HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 10, 2002 regular meeting
II. ANNUAL MEETING:
• REVIEW 2002 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2003
• HERITAGE AWARD (PROPOSAL)
• REVIEW RULES OF PROCEDURE
• 2003 MEETING SCHEDULE
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
• MORATORIUM ON DEMOLITIONS
• LANDMARK STUDY
IV. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCEDURES:
• IDENTIFYING HERITAGE RESOURCES
• EVALUATING SIGNIFICANCE
• DESIGNATION HERITAGE LANDMARKS
• PERMIT PROCEDURES
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 10, 2003
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMEBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings, Herman
Ratelle, Ann Swenson, Lois Wilder and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Crawford and John McCauley
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.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved approval of the minutes from the December 10,
2002 regular meeting. Member Wilder seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
III. ANNUAL MEETING:
• REVIEW 2002 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Board members reviewed the following list of accomplishments for 2002:
• Amended the city's heritage preservation ordinances (#'s 801 and 850.20)
• Established a registry of Edina Heritage Landmarks (replacing the heritage
preservation overlay district)
• Retained an historic preservation consultant to help implement the new
ordinance
• Adopted a preliminary list of properties eligible for designation as heritage
landmarks and districts
• Nominated the Cahill School and Minnehaha Grange Hall for designation
as Edina Heritage Landmarks
• Initiated the Heritage Landmark District designation process for the Edina
Country Club District
• Appointed a member of the Planning Commissions to the Heritage
Preservation Board
• Adopted revised Heritage Preservation Board Rules of Procedures
Planner Repya asked if for corrections and/or additions to the listing of
accomplishments. Board members agreed that the listing was complete and
offered no additions.
• GOALS & OBJECTIVES FOR 2003:
Consultant Vogel suggested the following goals and objectives for 2003:
• Designate the Edina Country Club Heritage Landmark District
• Observe Historic Preservation Week (May 5-12)
• Develop a preservation concept plan for the Edina Theater Marquee
• Conduct a survey of heritage resources in the Morningside neighborhood
• Revise the historic preservation element of the city's Comprehensive Plan
• Recruit a student member to serve on the Heritage Preservation Board
• Develop a website devoted to the city's historic preservation program
• Maintain the city's Certified Local Government (CLG) status
Board members agreed that the aforementioned goals and objectives were
consistent with their vision. They also added the following activities to consider:
50th and France building inventory survey to be done in conjunction with
the Edina theater marquee
Consider individual homes already identified in the 1980 survey for HLD
designation
• EDINA HERITAGE AWARD:
Consultant Vogel presented the following proposal for an Edina Heritage
Award Program:
Concent
It is proposed that the Edina HPB sponsor an annual "Edina Heritage Award"
to showcase local historic preservation activity. The award will be presented
during National Preservation Week, May 5-12, 2003. the National Trust for
Historic Preservation sponsors Preservation Week in partnership the Minnesota
Historical society, the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and other state and
local organizations.
Rules
1. the Edina Heritage Award will be given to the individual, family,
company or organization that has made an outstanding contribution to
the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and use of Edina's heritage
resource.
2
T
2. Any individual, company or organization is eligible to be nominated
for the award, including non-residents, but in order to be considered,
the heritage resource must be located in the City of Edina.
3. Current members of the Edina HPB are not eligible.
4. One award will be given each year.
Procedures
1. The Edina HPB will issue a call for written nominations in February
2. Nominations will be sent to the Edina HPB at City Hall.
3. The deadline for nominations will be the first day of April.
4. A committee appointed by the HPB will select and notify the award
winner.
5. A commemorative plaque will be presented to the award winner at a
Regular meeting of the Edina City Council during Preservation Week.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed award program. Member Jennings
asked if nominations had to be properties designated heritage landmarks. Mr.
Vogel stated that the nominated properties did not have to be designated. He
added that in other cities where an award system is currently in place, the honors
have gone to developers, however the majority are private homeowners.
Addressing the appointment of a committee, Mr. Vogel indicated that the
selection committee should be small, with probably no more than four members.
He added that he would be happy to serve on the first committee. Planner Repya,
members Swenson and Nyberg agreed to round out the committee.
Planner Repya indicated that she would arrange with the city's
Communications Coordinator, Jennifer Wilkinson to advertise the call for
nominations as well as the rules and procedures. No formal Action was taken.
• REVIEW RULES OF PROCEDURES:
Consultant Vogel explained that the review of the Bylaws and Rules of
Procedures is a standard agenda item at an annual meeting of most Heritage
Preservation Boards. The purpose being that if a board desires any procedural
changes, they should only be addressed once a year at the annual meeting.
However, in light of the fact that Edina's Rules of Procedures were amended in
the past year, it is unlikely that any changes will be required at this time. Board
members agreed with Mr. Vogel. No formal action was taken.
• 2003 MEETING SCHEDULE
Planner Repya presented the Board with the schedule for their regular
meetings to be held on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. in the
3
Lower Level Conference Room, at Edina City Hall. The Board accepted the
schedule with no changes.
IV. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT:
• MORATORIUM ON DEMOLITIONS:
Planner Repya explained that although at the December meeting the HPB was
under the assumption that the moratorium on demolitions of principal structures in the
Country Club District expired on December 19`h and could not be extended, the City
Attorney, Jerry Gilligan determined that indeed the moratorium could be extended. That
being the case, the City Council held two special meetings, one on December 23rd and the
other on December 26`", at which time they imposed a six- month extension to the
moratorium with an expiration date of June 26, 2003.
Planner Repya went on to explain that the City Council is very eager to complete
the Heritage Landmark designation of the Country Club District, thus, Staff has
scheduled the designation request go before the Planning Commission on January 29,
2003 and on to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendations on
February 4, 2003.
Following a brief discussion, Member Wilder introduced the following
resolution recommending the Edina Country Club District be designated as an
Edina Heritage Landmark:
RESOLUTION HPB — 005
NOMINATION OF EDINA'S COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT 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 Edina Country Club District for designation as
an Edina Heritage Landmark.
Resolution moved by: Member Wilder
Resolution seconded by: Member Jennings
Board members voting in favor of the resolution: Nyberg, Ratelle, Swenson, and Wray
Board members voting against the resolutions: None
• LANDMARK NOMINATION STUDY:
Consultant Vogel presented the proposed Landmark Nomination Study for the
Country Club application package: The study was broken down into the following
elements:
• Introduction
• Description of the District
4
• Historical and Architectural Significance
• Evaluation of Landmark Eligibility
• Plan of Treatment
• National Register of Historic Places Inventory including each address in
the district with year built and architectural style, and
• Guidelines for New Home Construction in Edina's Country Club District
Board members closely reviewed the proposed Guidelines for New Home
Construction pointing out that they liked the categories being broken down into
recommended vs. not recommended treatments. The following additions were made to
the proposal:
Exterior finishes: Recommended Wood Shakes
Not Recommended Vinyl
Roofing Material: Recommended Slate
Wood Shingles
Architectural Styles: Not Recommended Split Entry
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved approval of the
proposed Guidelines for New Home Construction with the additions recommended by the
Board. Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCEDURES:
Planner Repya asked Mr. Vogel to walk the Board through the procedures an
applicant would go through when requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
HPB. Mr. Vogel explained that in order to demolish a structure, build a new structure,
move a structure, or conduct an excavation on a landmark designated property, the
following procedures should be followed:
1. The property owner will begin the process by completing a Building
Permit Application.
2. The Building Department, determining that the subject property is
designated Heritage Landmark, will forward the application to the
Planning Department that will require in addition to the building permit
requirements, a plan showing the roof and eave line elevations of adjacent
properties. Applications must be received at least 10 working days before
the next scheduled Heritage Preservation Board meeting in order to be
heard at said meeting.
3. The Planning Staff will write a report to be presented at the next meeting
of the Heritage Preservation Board. The report will explain the nature of
the request and recommend a course of action for the Board, either
approval of denial. If a proposal is approved, a Certificate of
Appropriateness will be issued authorizing the building official to release
the building permit if all other requirements are met. The decision of the
Board will be final, however appeals may be made to the City Council
within 10 days of the meeting.
Member Wray asked how property owners would be advised of the landmark
designation, particularly if a property sells. Planner Repya explained that the historic
designation of a property should be disclosed to a buyer prior to the purchase. She added
that once the district is designated, a letter can be sent to the managers of the major real
estate offices in town explaining the landmark designation and its ramifications. She also
indicated that an article in the City's "About Business" publication might be another
vehicle to get the word out about the designation. Board members agreed that would be a
good idea.
Discussion ensued regarding the procedures. Board members agreed that they
appeared straight- forward and easy to comprehend. Mr. Vogel interjected that he did not
foresee a great number of permits for demolitions and new construction in the district.
V. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 11, 2003
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
2
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: JANUARY 14, 2003 REGULAR MEETING
II. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION:
A. LOIS WILDER
B. JOHN MCCAULEY
III. NEW MEMBERS: BOB KOJETIN & MARIE THORPE
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
V. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT - REVISE PLAN OF TREATMENT
VI. APPEALS PROCESS - 850.20, SUBD. 11
VII. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS: BAIRD HOUSE,
GRIMES HOUSE, PETERSON HOUSE, CAHILL SCHOOL AND GRANGE
HALL
VIII. BROWNDALE BRIDGE
IX. EDINA THEATER MARQUEE
X. HERITAGE PRESERVATION WEBSITE
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
XII. NEXT MEETING DATE: MARCH 11, 2003
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Bob Kojetin,
Ann Swenson and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings, Herman Ratelle and Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved approval
of tAll voted aye. The themotion carried.nuary 14,
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion.
II. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION:
A. Lois Wilder
Chairman Nyberg stated that Lois has been a long-standing member of the
Heritage Preservation Board who has been instrumental in many of the positive initiatives
undertaken by the Board during her tenure. Adding that her presence on the Board will
be missed, Chairman Nyberg introduced the following Resolution of Appreciation for
adoption:
WHEREAS, Ms. Lois Wilder was appointed a regular member of the
Edina Heritage Preservation Board; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wilder served in good stead on the board from February
1, 1981, until her resignation effective February 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wilder provided significant advice and valuable
leadership toward the appreciation of historic preservationnt and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wilder's contributions have benefited past, present
future citizens of Edina;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Heritage Preservation Board
of the City of Edina that Ms. Wilder be applauded and commended for her years of
service and contributions to the improvement of the historical resources and the quality of
life in the City of Edina.
Member Swenson moved that the Board adopt the Resolution of
Appreciation commending Ms. Wilder for her valuable service to the City. Member
Wray seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
shall mean the physical alteration of a building such that 50% or more of the
surface area of all exterior walls in the aggregate, are removed."
Board members discussed whether or not a change to the front facade should be
given consideration for review because of the impact it could have on the streetscape.
Chairman Nyberg agreed that the front facade of the home is an important element to
the historic integrity of the district; however, he fears that to regulate the front facade
would create the same problems that have been identified with the review of additions.
Member Swenson agreed pointing out that it would be difficult to determine how much
of a change to the facade would require a review... adding bay windows, a covered
front entry, etc. Member Wray pointed out that the importance of the fagade is an
element which might best be handled from an education standpoint, relying on the
homeowners to voluntarily consider it's importance without imposing a review process.
Board members agreed with Member Wray.
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved to approve the revised #2
plan of treatment as recommended by Staff. Member Crawford seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
V1. APPEALS PROCESS — 850.20, SUBD.11
Planner Repya explained that Staff has reviewed the language in the Zoning
Ordinance 850.20, Subd. 11, addressing the Appeals Process and found it to be
ambiguous and in need of clarification. Currently, the section reads:
"All decisions of the City Planner and the Board with respect to certificates of
appropriateness shall be subject to review by the Council. Any party
aggrieved by the denial of a certificate of appropriateness shall have a right to
appeal such decision directly to the Council by filing a written notice of
appeal with the City Clerk. Upon receipt of the notice, the City Clerk will
transmit a copy to the Board."
Ms. Repya suggested that the following insufficiencies be addressed:
1. The Council will not review all decisions, only appeals.
2. Appeals will not be limited to the denial of decisions. One may appeal
any decision.
3. There is no time limit established for one to file an appeal a decision. To
be consistent with appeals the Council hears from other Boards, a ten day
appeal period should be imposed.
In consideration of the aforementioned insufficiencies, Planner Repya offered the
following revision for consideration:
"An appeal from a decision of the Board with respect to certificates of
appropriateness or an administrative decision shall be subject to review by the
4
V
Council. Any party aggrieved by a decision shall have a right to appeal such
decision by filing a written notice to the City Clerk no later than ten days after
the decision of the Board. Upon receipt of the notice, the City clerk shall
transmit a copy of said notice to the Board."
Board members discussed the proposed revision and agreed that the language was not
only clearer, but also consistent with the appeals process already in place for the Zoning
Board.
Member Kojetin then moved approval of the proposed revision to 850.20, Subd.
11, as outlined by Staff. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
VII. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS:
• Baird House
• Grimes House
• Peterson House
• Cahill School and Grange Hall
Planner Repya reported that the City Council, at their February 4h meeting, gave
first reading to an ordinance amendment designating the aforementioned properties Edina
Heritage Landmarks. The Council will hear second reading on February 18 , and if
approved, the properties will become Edina Heritage Landmarks under the revised
Heritage Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Repya reminded the Board that the individual
preservation plan for each property will be completed within the year.
Board members expressed their pleasure that the properties had been designated
and indicated that they were looking forward to meeting with the homeowners to work on
the preservation plans. No formal action was taken.
VIII. BROWNDALE BRIDGE:
Consultant Vogel explained that the Browndale Bridge is due for its periodic
engineering review. The bridge is located within the Country Club District, however was
not mentioned in the National Register documents. Currently, the bridge does not meet
transportation or safety requirements, however it is still functional. From a preservation
standpoint, Mr. Vogel suggested that there are several approaches the Board could take:
1. Monitor the engineering work and capital improvement budget that goes
along with that; treating the bridge as part of the Country Club District, specifically
within the parameters of the city infrastructure as set out in item #12 of the plan of
treatment.
2. Consider designating the Browndale Bridge an Edina Heritage Landmark
in and of itself, which would provide for a plan of treatment specific to the bridge.
Board members discussed the possible reconfiguration of Browndale Avenue if
the bridge were no longer able to support vehicular traffic. Concern was raised about the
W
intrusion into the mill site to the east. Mr. Vogel pointed out that it would be best to
incorporate the mill site into any designation activities undertaken for the bridge,
however, no designation discussions should take place until the engineers have completed
their study; then they will have facts to bring to the table. A brief discussion ensued. No
formal action was taken.
IX. EDINA THEATER MARQUEE:
Consultant Vogel explained that he asked this item be place on the agenda in
order for him to gain direction from the Board as to how to proceed with the possible
landmark designation of the sign and marquee. Board members discussed the importance
of the sign for the identitz of the community. They all agreed that to lose the sign would
be a huge loss for the 50` and France commercial district as well as the entire city.
Mr. Vogel explained that the sign and marquee could be designated an Edina
Heritage Landmark as a historic object. Board members all agreed that the first step
toward possible designation of the sign would be to contact the owner of the theater and
discuss City's interest in the possible designation. Planner Repya stated that she would
research City records to determine the ownership of the theater and proceed with a letter
of interest from the Board. No formal action was taken.
IX. HERITAGE PRESERVATION WEBSITE:
Planer Repya explained the she has been working with Jennifer Wilkinson,
the City's Communications Coordinator to establish web presence for the Heritage
Preservation Board. The Heritage Preservation Board is accessed by clicking on the City
Council on the home page and proceeding to Advisory Boards and Commissions and
then the Heritage Preservation Board. Currently, there is a short description describing
the responsibilities of the Board. Ms. Wilkinson has also done an excellent job including
the Historic Context Study as a separate choice. This study summarizes the history of
significant areas in the City and was taken from the Study prepared by Robert Vogel and
Associates in 1999.
Board members asked if the landmark designated properties would be identified
on the site. Ms. Repya stated that ideally, once a property is designated an Edina
Heritage Landmark, it would gain a place on the site where the significance of the site
would be highlighted as well as the plan of treatment adopted. Board members agreed
that the Heritage Preservation Board having presence on the City's web site is an
excellent resource for anyone interested in researching Edina's history as well as another
way to educate the public. No formal action was taken.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS: None
XII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 11, 2003
0
Several Board members explained that they would be out of town for the
regularly scheduled March meeting. Planner Repya suggested that since the landmark
designations have been approved by the City Council and assuming no pressing business
comes to light, that the March meeting be canceled. She did add that the Boards and
Commissions dinner is scheduled for March 25`h, so in essence, the Board will be
gathering on an informal basis. Board members agreed that would be a good plan,
consequently, the next meeting will occur on Tuesday, April 15, 2003. No formal action
was taken.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
7
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, April 8, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 11, 2003 REGULAR
MEETING
II. H-03-1: 4619 MOORLAND AVENUE - REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
III. 2003 EDINA HERITAGE AWARD
IV. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK ORDINANCE UPDATE
V. 4515 EDINA BOULEVARD - NEW DETACHED GARAGE
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: MAY 13, 2003
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Pro -tem Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
Bob Kojetin, Ann Swenson and Marie Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg, Herman Ratelle and Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Bonnie Speer -McGrath, 4619 Wooddale Avenue
Nick Smaby, Choice Woods Co.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes from the February 11, 2003
meeting. Member Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
II.
1-1-03-1: 4619 Moorland Avenue — Request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject property is located on the
northeast corner of Moorland Avenue and Country Club Road and consists of
two lots; one fronting on Moorland Avenue on which the existing house sits,
and a vacant lot fronting Edina Boulevard to the north. The existing house is
a Mediterranean style structure built in 1936.
Originally, when Lee and Bonnie McGrath purchased the home, it was their
intention to undertake a remodel and updating project. However, as they
became better acquainted with the structure, it became evident that due to
years of neglect, serious structural problems existed which made the cost of
their remodeling prohibitive.
Planner Repya explained that the subject request is to demolish the existing
1936 structure and replace it with a French Provincial home. The footprint of
the proposed home is very similar to the original home; fronting on Moorland
Avenue and utilizing the vacant lot on Edina Boulevard only to achieve their
rear yard setback.
The French Provincial architecture style proposed is consistent with the
architecture styles recommended in the guidelines of the Plan of Treatment
for the Country Club District.
As required, an exterior elevation demonstrating the roof and eave lines of
the proposed home in relation to the adjacent home to the north on Moorland
Avenue has been provided. The plan indicates that the proposed home will
be 4'8" taller than the adjacent house when measured from the uppermost
ridgeline of each house; the distance between the houses at that point is 56.5
feet. The setback provided between structures at the closest point is 25.83
feet.
Planner Repya stated that staff finds that the information provided supporting
the subject request meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Country
Club District Plan of Treatment and the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
The exterior elevation demonstrates that the subject home will be taller than
the adjacent home, however, due to the considerable distance between the
structures, it does not appear that the proposed home will overwhelm the
neighboring home nor be out of proportion with its surroundings.
Staff finds that the plans presented show a great attention to detail, and as
required in the Plan of Treatment, it appears the home will be compatible in
size, scale, color and texture with the period revival style houses that give the
district its identity of time and place. Approval is recommended for the
request to demolish the existing house at 4619 Moorland Avenue and replace
it with the French Provincial home proposed.
Present at the meeting to address the proposal were owner, Bonnie Spear -
McGrath and Nick Smaby, representing the builder Choice Woods Co.
Member Kojetin asked if the pool was to be removed, and if so, if a new pool
was proposed. Mrs. McGrath explained that the existing pool will be removed
and it is unlikely that they will install a new pool
Member Swenson asked if the McGrath's were planning on combining both
lots, or keeping them separate. Mrs. McGrath stated that they are now in the
process of combining the lots.
Member Jennings asked how the height of the new house compares with the
height of the existing house. Mr. Smaby with Choice Woods Co. explained
that they did not compare the heights because it was not required. The Plan
of Treatment only required a comparison of the new height with the height of
2
the adjacent home. Consultant Vogel added that the proportion of the new
structure with its surroundings is what is important. Board members agreed,
however added that it would be interesting to know the height difference
between the old and new.
Mr. Vogel added that he was impressed with the 21St Century interpretation of
a French Provincial home. The plans do an excellent job of representing a
modern home that blends with the historic neighborhood.
Member Swenson stated that she was originally concerned with the scale of
the proposed home, particularly since the ridge of the roof is nearly five feet
taller than the adjacent home on Moorland Avenue. However, upon visiting
the site, it became clear that the proposed home fits well on the lot for several
reasons:
1. The lot is large.
2. The lot is at the end of the block and only really relates to the
house to the north on Moorland, and
3. The subject lot actually sits lower than the surrounding properties
both to the north on Moorland Ave., but also across the street on
Country Club Road.
The proposed home appears very linear, but the existing home also has a
very linear appearance on the lot. Although the new home will be taller, if the
home were proposed on a lot in the middle of the block, it would appear far
more imposing. Member Swenson concluded that the proposed home fits
well on the subject lot.
Member Jennings agreed that she had some concerns about the scale of the
home particularly with regard to the vertical presence. However, she stated
that she was happy to see only one of the three garage doors visible from the
front street and felt the overall plan was very handsome.
Planner Repya interjected that Kris Aaker with the Planning Department has
review the plans particularly looking at the building height, and determined
that the proposed structure meets the zoning ordinance requirements for
building height. Assuming the Certificate of Appropriateness is approved, the
next step in the process will be the submittal of final building plans which will
be reviewed by the Building, Planning and Engineering Departments to
ensure compliance with all applicable city codes.
Following a brief discussion, consultant Vogel pointed out that if the
demolition of the existing home is approved, the HPB would like to have
photos of the house prior to demolition to document what is being removed.
He explained that this will be a standard practice whenever a structure is
removed on a landmark property or within a landmark district.
3
Member Swenson asked whether the roofing material had been determined.
Mrs. McGrath indicated that those decisions had not been finalized, however
they will only consider materials that are recommended in the guidelines for
the district. Mr. Smaby added that slate would be the preferable material,
however there are currently very good synthetic materials on the market that
could be good replacements for slate.
Mr. Smaby continued by offering background information about his company,
Choice Woods Co.. He indicated that they have done extensive work on
historically designated homes in Minneapolis and take pride in their attention
to detail and the historic integrity of their projects.
Mr. Smaby offered his insights into the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
process, being that their application was the first to be heard by Board. He
pointed out that he felt tying the application for a COA with the Building
Permit required his firm to create detailed plans which were quite costly.
Normally, at this stage of the process, the plans would be much more
schematic in nature.
Member Swenson stated that she appreciated Mr. Smaby's comments,
however, indicated that in order for the HPB to make an informed decision
about something as important as the demolition of an existing home in the
district, the plans for the replacement home must provide more detail than a S
schematic plan would provide.
Member Crawford stated that he understood Mr. Smaby's point. Adding that
in his experience working for the State Highway Department, decisions often
were made with information provided on preliminary plans.
Consultant Vogel explained that the standards guiding the Board when
making a decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness are whether the plans
demonstrate compliance with the Plan of Treatment. In order for the Board to
make an informed decision, details regarding the architectural style and
building treatments are important. He added that while approval is generally
based on the plans presented, the homeowner does have the ability to make
changes, such as moving windows or doors, as long as the change falls
within the guidelines in the Plan of Treatment.
Member Kojetin asked what would happen if they opted to change the
exterior materials from stucco to lap siding. Planner Repya indicated that lap
siding would not be appropriate for French Provincial architecture, however if
a change was proposed that was in keeping with the guidelines and the
architectural style of the structure, that would not be a problem.
Member Kojetin then asked if the surrounding neighbors had received
notification of what was being proposed on the subject property. Planner
El
i
Repya explained that unlike the City's Zoning Board of Appeals which
requires notification of surrounding neighbors as required under Minnesota
State Statutes, the Certificate of Appropriateness process is not considered a
public hearing (although all business of the Heritage Preservation Board is
open to the public), thus notification of the neighbors is not required. She
added however, that the City strongly recommends when property owners are
making changes to their homes requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness that
affected neighbors are given an opportunity to review the new plans.
Board members agreed that it is a good idea for the homeowner to inform the
neighbors of proposed changes in a more informal setting. Mrs. McGrath
then pointed out that she and her husband are planning on sharing their
plans with the neighbors, however thought it would be more prudent to wait
until they had gone through the Certificate of Approriateness
iled the plans was a good
111
concurred that notification after the HPB had app o
idea.
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing house at 4619 Moorland
Avenue and replace it with the subject French Provincial subject to the
conditions that: 1. The height of the new structure not exceeding that, which
was depicted on the plans, and 2. Subject to the concept plans presented.
Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Planner Repya thanked Mrs. McGrath and Mr. Smaby for the excellent
attention to detail provided in this first submittal the Board has heard. All
Board members agreed that the information provided to support this
Certificate of Appropriateness will serve as an excellent example for future
proposals.
I, 2003 EDINA HERITAGE AWARD:
Planner Repya advised the Board that the deadline for nominations for the 1St
Annual Heritage Award was April 1, 2003. The nominations committee
consisting of Members Nyberg and Swenson, Planner Repya and Consultant
Vogel reviewed the two submittals: The Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
and The Heritage of Edina, 3434 Heritage Drive. The committee
unanimously agreed that the award should be presented to the Baird House,
owners — Brad and Arlene Forrest, designers/contractors — MA Peterson
Designbuild, Inc.
Board members reviewed the text and photos that accompanied the
submittal for the Baird House and agreed that the beautiful addition to the
home is definitely deserving of the first Heritage Award.
5
Consultant Vogel suggested that the Mayor present the award to the
Forrest's and MA Peterson at the City Council meeting that falls during
Heritage Preservation Week (May 5-12). Planner Repya clarified that the
City
Council will meet on Tuesday, May6th of that week. Board members agreed
that would be an excellent idea.
Planner Repya offered to order plaques to be presented as the award.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the plaques should be wood or the
metal type that one would attach to the exterior of the structure. It was
agreed that the cost might drive the decision. Consultant Vogel indicated that
in some cities, the homeowner buys their plaque. Planner Repya suggested
that due to the time limitations, the traditional wooden plaque be presented
on May 6t'. Board members agreed that would be fine. No formal action was
taken.
IV. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK ORDINANCE UPDATE:
Planner Repya reported that since the last HPB meeting there have been
positive actions taken on the preservation front. The City Council, at their
February 18th meeting, completed the Heritage Landmark designation
process for the Country Club District as well as the five properties previously
zoned historic. Board members received copies of the approved Plan of
Treatment for the Country Club District as well as the updated ordinances.
Discussion ensured regarding the landmark designation process. Board
members agreed that they were very pleased with the outcome and look
forward to the work entailed with managing the landmark properties.
V. 4515 EDINA BOULEVARD — NEW DETACHED GARAGE:
4625 DREXEL AVENUE — NEW DETACHED GARAGE:
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject properties have both
submitted plans to the City last Friday to turn their current attached garages
into living space and build new detached garages in the rear yards. Both
plans will require a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a new structure
being built in the district.
Ms. Repya shared the plans with the Board to show them of the most
common request for a COA they will hear for the district. Consultant Vogel
stated that the review of such plans should not be that controversial, since
detached garages are appropriate in the district from a historic standpoint.
The main concern will be that the structures are not detrimental to the site
lines of the house.
0
Planner Repya pointed out that the information provided thus far for both
properties is insufficient to act on a Certificate of Appropriateness. Once the
elevations of adjacent structures as well as the distances between structures
is provided, the Board will be better equipped to make a decision. No formal
action was taken regarding the properties.
Board members continued by discussing the application process for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. It was agreed that a deadline should be
established prior to each meeting to ensure that Staff has sufficient time to
review the plans and prepare the report for the Board. Member Swenson
moved that a deadline be established for the submittal of a complete
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness of 10 days prior to the
regularly scheduled Heritage Preservation Board meeting. Member Jennings
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 13, 2003
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted
C,e1 �
JoyYeRepya 7( ey
7
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: APRIL 8, 2002 REGULAR MEETING
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-03-3: 4501 Wooddale Avenue — Demolish Detached Garage
B. H-03-4: 4625 Drexel Avenue — Build Detached Garage
in. MORNINGSIDE LANDMARK DISTRICT STUDY
IV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION WEBSITE — LINKS
V. DISCUSS PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH CERTIFICATES
OF APPROPRIATENESS
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: JUNE 10, 2003
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, May 13, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: ChairJennin
gs, an Gary s, Bob Kojetin9AAnn lCrawford, Peggy
Swenson, Marie
9
Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Keith White, 4501 Consultant
4501 Wooddale Avenue
Richard Lundin, threestudiosinc.
Jim Scott, Choice Woods Co.
I, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Komoved for
approval of the minutes
m the April O
meeting. Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted ayeThe motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS —COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-03-3: 4501 Wooddale Avenue- Demolish Detached Garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property owned by Mr. Keith White is located
on the southeast comer of Wooddale Avenue and Sunnyside Road. The existing
home, constructed in 1936 is a Norman style with English Tudor Influence. Currently, a
detached 2 -car garage serves the home accessed from a driveway off of Sunnyside
Road to the north.
n the
The subject request is to demolish an accessed existing
2-stall
d tlrivewaye running along thearage located 'east
southeast comer of the rear yard,
property line from Sunnyside Road. A new attached 3 -stall garage is proposed as part
of an addition to the rear of the home. The driveway on Sunnyside off of Wooddale Avenue is proposedioaun along theod is to
be closed and a new driveway o
south property line, abutting the driveway serving the southerly home at 4503
Wooddale Avenue.
The Architect for the project, Richard Lundin of threestudios Inc. provided a site plan
illustrating the elevation of the existing garage (to be removed) as well as the new
addition compared to the elevation of the abutting property to the south.
Regarding the new proposed driveway off of Wooddale Avenue, Planner Repya pointed
out that the City's Engineering Department requires a permit for new curb cuts off of city
streets. When discussing the subject proposal with a City Engineering Tech, Repya
was advised that new curb cuts off of Wooddale Avenue are looked at very closely due
to Wooddale's heavy traffic loads. Interestingly, it appears that the current location of
the driveway on Sunnyside Road is a much more dangerous location (directly in front of
the Wooddale Avenue/Sunnyside Road traffic island). The Engineering Department
believes that the driveway off of Wooddale Avenue is a preferred location from both an
engineering and safety standpoint. As part of the curb cut application process, the
plans must show that the Sunnyside Road curb cut will be closed and the elevations of
the new driveway are indicated to ensure that run-off does not compromise neighboring
properties.
In conclusion, Planner Repya stated that the information provided supporting the
subject request meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Country Club
District Plan of Treatment.
The exterior elevations of the subject property contrasted to the abutting southerly
property indicate that the removal of the existing detached garage will not detrimentally
affect either property. Furthermore, the removal of the garage will not have a negative
impact the property from the streetscape.
Initially, the relocation of the driveway from Sunnyside Road to Wooddale Avenue was
a concern, however, the City's Engineering Department clearly pointed out that the
proposed driveway off of Wooddale Avenue would better serve the subject property as
well as the neighborhood in general.
Ms. Repya then recommended approval of the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove the existing detached garage subject to the plans
presented.
Member Swenson asked for clarification on the proposed driveway. Richard Lundin,
Architect for the proponent indicated that the driveway will extend to the property line
and will abut the driveway serving the home to the south. The driveway is proposed to
be 10 feet wide with no greenspace abutting the neighbor. Planner Repya pointed out
that the city code requires a minimum 12 -foot width for a driveway; however, there are
many examples of driveways that are less than 12 feet, particularly in shared driveway
situations.
2
0
lted
When asked if the southerly neighbor had been he neighbor as�n the midst of a large
ut the proposed
driveway, homeowner Keith White stated that 9hbo
remodeling protect and is not residing at the home n out of the countryHis attempts to .
Addressing the
contact have
not been successful because the neighbor has b
width of the driveway, Mr. White indicated that the width has been reduced to 10 feet to
save a birch tree in the front yard.
ong
Member Swenson expressed concern regarding enepropose
hosed She stated thatdriveway 182 al feet
the south property line unbeknownst to the abutting 9
of concrete is pretty imposing.
Mr. Lund in explained that the plan for the driveway is eemore aesthetimpting to cally pheasing
utilitarian space with the southerly neighbor, and crate a
area in the rear yard.
hairman Nyberg opined that the existing driveway off of
Addressing the driveway, C
Sunnyside is much less visible from the streetscape than the
ere also proposed driveway
eet th would
be. He further observed that if the neighbor's driveway
proposed plan would create a 20 -foot x 182 -foot Mass
from the s. To require
equi e a 12 -foot
driveway width would create an even greater imposition
Mr. Lundin responded that they considered separating
he driveways
wouhdprobably be
e curb with a
green strip, but determined that would be difficult
driven over. While the plan for the neighbor hose to perhaps has not been finalni g both sides of the
considering coordinating a plan with the 9
driveway with brick to provide a unified appearance.
Chairman Nyberg asked if the addition would increase The addition the height cons sts of athe house. m
Lundin responded that the height would not increase
attached garage with living space above. Care was taken the historic ing home. phase to
ensure that the rooflines and massing are in keeping
of
PlannpY
er Re a reminded the Board that the subject request foto he Certificate would
ppropriateness entails whether the removal of the existing de garage
interfere with the historic integrity of the property.
Following a brief discussion, Member Crawford moved approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove the detached garage on the property subject to the plans
presented. Member Wray seconded the motion.
Member Swenson reiterated her concerns regarding the added mass of concrete on the
lot due to the driveway moving to the south property
e.
Consultant Vogel explained that the National Register nomination
Boa d has no bas s to does not address
circulation pattern, driveways or landscaping, so technically,rate or not. Also, in this case,
make a determination as to whether a driveway is appro p
3
since moving the driveway better meets the City's safety codes, it would not be wise to
make a decision going against a professional opinion. He added that one can't trade
public safety for heritage preservation.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility for the driveway plans to coincide with the
southerly neighbor's plans being that they too are in the construction mode.
Mr. White stated that he would not be opposed to working with the neighbor on a
driveway plan that would provide a unified view from the streetscape.
Chairman Nyberg, encouraged Mr. White to discuss the driveway plan with the abutting
neighbor, adding that he is concerned that the neighbor is unaware that a driveway is
being planned to run along the north length of their lot.
Member Thorpe added that she is aware of quite a few shared or abutting driveway
situations in the Country Club District that have been landscaped in such a way that the
impact from the streetscape has been considerably reduced. She then encouraged Mr.
White to work with his designer and the abutting neighbor to come up with a unified
plan.
The motion being made earlier by Member Crawford and seconded by Member Wray,
Chairman Nyberg called for the vote. Members Jennings, Kojetin, Nyberg, Crawford
and Wray voted aye. Member Swenson voted nay. The motion carried.
B. H-03-4 4625 Drexel Avenue — Build New Detached Garage
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject property is located on the east side
of the 4600 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home is a 1931 English Cottage with
Norman Influence. A 2 -stall garage is attached to the rear of the house accessed by a
driveway running along the south property line.
The subject request involves converting the existing single story attached garage to
two -stories of living space and building a new detached garage in the southeast corner
of the rear yard. In January of this year, the homeowner received a variance for the
proposed addition, necessitated because of a pre-existing non -conforming side yard
setback along the north wall of the home.
The new detached garage is proposed to compliment the architectural style of the
home, incorporating a sloping roofline with wood sticking and stucco on the walls. The
proposed three-foot setback from the side and rear lot lines meets the zoning ordinance
requirements.
The closest structure to the proposed garage is the flat roofed section of the abutting
home to the south at 4627 Drexel Avenue which originally had an attached garage that
has since been converted to living space with a new detached garage built in the
4
L
apet
southeast corner of the rear yard — similar to the sJCin height and will be 8 5et request. The north rfeet
wall of the flat roof is presented as approximately 156
from the subject garage. The west elevation e midpoint of the gable and 21.2 -foot an
eight -foot height at the eave, 14.5 fee
height at the uppermost ridge.
The site plan also illustrates the distance of 35 feet from to
eastposed garage to the
attached garage located behind the subject property
PlannepY
r Re a observed that the information provided supporting the subject
and ti cate
of Appropriateness request meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance
Country Club Plan of Treatment. The plans ia'cate that the exterior materials nd meet he setback and height
the
new garage will compliment the existing home
requirements set out in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Repya concluded that in addition to the aforementioned facts, deus Staff recommends rovalo g
request to build a new detached garage J garages
are common in the Country Club Districts subject to the plans presented. She added that Jim Scott of Choice Woods Company was present to address any questions.
Chairman Nyberg asked if any changes were proposed would
for the d not change; Mr.tiScot
indicated that the driveway curb cut from the street
the
driveway reaches the rear yard will the driveway change to accommodate access to the
new garage in the southeast corner.
Member Wray observed that the major change he saw was the new garage will
lthe
be
visible from the street, however, that is not inconsistent with o properties p
district.
Following a brief discussion, Member Kojetin moved approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to build a new detached garage
in the southeast corner seconded the motof the property ote
and subject to the plans presented. Member Jennings
aye. The motion carried.
III. MORNINGSIDE LANDMARK DISTRICT STUDY
Consultant Vogel provided an outline of the proposedncluded the survey undertakes firm will when
researching the proposed Morningside Historic District. He
objectives, survey activities, a listing of the kelldas a't timetable andv o unteered,
geographical limits, chronological limits as w
opportunities.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the most important task lstr District ill be tes folr ne landmark status.
between now
and the end of the year whether the Morningside qualifies
5
At the same time his firm will determine which individual houses would qualify for
landmark designation.
Member Kojetin asked if the Morningside neighborhood association would be aware
that their area is being surveyed and considered for landmark status. Planner Repya
explained that it is unlikely that there is a neighborhood association with whom the City
could communicate. However, she assured the Board that there is a strong sense of
pride among Morningside residents and she is certain historic survey work undertaken
in their neighborhood would be well received.
Mr. Vogel added that all of the survey work would be undertaken from the public right-
of-way, with no trespassing on private property. A visual assessment will be
undertaken including all the structures, driveways, streets and boulevards. The
information will be recorded on a standardized reporting forma Once the assessments
are completed, it will be determined whether the district warrants landmark designation
or whether only specific houses qualify. The final product will be a report that will
clearly explain the survey data and define the significance of the district. Mr. Vogel
pointed out that the report will be very helpful in the future, and it is unfortunate that
when the Country Club District was surveyed that a similar report was not created.
Regarding the actual survey activities, Mr. Vogel explained that the fieldwork will take
place during the late summer early fall using volunteers as well as members of the
HPB. He added that it would be a good idea to conduct an orientation workshop
sometime in the summer to educate those participating in the survey.
Member Kojetin stated that he is aware of narratives from Morningside residents that
are available at the Edina Historical Society which might be helpful to the study.
Mr. Vogel indicated that the survey would require from 5 to 15 volunteers to gather the
data. He added that people who live in the area being surveyed are often not the best
candidates to work on the survey, due to lack of objectivity and losing time talking with
their neighbors. The information gathered would be heavily biased toward architecture
and what is visible from the street.
Mr. Vogel concluded that an historic survey has not been conducted in the City of Edina
in 20 years. The Morningside Study will be an excellent jump- start for preservation
activities in the City. A brief discussion followed. No formal action was taken.
IV. HERITAGE PRESERVATION WEBSITE — LINKS:
Consultant Vogel suggested that following state and federal links be added to the
Heritage Preservation section of the City's website: 10
National Park Service, Cultural Resources Stewardship
programs (links to Heritage Preservation Services, Preservation
If,
Briefs, Technical Notes, standards & guidelines, tax incentives,
National Register) www.cr.nps.gov
2. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
www.mnhs.or-q/preserve/shoo
g. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Historic owner
www.nationaltrust-OKS/historic homeowner
4. Preservation Alliance of Minnesota
www mnpreservation.org
Board members agreed that it would be an e enebi e.Planner ea to ovide these Repya indicated
for
those researching heritage preservation on theCity's
that she would forward the links on to Jennifer Wilkinson, the City's Communications
Coordinator who is in charge of the website.
F
III. DI%Zff A •L"'r . -/ --- ---- - -
APPROPRIATENESS:
Planner Repya explained that it has become apparent that the majority of the requests
for Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) in the Country
u trShe Clubemindedistrict will
b Board than
either the removal or construction of detached garages.
e and
at their April 8th meeting plans foratha conversion for the property owned by Peger and Laura
construction of a new detached garage licant had
Gideon at 4515 Edina Boulevard (H-03-2) the Board was not able to take action.
e reviewed. Because the a
not provided elevations of abutting properties,
The contractor for the Gideon's submitted the required materials by A3pril 2 th. The their
homeowner was very concerned about
the was not out of -week delay May 1) in character for the property
ting
project. In light of the fact that the garage roved.
and the necessary documentation was provided, the COA was app
Ms. Repya observed that it might be more practical from a time standpoint relating to
City Staff, the HPB and the residents to handle requests for garages differently from the
teardown and rebuilding of the home.
When asked for his opinion on the subject, Consultant on athat
significant heritage
comes in that is straight- forward and appears to have no effect
resource; the city planner should be able to issue the COA administratively. For
demolitions and garages in the Country Club abthehis would mean it heritage landmarkanprovidedghat
or
structure that is not part of an individually eligible or
the work meets preservation standards and the guidelines mm subcn the plan of ommittee the city plannertcane
added that the HPB may choose to set up a sub whom
the
consult before issuing administrative a Certificates of Appropriateness.
7
Member Kojetin stated that he felt that for Staff to have to sole responsibility for
reviewing the COA's for garages would be too much of a burden.
Planner Repya explained that the only requests she would approve would be those that
were straight forward, meeting all of the requirements set out in the plan of treatment,
much like the City reviews all building plans looking for compliance with the zoning
code. Those requests that were questionable would be brought to the Board.
Member Thorpe stated that she felt an administrative review Certificate of
Appropriateness for the garages would be efficient. If a request did not meet the
specifications set out in the plan of treatment, then bring it to the Board.
Member Swenson stated that she believes it is important to treat all requests equally.
The review process is new for everyone and it is important for the HPB to gain
experience dealing with the requests. Perhaps down the road, these garage requests
may be so routine that the Board will determine that Staff should handle them, but for
now both Staff and the Board need the experience.
Member Jennings agreed with Member Swenson, reiterating that HPB review of all
applications for a COA is important for the Board gain experience. The time delay
should not be a concern. Ms. Jennings also asked if the height of the existing structure
could also be included in the list of required information to offer a point of reference
when reviewing a project.
Following a brief discussion, the Board members agreed that they would like to review
all requests for a COA at this time to gain experience and treat all requests the same.
Member Swenson asked if Planner Repya would like a motion to support the
administrative approval of the COA (H-03-2) at 4515 Edina Boulevard. Ms Repya
stated that would be a good idea. Member Swenson them moved to uphold Staffs
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to build a detached garage on the subject
property. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 10, 2003
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitte
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: MAY 13, 2002 REGULAR MEETING
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-03-5: 4625 Wooddale Avenue — Demolish Detached Garage
III. BAIRD HOUSE PLAN OF TREATMENT
IV. OUTREACH INFORMATION
V. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18-19,2003 IN NEW ULM, MINNESOTA
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: JULY 8, 2003
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
r� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Don Wray, Bill Crawford, Bob
Kojetin, Herman Ratelle and Ann Swenson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings and
Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Peter Jacobson, Lake Country Builders
Brad & Arlene Forrest, 4400 West 50th Street
i 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Ratelle moved for approval of the minutes from the May 13, 2003
meeting. Member Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS - Country Club District:
H-03-5 4625 Wooddale Avenue — Demolish detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the northeast
corner of Wooddale Avenue and Country Club Road. The existing home,
ctedin editerranean--style.--Currently;-a-non-conforming 1.5
stall detached garage sitting a non -conforming 1.4 feet from the east property
line serves the home accessed from a driveway on the south side of the
property.
The Edina city code requires that a detached garage may be no closer than
three feet from the side or rear lot line. Furthermore, the garage may be no
smaller than a 2 -stall structure. The subject request is to demolish the existing
detached garage and incorporate a new attached 2 -stall garage with an addition
to the south and east elevation of the home. The city code requires a minimum
five foot side yard setback for an attached garage which is illustrated on the
proposed plan. A new driveway is shown on the plan, however a new curb cut
from Wooddale Avenue will not be required.
The plans also illustrate the elevation of the addition compared to the elevation
of the closest abutting property to the east at 4630 Drexel Avenue. A distance of
49 feet 6 inches is illustrated between the closest points of each structure. The
height of the proposed garage is 11 feet at the uppermost point of the ridge
compared to an 18 -foot height to the eave line of the adjacent dwelling.
Furthermore, a dense row of evergreens separate the two properties, reducing
the impact the properties have on each other.
Ms. Repya concluded that the information provided to support the subject
request meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club
District Plan of Treatment.
The exterior elevations of the subject property contrasted to the abutting property
at 4630 Drexel Avenue indicate that the removal of the existing detached garage
will not be detrimental to either property. Furthermore, the removal of the
detached garage will improve the existing non -conforming status of a too small
garage (1.5 stalls) located too close (1.4 feet) to the property line.
Planner Repya then recommended approval of the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove the existing garage subject to the plans presented.
Discussion ensued among the Board. Member Swenson commented that the
plan did a good job of addressing the pie shaped lot, which can be challenging.
Consultant Vogel stated that the plan presented meets the standards established
for new construction in the district.
Peter Jacobson of Lake Country Builders was present to represent the
homeowners, Mark and Michelle Vandersall. Mr. Jacobson explained that the
homeowner is very sensitive to the historic integrity of the home and have been
diligent to ensure that the addition and attached garage compliment the home
and neighborhood.
Member Swenson -then moved approval of the -request -to demolish -the -detached
garage subject to the plans presented. Member Kojetin seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
Ili. BAIRD HOUSE PLAN OF TREATMENT:
Planner Repya presented the following draft Plan of Treatment for the Baird
House, 4400 West 50th Street:
2
1. The Edina Heritage Landmark designation for the Baird House
includes all of the extant structural elements of the house (including
the 2002-2003 additions). The wood frame agricultural outbuilding
historically associated with the Baird farm lacks individual significance
but contributes to the significance of the house within its historic
context.
2. The recommended treatment concept for the Baird House is
rehabilitation, applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity,
and materials of the historic house. The distinguishing original
qualities of the house, including its asymmetrical plan, brick walls,
multi -gabled roof, bays and porches, must be preserved and
protected. The most important architectural details to be preserved
are its Eastlake Style -inspired decorative elements, especially the
square tower, prominent chimneys and stone trim.
3. Every reasonable effort should be made to preserve the historic
agricultural outbuilding. The building should be maintained in the state
of utility through repairs or minor alterations, which make possible an
efficient contemporary use while preserving those features which are
important to its historical land 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. If the decision is made to remove the
structure, it should b recorded (through the use of photographs,
drawings and written information) prior to demolition so that a body of
information will be preserved with the HPB.
Ms. Repya added that Brad and Arlene Forrest have had an opportunity to
review the draft plan and were present to discuss said plan with the Board.
Arlene Forrest thanked the Board for affording them the opportunity to discuss
the plan of treatment. She indicated that her only concern is relative to the
treatment of the outbuilding on the property. Arlene explained that they have
had the structure inspected by an historic barn expert who felt that the barn had
— -
suffered too many years of negTecf and was in such a- state of d srefsair; ttrat e— -
costs required to bring it up to code would be prohibitive. He had surmised that
the building was actually several small outbuildings, which over the years had
been connected.
Mrs. Forrest indicated that she would love to save the outbuilding, but fears it is
too far -gone. Of particular concern is the possibility of youngsters gaining
access to the building and getting hurt. She then expressed a willingness to
replace the structure with a similar footprint, preserving as many original
3
I. OUTREACH INFORMATION:
Planner Repya explained that she and Consultant Vogel had been discussing
ways in which the Board could inform the public about the new Heritage
Landmark Program. Since the Country Club District was designated a Landmark
District there has been an article in the "About Town" magazine as well as in the
Edina Sun Current newspaper. Ms. Repya asked the Board if they felt one last
mailing to each of the 550 residents in the district explaining the landmark
designation would be a good idea.
Board members discussed the possibility of creating a piece similar to the
information brochure the Board sponsored in the 1990's (*8'/Z" x 11", two-sided,
tri -fold). The suggestions were made to again use the original 1924 artwork for
the cover, and include real estate offices in the mailing.
Planner Repya offered to meet with Jennifer Wilkinson, Communications
Director for the City to draft an information piece, which the Board could review
at their next meeting. The Board agreed that would be a good next step. No
formal action was taken.
II. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18-19,2003, NEW ULM, MINNESOTA:
Planner Repya announced that the 24"' Annual Minnesota Historic Preservation
Conference will be held Thursday and Friday, September 18-19 in New Ulm,
Minnesota. As a Certified Local Government city, Edina is required to send at
least one member of the HPB and/or City Staff to the conference. Ms. Repya
encouraged board members to consider attending the worthwhile workshop,
even if for only one of the days. As in the past, the City will pay the registration
fee for attendees. A brief discussion followed. No formal action was taken.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 8, 2003
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
5
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
THURSDAY, JUNE 19 2003, AT 3:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-03-6 4501 Wooddale Avenue
Owner: Keith White
Architect: Richard Lundin II, 3 studios inc.
Request: Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish house
and build a new home on the site.
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2003, AT 3:300 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50'" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair, Don Wray, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, Bob Kojetin, Herman Ratelle and Marie
Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Keith White, 4501 Wooddale Avenue
Richard Lundin, threestudiosinc.
I. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-03-6 4501 Wooddale Avenue
Owner: Keith White
Architect: Richard Lundin, threestudiosinc.
Request: Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish house and build a new
home on the site
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject property is located on the
southeast corner of Wooddale Avenue and Sunnyside Road. The existing
home, constructed in 1936 is a Norman style with English Tudor influence.
On May 13, 2003 a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted for removal of
a detached garage on the site. A 3 -stall attached garage was proposed to be
incorporated with an addition to the rear of the home. The HPB did not
-- review the-add+tion-to-tb"orne--bec-ause the -demolition -plan -did --not call for -
removal of 50% or more of the surface area of the exterior walls.
The subject request is to demolish the home and construct a new home on
the site. This change in plan was precipitated by the discovery of extensive
mold and structural deficiencies made apparent once the project was
underway. When it was determined that the scope of demolition for the
project would far exceed the plans presented, the contractor put a halt to the
project and asked for the advice of the City's chief building official. Upon
viewing the problems, Steve Kirchman, the building official determined that
extensive additional work would be necessary to bring the home into code
compliance.
Planning Consultant, Robert Vogel has stated that the subject home, while an
important component to the make-up of the Country Club District, would not
qualify for individual landmark designation. That being the case, to demolish
the home and rebuild on the site would not be inappropriate as long as the
new construction meets the criteria set out in the Country Club District Plan of
Treatment and Design Guidelines.
Planner Repya explained that the architectural plans under consideration
have changed very little from the original plans which included only partial
demolition of the home. The architect has emphasized the Norman
architectural style in the design. The scope of the proposed home varies little
from the original structure. The highest point of the roof complies with the
City's zoning code, however will be six inches higher than existing structure to
necessitate the deeper dimensions of modern framing materials and to add a
small amount of height to the first floor elevation. The proposed home
matches the eave line of the adjacent home to the south, however appears to
be three feet taller at the highest point, compared to the existing structure
which is 2.5 feet taller than the adjacent home.
The exterior finishes proposed for the home are stucco and cultured stone.
The roofing material is proposed to be concrete tile, which gives a slate look.
The plans also represent copper flashings, gutters, downspouts and roofing
accents.
Planner Repya concluded that the information provided supporting the
subject request meets the requirements of the Country Club District Plan of
Treatment. Staff recommends approval of the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish the home at 4501 Wooddale Avenue and
construct a new home on the site subject to the plans presented, and subject
to approval of the revised plan by the Building, Planning and Engineering
Departments.
Consultant Vogel, addressing the subject request explained that when the
City Council approved- the-Plan—of -Treatment for the -Landmark designation of
---
the Country Club District their intent was not to prohibit the demolition of
homes nor to empower the Heritage Preservation Board to design the new
construction. The Council recognized that demolition may be necessary over
time, and the new construction should meet the criteria of the Plan of
Treatment. However, the Council also observed that the new construction
should not be the recreation of a missing historic building, nor a copy of
another building.
2
The subject proposal is a prime example of what was envisioned when the
Plan of Treatment was created. The proposed home is not a copy of an
historic house. The architect has incorporated historic elements from other
homes in the area to create a design that will not be mistaken for a 1920's
house, however the home will possess a great deal of historic integrity and
blend well with the neighborhood, upholding the original character.
Mr. Vogel concluded by noting that the proposed plan is consistent with the
Plan of Treatment regulations, reflects the intent of the Council and is actually
right -on with what the Board would hope to see for new construction in the
District.
Member Wray asked when the mold and structural deficiencies were first
identified. Architect, Richard Lundin stated that the inspection of the home
done at the time of purchase identified some of the deficiencies which the
homeowner was willing to address in the remodeling process. However, it
was not until the project was underway that the extent of the problems
became apparent — clearly 40% of the home which was proposed to remain
was affected by the deficiencies.
Responding to a question regarding whether the foundation would remain,
Mr. Lundin explained that due to the extent of mold, a new foundation will be
poured, however the footprint will remain the same with the exception of the
addition that was proposed on the original plan.
Member Thorpe asked if the driveway was still proposed for the south side of
the property. Mr. Keith White, the property owner explained that since the
HPB last met, he had an opportunity to talk with the southerly neighbor who is
all in favor of the driveways abutting. In fact, he is looking forward to being
able to use a portion of Mr. White's driveway for turnaround space.
Responding to a question regarding the swimming pool, Mr. Lundin explained
that the pool will remain, however it will be upgraded with a new surface.
Following a brief discussion, Member Crawford moved approval of the
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing home at
4501-Wooddale Avenue and construct a- new home on the sle subject -to the
plans presented and the condition that the plan meets final approval by the
Building, Planning and Engineering Departments. Member Wray seconded
the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Prior to adjournment, Consultant Vogel discussed the trend he observed with
the most recent requests for demolishing homes because of mold. Usually,
older homes do not have the mold problems one finds in newer, airtight
structures. Board members questioned whether the mold issue has become
a trendy buzzword, and an easy excuse for demolition.
3
Member Jennings thought it curious that both homes with mold problems also
have swimming pools. She also wondered how other historic districts might
deal with the mold issue.
Mr. Vogel indicated that he would like to meet with the chief building official to
get his opinion on the mold issue and to discover how the new building codes
address mold. No formal action was taken.
II. ADJOURNMENT: 4:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
des t.
12
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 7:30 PM*, "
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
HERITAGE BOARD MEMBERS:
Chair, Garold Nyberg, William Crawford, Peggy Jennings, Bob Kojetin,
Herman Ratelle, Ann Swenson, Marie Thorpe and Donald Wray
I. NEW BUSINESS:
H-03-7 Certificate of Appropriateness
Dave Liiak and Stephanie Allison
4910 Arden Avenue, Edina, MN
Request: Demolition of existing garage to include
Construction of new garage
II. ADJOURNMENT:
*Please note the meeting time has been changed from 7:00 PM to 7:30. 1
hope this change affords every member the opportunity to attend the
Braemar Inspection Tour
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, July 8, 2003, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50'" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Crawford, Bob Kojetin, Herman Ratelle,
Ann Swenson and Marie Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT:, Peggy Jennings, Gary Nyberg and Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
Vince Cockriel, Edina Park Superintendent
I. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
H-03-7 4910 Arden Avenue — Demolish detached garage and construct a new
detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4900 block of Arden Avenue. The home is an English Cottage style built in
1925. The footprint of the 780 square foot home has not been altered since first
constructed. A detached garage sitting on the northwest corner of the lot serves
the home.
The homeowner is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to
demolish the detached garage and construct a new detached garage on the
southwest corner of the lot. The plan includes adding a large two-story addition
to the rear of the home, which is not being reviewed by the Board as part of the
Certificate of Appropriateness because not more than 50% of the existing home
is being demolished to facilitate the addition.
The drawings submitted with the COA application did not show the new garage
in detail, however Mr. Mark Benzell, owner of Inside & Out Remodelers has
indicated that the new garage would meet all applicable building and zoning
codes and the exterior finish would match the stucco on the house.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the Country Club District Plan of Treatment
recognizes garages as a form of new construction requiring a Certificate of
Appropriateness, but has no specific guidelines for the design of detached
garages. According to the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment
of historic properties, new construction is an appropriate undertaking in an
historic district when it is compatible in size, scale, materials, color and texture
with other buildings in the neighborhood. Furthermore, detached garages are
consistent with the historic pattern of residential development in the Country Club
District.
Planner Repya concluded that based on the drawings submitted with the
application and the information provided by the contractor, staff finds that the
proposed new garage should not detract from the historic character of the
property and adjacent historic homes. Approval is recommended for the request
to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with the new detached
garage as shown on the plans submitted.
Neither the homeowner nor the contractor were in attendance to address the
subject request.
Member Swenson questioned why, since the addition is larger than 50%0 of the
footprint of the home, the addition is not also subject to review by the Board.
She also expressed concern that the plan reflects lot coverage that comes only
26 square feet short of maximizing the 30% lot coverage allowed.
Consultant Vogel explained that when the City Council was reviewing the
District's landmark designation, they determined that the plan of treatment would
not address additions to homes, only demolitions and new construction.
Member Ratelle asked to go on record expressing his disappointment that
neither the homeowners nor their contractor were available at the meeting to
address questions from the Board.
Following a brief discussion by the Board, habacte of the homeer Swenson rase'�dt relates to
concern that the large addition will alt
the adjacent properties. She then asked Staff to review previous minutes of the
Board when it was determined that additions would not be included in the plan of
treatment; suggesting that the Board consider amending the plan of treatment to
include evaluating additions to homes when the addition meets or exceeds 50%
of the footprint of the home.
Member Swenson then made a motion that the Board approve the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the detached garage from the
northwest corner of the property and build a new detached garage on the
southwest corner of the property, subject to the plans presented and the
condition that the materials of the garage match the home. Member Crawford
seconded the motion. By roll call, the members voted as follows:
Ayes: Members Crawford, Kojetin and Swenson
Nays: Member Ratelle
Abstain: Member Thorpe
Motion carried.
2
11. CAHILL SCHOOL & GRANGE HALL:
A. New Roof Soffit and Fascia —
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their November 2002 meeting they
had been advised of the maintenance issues confronting both buildings. At that
time, no action was taken, agreeing that they would address each issue when
the contracts were being let. Vince Cockriel, Edina Park Superintendent,
responsible for maintenance of the buildings was present to address Board.
Vince explained that he was hoping to replace the roofs of both buildings this
summer. He explained that both roofs are about 80 years old and suffer from
substandard underlayment and rodent infestation. The bids received are for
both asphalt and cedar shingles; the cedar application costing about $5,000 to
$6,000 more than asphalt. Mr. Cockriel indicated that he would recommend the
cedar shingles, although more expensive, would serve the buildings better and
falls within the funds budgeted for the job. The contractor Vince recommended
is Roof Specs. who has had considerable experience with historic buildings; the
St. Paul Cathedral a recent reference.
Addressing the soffit and fascia for both buildings, Mr. Cockriel explained that
due to the extreme deterioration he would recommend wrapping them with steel
siding, being careful to maintain the historic structural integrity of the buildings.
Consultant Vogel asked if Mr. Cockriel had planned on adding gutters to the
buildings. Vince indicated that he had not included that in the specification for
bids. Mr. Vogel strongly suggested that the gutters be included in the job,
pointing out that although gutters had not been invented when the buildings were
first constructed, the benefit to their preservation makes the use of gutters and
downspouts reasonable and in -keeping with preservation standards.
Mr. Cockriel agreed that gutters and downspouts would not only relieve the water
problems the basements of both buildings have been experiencing, but also
extend the life of the structures. He suggested that the gutters be included in the
bid to reside the buildings which will be addressed in several years. Board
members agreed that would be appropriate.
Addressing a question as to whether it would be appropriate to wrap the soffit
and fascia with steel siding, Mr. Vogel explained that because the wrapping is
reversible and does not undermine the structure, it would not be deemed
inappropriate.
In closing, Mr. Cockriel proposed the following time line for addressing
improvements to the Cahill School and Grange Hall:
Summer 2003 Replace Roof, Soffit and Fascia
2005 Replace Windows ($42,000 budgeted)
3
2006 New Siding & Gutters
He then requested that the Board give him direction for addressing the roof,
fascia and soffits of both buildings.
Following a brief discussion, Member Kojetin moved to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace the roof of the Cahill School and Grange Hall as well
as to wrap the soffit and fascia areas with steel siding. Member Swenson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Member Kojetin asked if the existing handicapped ramping on the exterior of the
Cahill School and Grange Hall could be replaced, pointing out that he felt the
ramping was detrimental to the historic integrity of the buildings. Consultant
Vogel explained that the ramping could be removed, however other
accommodations would need to be made to accommodate handicapped
accessibility.
A. PAINTING CAHILL SCHOOL:
Park Superintendent Cockriel advised the Board that a painting contractor who is
a resident of Edina has offered to paint the Cahill School this summer free of
charge. The offer does not include the Grange Hall. Mr. Cockriel added that he
thought it would be a good idea, however he advised the contractor that the
building is scheduled to be resided in about 3 years. The contractor indicated
that was fine with him.
Member Kojetin remembered that the building was last painted about 12 years
ago and could certainly use a new coat of paint.
Consultant Vogel stated that he thought the offer was very generous, but asked
if the contractor was aware of the prep work and applications that are required
for historic structures. Mr. Cockriel explained that the contractor is aware that
power washing and sandblasting are not permitted techniques. He further stated
that he is confident that the contractor would do a quality job.
Following a brief discussion, Member Ratelle moved to approve the generous
offer of a contractor to paint the Cahill School. Member Crawford seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 12, 2003
IV. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r<1
&1-1
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: *August 12th HPB Meeting — Cancelled
*MN Historic Preservation Conference — Sept. 18 —19, 2003
DATE: August 7, 2003
Next Tuesday's regularly scheduled HPB meeting has been CANCELLED.
As you may recall, the City is responsible to send at least one member of the HPB to the
annual preservation conference for at least one day. This is a requirement for all
Certified Local Government cities. I will be attending on Friday, Sept. 19th. If you are
interested in attending on Friday, the City will pay your $40.00 registration fee. Please
let me know by Friday, September 5th so I can make the arrangements.
I hope you are having a great summer. I look forward to seeing you at the September 9th
meeting!!
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
- June 10, 2003 Regular Meeting
- June 19, 2003 Special Meeting
- July 8, 2003 Regular Meeting
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-03-08 4506 Bruce Avenue — Construct New Detached
Garage in Rear Yard
III. MORNINGSIDE SURVEY
IV. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18-19,2003 IN NEW ULM, MINNESOTA
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 14, 2003
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, September 9, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings, Bob Kojetin, Ann
Swenson, Marie Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg and Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
John Clarey, Quigley Architects
Rick & Maureen Massopust, 4506 Bruce Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes from the June 10, June 19
and July 8, 2003, meetings. Member Crawford seconded the motions. All
voted aye. The motions carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-03-8 4506 Bruce Avenue
Owners: Rick and Maureen Massopust
Architect: John Clarey, Quigley Architects
Request: Certificate of Appropriateness to convert an attached double
garage to living space and build a new detached garage in the rear yard.
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject property is located on the
west side of the 4500 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home is a 1938
New England Colonial Revival. b �vewla,yl8 x 19' garage is attached to the
running along the south property
rear of the house accessedy a
line.
The subject request involves converting the existing attached garage to two -
stories of living space and building a new garage in the northwest corner of
the rear yard. The new detached garage is proposed to be a 2 -stall, 22' x 24'
structure measuring 19' at the peak and 14.5' at the mid -point of the gable.
The zoning code allows for a height not to exceed 18' when measured from
the mid -point of the gable. The proposal shows the exterior materials to be
lap siding, which is also shown on the second story of the proposed addition.
The closest structure to the proposed garage is a detached garage to the
west in the rear yard of 4507 Casco Avenue. This 22'x 24' garage was
constructed in 1987 and replaced a somewhat smaller structure. The
adjacent garage measures approximately 12.5' at the peak.
In conclusion, Ms. Repya stated that Staff finds the information provided
supporting the request to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
the Country Club Plan of Treatment. Furthermore, the proposed lap -sided,
colonial style garage with a cupola and a weathervane complements the
home, yet is not visible from the street. Staff recommends approval of the
request to build a new detached garage subject to the plans presented.
Member Swenson asked the architect, John Clarey why he chose the pitch of
the roof to be quite a bit steeper than that of the garage to the west. Mr.
Clarey explained that his design replicates the pitches already existing on the
subject dwelling rather than that of the adjacent garage.
Member Kojetin asked why a detached garage was proposed rather than
continuing with an attached garage. Planner Repya explained that in order
for the proponent to achieve additional living space, the detached garage was
the only alternative; pointing out that a 25 foot rear yard would be required for
an attached garage which could not be accommodated on the subject lot.
Following a brief discussion, Member Crawford moved approval of the
request to build a detached garage in the rear yard subject to the plans
presented. Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
III. MORNINGSIDE SURVEY:
Consultant Vogel explained that to complete the survey of the Morningside
neighborhood, the Board should schedule a field survey whereby volunteers
actually walk the streets to record data on each structure in the area. The
best time of year for the field surveys is starting in late October into early
December when the leaves are off the trees and the buildings are more
visible, and the Weber Park warming house would be a perfect meeting place
for such an event.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that these field surveys can be excellent public service •
events where the Board can share the historic importance and interest in a
neighborhood with its residents. The survey exercise also provides an
2
excellent opportunity for HPB members to have a hands-on experience with
the preservation process.
Member Wray, who lives in Morningside, stated that his neighborhood
recently had a picnic that was organized by the Morningside Women's Club.
He suggested that they be contacted regarding their possible participation in
the survey. Planner Repya asked Mr. Wray if he could provide her with the
contact person for the club. He indicated he would be happy to. Member
Swenson also suggested that the Edina Historical Society be invited to
participate in the survey.
Discussion ensued regarding the dates for the field survey. The following
dates were decided upon:
Wednesday November 5th 2:00 p.m.
Sunday November 9th 1:00 P.M.
Sunday November 16th 1:00 p.m. RAIN DATE
It was suggested that the Edina Sun Current run an informational piece to
explain the up -coming survey and invite the public to participate. Board
members also suggested that participants make reservations to facilitate
organizing the survey. Member Kojetin suggested that the after-hours Park
and Recreation phone number be used in the event of a cancellation due to
inclement weather. No further action was taken.
IV. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18 —19, 2003, NEW ULM, MN:
Planner Repya advised the Board that she, Bob Kojetin and Ann Swenson
were scheduled to attend the State Historic Preservation Conference on
Friday, September 19th. She made an invitation to any members who had not
signed -up to do so as soon as possible. Attending members would report on
the conference at the October meeting of the Board. No formal action was
taken.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Country Club Landmark Designation Brochure:
Member Kojetin asked about the status of the information brochure being
prepared for the residents of the Country Club District. Planner Repya
explained that since the Board's last meeting, Jennifer Wilkinson,
Communications Director for the City has been preparing the artwork and text
for the brochure. Because Ms. Wilkinson was recently married, the brochure
is not quite ready, however should be available for Board review at the
October meeting. No further action was taken.
3
B. Letter to the Editor re: Tear -down of homes in the Country Club
District:
Member Kojetin pointed out to the Board that a letter to the Editor appeared
in the Edina Sun Current in which the writer lamented on the trend of people
purchasing homes in the historic Country Club District only to tear them down
and rebuild a new structure on the site. The writer asked if there wasn't a
committee to oversee such situations and commented that, "If you want a
new house, buy someplace else."
Discussion ensued regarding the best way to respond to the letter writer.
Consultant Vogel recommended that it is not a good practice to respond in
the paper to such Letters; suggesting that the letter writer receive a personal
response.
Planner Repya offered to respond to the concerned party, assuring them that
while the HPB cannot prevent the teardowns, the City does have the ability to
control the new structures to be built. Board members agreed that would be
a good idea. No formal action was taken.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 14, 2003
Planner Repya and Consultant Vogel observed that they had a conflict with
the regularly scheduled meeting date for October 14th. Following a brief
discussion, it was suggested that the meeting be rescheduled for October 7th
Ms. Repya advised the Board that she would keep them posted if the change
could be finalized.
II. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
C-C�- x .
Joyce Repya
[H
•
AGENDA
RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 WEST 70TH STREET - UPSTAIRS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 9, 2003
II. PLAN OF TREATMENT:
A. Grimes House — 4200 West 44th Street
B. Peterson House — 5312 Interlachen Boulevard
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION INFORMATION
BROCHURE:
IV. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18-19,2003 IN NEW ULM, MINNESOTA:
- Report from Participants
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Schedule a Special Meeting of the HPB to hear a Certificate of
Appropriateness request for 4405 Browndale Avenue.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 11, 2003 — Veteran's Day
City Hall Closed
RESCHEDULE ON NOV. 12TH, WED.
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
I
MINUTES OF THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 WEST 70TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy
Jennings, Bob Kojetin, Ann Swenson, Marie
Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Karen Ferrara, 4200 West 44th Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Crawford moved approval of the minutes from the September 9,
2003, meeting. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
II. PLAN OF TREATMENT:
A. Grimes House — 4200 W. 44th Street
Planner Repya presented the Nominations Study and Plan of Treatment
which consultant Robert Vogel had created for the Grimes House. In addition
to identifying the significance of the historic home, the following plan of
treatment was recommended:
1. The Edina Heritage Landmark designation for the Grimes
House includes all of the extant structural elements of the
house and grounds.
2. The recommended treatment concept for the Grimes House
is rehabilitation, applying measures to sustain the existing
form, integrity, and materials of the historic house. The
distinguishing original qualities of the house must be
preserved and protected.
Minutes — October 7, 2003
Edina Heritage Preservation Board f
Ms. Repya explained that the owners of the Grimes House, Bruce and Karen
Ferrara had received a copy of the proposed plan of treatment for review.
Karen Ferrara was present to express their opinion regarding the proposal.
Mrs. Ferrara stated that she understood the purpose of the plan of treatment,
but wondered if there shouldn't be something about maintaining the
architectural style of the home when changes are undertaken.
Consultant Vogel explained that in item #2, "applying measures to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of the historic house" addresses
maintaining the architectural style.
Board members discussed Mrs. Ferrara's concern and agreed that while
item #2 does allude to the intent of maintaining the historic integrity of the
structure, to include an item that specifically states that the gothic revival style
of the home will be maintained when undertaking any external maintenance
and improvements would be a good idea.
Following a brief discussion, Member Kojetin moved approval of the Plan of
Treatment for the Grimes House with the addition of an item #3 "The Gothic
Revival style of the Grimes House shall be taken into consideration for all
external maintenance and improvements." Member Thorpe seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. Peterson House — 5312 Interlachen Boulevard
Planner Repya presented the Nomination Study and Plan of Treatment
created for the Peterson House by Robert Vogel. The significant features of
the plan of treatment included:
1. The Edina Heritage Landmark designation for the Peterson
House includes all the extant structural elements of the
house and grounds.
2. The recommended treatment concept for the Peterson
House is rehabilitation, applying measures to sustain the
existing form, integrity and materials of the historic house.
The distinguishing original qualities of the house must be
preserved and protected.
Consultant Vogel observed that he found the original designation materials
for the Peterson house from 1987 to be lacking in rationale for supporting the
historic designation. He pointed out that it is an interesting home, but he
found nothing in the city records to defend its significance. That being said,
Mr. Vogel continued by explaining that he believes that the home is worthy of
2
Minutes — October 7, 2003
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
landmark designation as one of the few remaining structures representing the
original farming lifestyle of the City.
Planner Repya stated that she sent a copy of the proposed plan of treatment
to the owners of the Peterson House, Mark and Nancy Winter. Mr. Winter
called Ms. Repya to ask some questions about the proposal, but expressed
no concerns or suggestions. The Winters were invited to attend the meeting,
however, it appears they had a scheduling conflict.
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved approval of the Plan
of Treatment for the Peterson House as proposed. Member Wray seconded
the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION
INFORMATION BROCHURE:
Planner Repya presented a draft brochure that explains the landmark
designation of the Country Club District. The brochure, created by the City's
Communications Coordinator, Jennifer Bennerotte, was in draft form,
awaiting the Board's input.
Board members discussed the text and layout. Several changes were
agreed to, upon which Ms. Repya promised to bring the final draft to them for
review at the November meeting, targeting a mailing date of mid-November.
No formal action was taken.
IV. 2003 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
SEPTEMBER 18 —19,2003, NEW ULM, MN:
Planner Repya reported that Bob Kojetin, Ann Swenson, Marie Thorpe and
she attended the State Historic Preservation Conference on Friday,
September 19th in New Ulm, Minnesota.
Each attendee explained what they felt was the highlight of the conference.
All agreed that the session on mold was disappointing because they were
hoping to glean important information to report back to the Board, however
the presenter spoke with a thick accent and was difficult to understand. They
all indicated that the tour of the Schell's Brewery was very interesting.
The overall consensus was that the conference offered a great opportunity
for Board members to get better acquainted and learn what other
communities are doing to promote historic preservation. They suggested that
in the future, all Board members should try to attend.
3
Minutes — October 7, 2003
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
V. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 12, 2003
Due to the regularly scheduled meeting falling on November 11tH,
Veteran's Day, the meeting has been rescheduled to Wednesday, November
12'.
II. ADJOURNMENT: 8:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
eoyy
""Iev �.�ce epya
4
AGENDA
RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 WEST 70TH STREET - UPSTAIRS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 7, 2003
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-03-09 4405 Browndale Avenue
Demolish a 2 -Stall Detached Garage and Construct a
3- Stall Garage
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION INFORMATION
BROCHURE: Review Revised Copy
IV. MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: Update
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 9, 2003
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: December HPB Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2003
A reminder to you that the regularly scheduled meeting of the HPB for December 9th has
been canceled. The next meeting of the Board will be on Tuesday, January 13, 2004.
Wishing you a wonderful and safe holiday season, and looking forward to a productive
2004!!
demolish the 2 -stall garage in the rear yard and replace it with a 3 -stall garage
and potting room is recommended, subject to the plans presented.
Addressing a question as to whether the second story would be developed,
Steve Alpeter, the property owner indicated that the second story would not be
finished; it would be used for storage and would not be heated.
Member Swenson asked whether the northerly neighbor had a chance to
respond to the change to the north wall of the structure. Mr. Alpeter explained
that the neighbor was advised of the new plan and wrote a letter to the Zoning
Board expressing their approval.
Following a brief discussion in which Board members praised the proposed plan,
Member Kojetin moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the 2 -stall detached garage and construct a 3 -stall detached garage in
its place. Member Wray seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT LANDMARK DESIGNATION
INFORMATION BROCHURE:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their October meeting they had
reviewed the draft copy of the brochure and suggested some changes be made
to the text. The changes were made and the revised draft was before them for
approval. She explained that if this draft was approved it would go directly to the
printer and be available for mailing within a week or two. The cost for printing
1,000 copies will be $395.00, which will come out of the City's communications
budget.
Board members agreed with the changes made to the text. Member Swenson
then moved approval of the brochure as revised. Member Ratelle seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY:
Planner Repya explained that two walking tours of the Morningside
neighborhood took place on Wednesday, November 5`h and Sunday, November
9th and both were very successful. A total of seven residents from the
neighborhood (and one dog) participated in the tours along with Ms. Repya,
Robert Vogel, and Board members Kojetin, Thorpe and Swenson.
3
The tour on November 5th focused on the eastern side of the neighborhood, with
the Sunday tour targeting the west side.
Consultant Vogel explained that his firm has been working on an inventory of the
Morningside neighborhood for several months. The final report and
recommendations will be presented to the Board at the January meeting. The
three main areas the report will focus on are:
1. Whether to designate the Morningside neighborhood a landmark
district.
2. Whether any individual properties would qualify for landmark
designation; and
3. Whether there are any threatened resources in need of protecting.
Board members discussed the rich history of the Morningside neighborhood and
how unique it is compared to other areas of the City. All agreed that a landmark
designation for this neighborhood should address the history - how Morningside
was annexed from the Village of Edina for 40 years, and how the volunteer spirit
in Edina had it's roots in the community of Morningside, evidenced by the still
active Morningside Women's Club which organized in the 1930's.
Member Jennings observed that in heritage preservation districts around the
country, neighborhoods like the Country Club District that were totally planned
and where a design review committee controlled construction were not the norm.
Neighborhoods like Morningside that evolved lot by lot over a period of 100 years
are the types of districts that most heritage preservation committees deal with.
She then asked Mr. Vogel if there were any consistencies he has seen in
regulation of these more typical districts?
Mr. Vogel responded that for the most part the heritage preservation regulation
of these more typical districts is not done well, primarily because it is very costly.
While the Morningside neighborhood definitely possesses a unique history and
character, one could say that about many neighborhoods in Edina — the
difference being more a matter of the time -period. An important driving force for
heritage preservation is budgetary - how much money is a City able to direct
toward the preservation of its historic properties?
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Plans of Treatment for Cahill, Grange, Baird, Peterson and Grimes
Houses:
Planner Repya announced that on Tuesday, November 18th, the City
Council will hear the proposed Plans of Treatment for all the landmark
E
properties which had been previously designated historic under the old
code. No action was required from the Board.
B. Fee to be imposed for Certificates of Appropriateness:
Planner Repya explained that the Planning Staff is recommending a fee,
similar to that required for a variance from the zoning code be imposed for
requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness. She assured the Board that
she would keep them informed on the outcome.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 9, 2003
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully subm' ed,
c' lcl
Joyce Repya
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: December HPB Meeting
DATE: December 5, 2003
A reminder to you that the regularly scheduled meeting of the HPB for December 91h has
been canceled. The next meeting of the Board will be on Tuesday, January 13, 2004.
Wishing you a wonderful and safe holiday season, and looking forward to a productive
2004!!