardowns and additions in the district,
the City Council had directed the HPB to draw up a plan to locally designate the Country
Club District as a historic landmark. The Council is particularly interested in regulating
the tear down and reconstruction of structures in the district.
Ms. Repya introduced Robert Vogel, the Heritage Preservation Consultant
working with the HPB on the nomination study for the district. Mr. Vogel explained that
Edina's new Heritage Landmark Ordinance lays out the statutory requirements under
Minnesota law. The landmark zone in the case of the Country Club District will serve as
an overlay designation added to the existing R-1 Single Dwelling Unit designation. This
is a fairly common land use tool where boundaries are used to identify a unique resource.
The foundation for the district's landmark designation study will be the 1980 National
Register report. This document not only identified the boundaries and content of the
district, but also made a case for its historical and architectural significance.
Mr. Vogel also indicated that at the time the district receives landmark
designation, a document referred to as a preservation plan or a plan of treatment will be
adopted that will give homeowners and the City an idea of what is being preserved. The
old preservation code gave no reference to standards or guidelines and required the City
at every level, from Staff and the HPB, to City Council to make up the regulations as they
went along.
Legally, a historic district is defined as an area with multiple historic properties
that are significant in a holistic matter. The parts are important, not each individual
building. Some districts, like St. Paul's Summit Hill contain many individually historic
landmarks. By contrast, Edina's Country Club District is a much more homogenous area.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the rationale for identifying the Country Club District
as historically significant is two -fold; first, it was one of the first planned, high-end
suburban neighborhoods developed in the United States, and secondly, it is a large
concentration (approximately 550 homes) represented by only a dozen different
architectural styles. The Country Club District, as it stands today is very similar to the
plans drafted in the 1920's and 1930's — possessing a lot of character and a great deal of
cohesion.
The role of city government is to protect the public's interest. The public interest
in the Country Club District is to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The City
made the legislative decision that they did not want to emphasize the regulatory aspects of
historic preservation, but rather work with property owners to obtain voluntary
compliance with historic preservation standards for probably 99% of the construction
activity in the district. What the City will regulate under the new heritage landmark code
includes demolitions, new construction, moving buildings and excavation of
archeological sites.
Mr. Vogel explained that if a property owner in the district was interested in
undertaking a regulated activity, plans should be presented to the Planning Department,
and if the plans were deemed appropriate, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be
issued and the property owner could proceed with obtaining the necessary building
permits. If the plans were not approved, a Certificate of Appropriateness would not be
issued and building permits may not be issued. All decisions regarding the issuance of
the Certificate of Appropriateness would be appealed directly to the City Council.
The new heritage landmark code provides for a very streamline and easy to
administer program for preservation of historic properties. The code emphasizes a
proactive stance toward historic preservation; advocating education and cooperation, and
limiting regulating activities to the "big killers" of historic sites, namely demolitions,
moving buildings, new construction and the excavation of archeological sites.
2
Before the Country Club District nomination report is sent to the City Council, the
HPB will develop a plan of treatment which will be the heart of the designation
document. This plan of treatment will serve as the guideline to be used when reviewing
proposals for demolitions, new construction, moving buildings or archeological
excavations. The key parameters on design review for new construction are going to be
scale and mass to ensure compatibility with the surrounding structures.
The typical procedure when nominating a property for landmark designation
would be to meet with the property owners and together discuss the proposed plan of
treatment. However, when dealing with a district designation, it is impossible to meet
with each property owner, thus the owners are invited to meet with the HPB to offer
insights and suggestions for the plan of treatment. The meeting this evening was
advertised in the Edina Sun Current, inviting interested parties to participate in the
process. Also, over a dozen property owners who had expressed an interest in the
designation of the district were invited to attend this evening.
Mr. Vogel closed by explaining that in late January or early February the HPB
will make a final recommendation to the City Council regarding adding the heritage
landmark designation to the Country Club District. The Planning Commission will have
reviewed the nomination study and provided their input to the City Council. The Council
will hold a public hearing for which all 554 property owners in the district will receive
mailed notice. The Minnesota State Historical Society will also receive a copy of the
nomination study and must respond with their comments within a 60 day time period.
Mr. Lee McGrath, residing at 4614 Moorland Avenue and the new owner of 4619
Moorland indicated that he had reviewed the proposed plan of treatment and was
concerned with the wording of item #2 "Except in extraordinary circumstances involving
public health and safety, tear -downs of buildings which demonstrably contribute to the
historic character of the district will be prohibited." Mr. McGrath stated that he felt the
language was explicit and dogmatic putting the onus on property owners to overcome
barriers. He then asked why the second paragraph made such a strong statement.
Mr. Vogel responded that this is the first time the HPB has seen the proposed plan
of treatment. This is a draft form for discussion purposes and definitely open for revision.
Mr. McGrath pointed out that on one hand he was impressed with the degree of
cooperation proposed between the Heritage Preservation Board and property owners,
however the prohibition stated in item #2 appeared to be inconsistent with that spirit of
cooperation.
Mr. Vogel explained that the 550 homes in the Country Club District possess
varying degrees of historic significance. In the survey of the district done for the National
Register nomination, some homes have been identified as "pivotal" meaning that the
homes possess historical and/or architectural importance that defines the significance of
the district. A majority of the homes are categorized and "complementary", meaning they
3
complement the district, but aren't as definitive. Lastly, a small number were categorized
as "intrusive", built in contemporary styles, they basically intrude on the significance of
the historic district. Mr. Vogel suggested that the Board might choose to incorporate the
historic significance of the homes within the plan of treatment, requiring closer scrutiny
of pivotal homes over the contemporary and intrusive homes.
Mr. McGrath pointed out to the Board that the market forces currently in play
make it much more expensive to rehabilitate the home he has purchased when compared
to tearing it down and building a new home. Furthermore, Mr. McGrath stated that
anyone investing the amount of money required to purchase a home in the district is not
silly; they want to create something that fits into the neighborhood and doesn't stick out
like a sore thumb. He agreed that a policy or treatment statement that speaks to
compatibility, scale, mass, and setbacks from other structures is perfectly fine. However,
achieving that goal through the strong statement in item #2 is counter to the economics at
hand. Mr. McGrath then referenced the new city hall being constructed; too expensive to
renovate, thus the City opted to tear down and start anew.
Member Swenson thanked Mr. McGrath for his comments. She then stated that
prior to the 18 month moratorium on teardowns of principal structures in the Country
Club District, two homes were torn down and new houses were built on the sites. Both
homes are lovely, however neither is in scale with the surrounding homes. From the
Planning Commission point of view, if there are a lot of teardowns, it is much harder to
regulate design and scale and the City appears to be micromanaging these projects.
Where one might have the opinion that the designation of the district will add a burden to
the property owner, from the Planning Commission standpoint, the process will be less
burdensome and more streamlined.
Mr. McGrath asked Chairman Nyberg his opinion of item #2 of the plan
prohibiting teardowns. Mr. Nyberg answered that he is very much in favor of the plan.
He explained that he lives in the Country Club District and has seen some changes over
the years which he finds very disturbing. Referring to the two most recent teardowns
member Swenson alluded to, Chairman Nyberg agreed that the new homes constructed on
the sites are not in scale with the surrounding homes. He further stated that the feedback
the HPB has received from a majority of the homeowners in the district indicates that they
too are concerned about the changes taking place in the district and are in favor of
regulation.
Discussion ensued regarding the rationale for tearing down a home in the historic
Country Club District and building a replica historic structure. Mr. McGrath indicated
that he was appalled at the costs to rehabilitate the home at 4619 Moorland Avenue which
suffers from drainage and mold problems. He opined that to impose the proposed
restrictions would require he and his wife to bear considerable additional costs on their
property.
Mr. McGrath then made a formal request of the Board to change the wording in
paragraph # 2 of the plan of treatment by striking out the word "prohibition" to be
M
replaced with language emphasizing collaboration, specifically addressing compatibility,
scale, mass and flexibility.
Alternatively, Mr. McGrath requested that the Board either remove 4619
Moorland Avenue from the proposed historic designation and/or differentiate between
pivotal homes and complementary homes in the district.
Mark Rurik, 4529 Arden Avenue addressed the Board, thanking them for
providing public input in the process early on, before final decisions are made. He
explained that as a former real estate attorney he is concerned that the proposed
designation of the Country Club District will impose a derogation of property rights.
Mr. Rurik warned that unless the plan of treatment includes very specific guidelines and
criteria, the entire process could be interpreted as arbitrary and capricious.
Mr. Rurik remarked that in the event a house in the district were to burn down, the
property owner would be required to get approval for their plans from the HPB to rebuild
on their property, causing undue hardship during an already very stressful time. Mr.
Rurik also questioned whether the historic designation would have an adverse affect on
homeowner insurance. Mr. Rurik then cited several Minnesota State Statutes which he
indicated protect property owner's rights and reiterated that he believed the proposed plan
of treatment would cause undue hardship to residents of the district.
Mr. Rurik admitted that the Country Club District as a whole could be classified
as historic, but questioned the historic integrity of the individual homes in the district. He
stated that the Country Club District is no Summit Hill and added that he could see little
difference between many homes in Edina's Country Club District and those in southwest
Minneapolis neighborhoods.
In closing, Mr. Rurik stated that in addition to the existing building codes which
property owners must adhere to, the addition of more requirements from the historic
zoning of the district will be burdensome and add additional costs to homeowners. He
questioned whether the residents of the district were fully aware of the ramifications of
the added historic designation.
Judith Gehrke, 4622 Casco Avenue explained that she is a history major from the
University of Minnesota, has owned property in Afton, MN for 28 years, and served on
the Afton's Historic Committee for 15 years. Ms. Gehrke stated that she feels the Edina's
efforts to preserve the historic integrity of the Country Club District are admirable.
However, regulation of the neighborhood is something that needs to be looked at very
closely.
Ms. Gehrke cautioned that the majority of the residents in the district might not be
aware of the proposed historic designation. She suggested that the City ensure that the
residents are made aware of the ramifications of the historic designation and have input in
the planning process. She suggested that the Board hold small informational meetings
with groups of neighbors to explain the proposed designation.
5
see how the designation of the Country Club District plays out with regard to property
values. However, one can rest assured that the designation will not detract from the
district.
Currently, there is a national trend that enthusiastically supports the historic
designation of private property. The City of Chicago recently created the "Historic
Chicago Bungalow District" including 8,500 private homes. Chicago's policy makers
came to the same conclusion as the Edina City Council, to only regulate large changes
like demolitions and new construction. Locally, the City of Wayzata is looking very
closely at historically designating private properties motivated both from a financial
standpoint, but also because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. McGrath asked the Board to strongly consider volunteerism with its approach
to historic preservation. Mr. Vogel agreed, pointing out that the City Council
intentionally fashioned the new preservation code to provide for education and a
voluntary approach for maintaining historic properties, reserving regulations for the
removal and replacement of structures.
Following a brief discussion, the Board thanked the public in attendance for their
time and concern. Planner Repya explained that a mailing will go out to all residents of
the Country Club District announcing the public hearing of the City Council regarding the
district designation to Edina Landmark District. Furthermore, a notice of public hearing
will also be published in the Edina Sun Current a minimum of 10 days before the hearing.
IV. PLANS FOR HPB ANNUAL MEETING: - January 14, 2003
Board members discussed potential topics of discussion for the annual meeting of
the HPB on January 14, 2003. It was agreed that they would elect officers for the coming
year and set the schedule for designating the historic properties Edina Landmarks.
Member Swenson suggested a presentation of historic architectural styles might
be timely considering the upcoming landmark designation of the Country Club District.
The Board also discussed the possibility of an article in the City's About Town magazine
addressing the landmark designation of the Country Club District and historic
architectural styles in the City. No formal action was taken
V. HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK: MAY 5-12,2003
Mr. Vogel explained that Heritage Preservation Week is increasingly celebrated in
Minnesota and is a great way of promoting historic preservation activities in a
community. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is sponsoring a poster contest to
® promote the week. The theme for 2003 is "Cities, Suburbs & Countryside". Entries must
include a completed registration form, one 18" x 24" poster rolled in a mailing tube and a
250 -word essay. Entries must be postmarked no later than January 20, 2003. The
7
In closing, Ms. Gehrke requested that the HPB consider the following
suggestions:
1. Provide a listing of the changes that will occur due to the historic designation.
2. Provide a chronological time line addressing the designation process.
3. Provide more time for neighborhood involvement, and
4. Address how the historic designation will affect property values and the resale
of homes.
Consultant Vogel thanked Ms. Gehrke for her comments. He then pointed out
that the City Council and Heritage Preservation Board have been communicating with the
Country Club neighborhood regarding the proposed historic designation of the district for
the past 18 months. A survey way mailed to each residence to gain input regarding their
concerns. The Heritage Preservation Board has also held several informational meetings
for the residents, each time advertising the meetings in the Edina Sun Current and on the
City website. The policy decisions made by the City Council thus far have not been hasty
and have evolved during public meetings. Many attempts have been made to provide for
neighborhood input in the designation process. And while, like with any issue, total
consensus will not be achieved, the City Council and Heritage Preservation Board are
confident that moving ahead with the proposed historic designation of the Country Club
District is in the best interest of its residents and the City of Edina as a whole.
Discussion ensued regarding the timeline for the designation. Mr. Vogel pointed
out that after 18 months, the City Council is anxious to designate the district and put the
new heritage preservation code into effect to protect the historic integrity of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Gehrke asked if the City had the internet capability for residents to gain
information about the Heritage Preservation Board as well as communicating their ideas
and/or concerns. Planner Repya explained that she is currently working with the City's
Communications Coordinator to set up a site for the Heritage Preservation Board on the
City's website. The plan is to provide an HPB link within the next few months.
Mr. McGrath asked for clarification regarding the moratorium on teardowns in the
district. Planner Repya explained that the moratorium is scheduled to expire on
December 19, 2002. She indicated that she was unsure whether or not the moratorium
could be extended beyond the 18 months that it has already been in effect, but would take
that issue up with the City Attorney.
Responding to a question regarding the advantages of heritage preservation
designations, Mr. Vogel explained that under the current tax laws, there are no tax
advantages for residential properties designated historic. However, when looking at
property values, there is abundant and empirical evidence which supports a significant
economic advantage to historic preservation. The actual act of designation in Minnesota
has proven to add 25% to the value of the designated property. It will be interesting to
National Trust will award cash prizes of $2,000, $1,500 and $1,000 to the top three
winners. In addition, the first -place winner will receive airfare to Washington, D.C. to
participate in the National Trust's Preservation Week kickoff event on May 5, 2003.
Planner Repya observed that although there is no age limit for participation, the poster
contest would be a great activity for school children.
Member Swenson suggested that Edina could begin commemorating Preservation
week by enacting the award program discussed at a previous meeting. Recalling the
previous discussions she observed that the Board could advertise for the submittal of
nominations for the best new construction and/or remodeling project in the City, having a
commercial and a residential category. Mr. Vogel encouraged the Board to consider the
award program, pointing out that it could be a highly effective preservation tool for the
City. Board members agreed that would be a great activity and indicated they would
include the award program on the agenda for January's annual meeting.
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya