HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 HPB Meeting Minutes Regular• MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: January 13th HPB Meeting - Cancelled
DATE: January 7, 2004
The regularly scheduled Heritage Preservation Board meeting for January has been
cancelled because Brad and Arlene Forrest, owners of the Baird House will be out of
town and revisiting their Plan of Treatment was the only item for the agenda. (Note: The
Forrests informed me at the City Council meeting on November 18th that they were not
comfortable with their Plan of Treatment and wanted to make some changes, particularly
addressing the preservation of the outbuilding.) They will be back in town for the
February meeting when we will again address their plan.
Keep an eye on City Hall. We are scheduled to move into the new building on January
30th, so if on schedule, February's meeting may be in our new digs.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 W. 70TH STREET - UPSTAIRS
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 12, 2003
II. PLAN OF TREATMENT:
III. MORNINGSIDE REPORT
IV. 2004 HERITAGE AWARD
George Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
V. PRESERVATION WEEK: May 3-8,2004
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2004
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 WEST 70TH STREET - UPSTAIRS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Bob
Kojetin, Herman Ratelle, Ann Swenson and Don
Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings and Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Brad & Arlene Forrest, 4400 W. 50th Street
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
- Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
s
Member Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the November 12, 2003
meeting. Member Wray seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. PLAN OF TREATMENT — GEORGE BAIRD HOUSE, 4400 W. 50TH ST.
Planner Repya explained that at the November 18, 2003 meeting of the City
Council, the Plans of Treatment were adopted for the Cahill School, Grange Hall,
Grimes House and Peterson House. The Plan of Treatment for the Baird House
was not addressed at the request of Brad and Arlene Forrest. At that time, the
Forrests expressed their concerns with some of the requirements in the plan,
particularly with respect to the existing outbuilding.
The Plan of Treatment is a collaborative effort in which the HPB and the owner
of the landmark property establish guidelines for preservation. Mr. and Mrs.
Forrest have taken the Plan of Treatment initially discussed and made changes,
which they feel meet their needs. The major changes they propose include:
1. Not mentioning the outbuilding.
2. Changing a "must be preserved and protected" to "should be
preserved and protected".
3. Adding a caveat regarding the preservation and protection, which
reads, "provided the preservation and protection is reasonable in cost
and effort and consistent with current contemporary use."
Both Brad and Arlene Forrest were in attendance. Chairman Nyberg opened the
item up for discussion.
Member Swenson stated that she felt that the Plan of Treatment for the Baird
House was important because it is among the first to be drafted and will set the
tone for future plans. She pointed out that the plan should be consistent with the
goals of the Board and the homeowner. She opined that she did not agree with
all of the proposed changes and would like to work on creating a document both
the Board and the Forrest's could support.
Owner Brad Forrest explained that the proposed changes were driven by two
rationales:
The cost involved in renovating should be reasonable. For
example, to spend $200,000 to repair brick- work would not be
reasonable for a private homeowner. A lot of private homeowner
money should not have to be spent to make the place perfect again
or like it used to be.
Furthermore, taking terminology from the city codes, the provision
is proposed that the preservation be consistent with current
contemporary use.
2. Although they like the barn and will do what they can to preserve it,
mention of the barn was deleted from the proposal for several
reasons: First, a barn restoration company has inspected the
structure and indicated that it would be very costly to replicate, and
secondly, the barn has never been mentioned in any of the
designation documents for either the National Register nor the local
designation, which leads one to believe that the barn is not a
significant element in the historic significance of the property.
Arlene Forrest added that while they are fond of the barn, it has been identified
as unsafe. There are no footings, and actually, the building is made of several
outbuildings that were tagged on to each other over time. Furthermore, the term
"must" being changed to "should" is proposed for purpose of legislation. Of
course, every attempt will be made to preserve the property, however to require
2
that all elements of the house must be preserved or protected could impose a
hardship.
Mr. Forrest explained that when they approached revising the plan, they
considered how they would advise a potential purchaser of the property.
Member Swenson stated that she had no problem with "must" being replaced
with "should" in the plan. However, to include "provided the preservation and
protection is reasonable in cost and effort" appears nebulous.
Mr. Forrest responded that the law can establish what is reasonable as based
upon community standards. It is common to include the term reasonable in
contracts and is well definable under law.
Consultant Vogel interjected that the main reason for having a plan of treatment
is to provide guidance from one generation of appointed city officials to those
who will serve in the future. While the designation documents and the plan of
treatment make it clear that the outbuilding isn't eligible for heritage landmark
designation. By ordinance, if you choose to pull a permit to demolish the
structure, a certificate of appropriateness will be required from the HPB. The
current board would be well equipped to address a request for demolition.
However, if 25 years from now a demolition permit is requested, the sitting HPB
would not have the benefit of the discussions that have taken place, and would
have no guidance to address the request if no mention is made of it in the plan of
treatment.
Someplace in the official registration document of which the plan of treatment is
the last page, it should say that while the outbuilding contributes somewhat to
the historic character of the property, it is not what the ordinance intends to keep
standing. If the determination were made to demolish the outbuilding, requiring
written and pictorial documentation prior to demolition would be appropriate.
He added that a plan of treatment can be flexible, however it should not be
crafted in such a way that it makes decisions for future boards.
There are four treatments which can be addressed in a plan of treatment:
1. Preservation
2. Reconstruction
3. Restoration, and
4. Rehabilitation
Of the four, rehabilitation is the most flexible, useful and appropriate for the Baird
property.
By pointing out in the plan of treatment the important elements of the historic
buildings, guidance is provided for future decision makers when they need to
apply the standards for new construction.
3
Mr. Vogel concluded that the plan of treatment is not an agreement. It is a way
to state the owner's intent and give a reasonable heads -up to future decision
makers.
Mrs. Forrest stated that because future decision makers will use the plan of
treatment, and it will be subject to the tone of whoever is interpreting it, she
would like to see the use of the words "maintenance and rehabilitation" instead
of "preservation and protection", pointing out that these words better describe the
intent of the plan of treatment. She also indicated a desire to include a
statement that the maintenance and rehabilitation should be subject to the
Secretary of the Interiors standards.
Board members agreed that Mrs. Forrest's proposed changes made sense.
Consultant Vogel agreed with the Board, pointing out that when dealing with
domestic properties that were built to be modified, it is much more practical to
work toward rehabilitation rather than restoration. To try to turn back the clock or
freeze time is not a good idea.
Referring to the outbuilding, Mr. and Mrs. Forrest asked the Board if in the future,
they decided to remove the structure, if the HPB would be interested in acquiring
it. Consultant Vogel stated that interestingly enough, it is common practice to
offer buildings such as theirs for sale in lieu of tearing them down.
Discussion ensued to clarify the proposed changes agreed upon by the Board
and the Forrest's. Member Swenson, then moved approval of the following
revised plan of treatment:
The Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) approved this plan of treatment
on February 10, 2004. The HPB will review select applications for city
permits pursuant to Edina City Code Section 850.20 — Edina Heritage
Landmarks.
The Edina Heritage Landmark designation for the Baird House
includes all the extant structural elements of the house (including
the 2002-2003 additions).
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, should be maintained
and rehabilitated subject to the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
The most important architectural details to be maintained are its
rd
Eastlake Style -inspired decorative elements; especially the square
tower, prominent chimneys and any original trim elements.
3. The wood frame agricultural outbuilding historically associated with
the Baird farm lacks individual significance. If the decision is made
to remove the structure, it should be 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.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IIII. MORNINGSIDE REPORT:
Consultant Vogel provided the HPB with copies of the Morningside
Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey. He explained that the document
included results of a reconnaissance survey of historic resources in the
Morningside neighborhood. The purpose of the survey was to identify individual
buildings and groups of buildings that met defined criteria of historical
significance, and to gather information needed to plan for the preservation and
enhancement of these resources.
Mr. Vogel explained that five principal findings were identified in the report:
1.
Morningside is a distinctive neighborhood with a significant
concentration of well-preserved single-family homes, as well as
several important non-residential properties, constructed between
1905 and 1935.
2.
In addition to the Jonathan Grimes House (already listed in the
National Register and recently designated an Edina Heritage
Landmark), at least seven Morningside properties are individually
eligible for designation as Edina Heritage Landmarks.
3.
The eight bungalows on the north side of West 44th Street between
Grimes Avenue and Eton Place meet the criteria for a Heritage
Landmark District.
4.
Given the limitations of budget and staff time, as well as the nature
of the current threats to significant historic properties, it would not
be cost effective to rezone a larger area for preservation at this
time.
5.
The HPB needs to consider a comprehensive, voluntary, non -
regulatory approach to preservation, protection, and enhancement
of historic resources in Morningside.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that he found this survey to be very interesting. He was
amazed that what one sees today is pretty much unchanged from what the
surveyors saw in 1979 when the first city survey was completed
5
Mr. Vogel added that because the Board is seeing the report for the first time, he
would like them to review it, and be prepared for discussion at the April meeting,
since he will not be able to attend the March meeting.
Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street and Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue were
present, representing the newly formed Morningside Neighborhood Association.
Ms Carte asked if it was easier to manage districts or individual properties. Mr.
Vogel explained that administratively, individual properties were more
manageable, because the city must review all plans for new construction and
with a district; it is likely that there would be more permits requiring review than
for individual designations.
Joni Bennett stated that the Morningside neighborhood does have a distinct
identity, which some residents feel has been threatened by changes, both tear
downs and new construction that have occurred over the years.
Chairman Nyberg asked Ms. Carte and Ms. Bennett if they were in favor of
designating the entire neighborhood a landmark district. Both agreed that would
be a good idea; Ms. Carte stating that she felt the neighborhood is threatened.
Ms. Bennett pointed out that she is most concerned about the City's
redevelopment plan for the 44th and France Commercial District that was created
about 15 years ago. She indicated that the plan was listed as a priority in the
City's newest "Vision 20/20" report. She explained that she understands the plan
to include a proposal to remove several single- family homes directly west of the
commercial buildings on both Sunnyside Road and W. 44th Street, and redevelop
them for multi -family housing, thus threatening the residential nature of the
neighborhood.
Member Swenson responded that she represents the Planning Commission on
the HPB, and the Planning Commission has not considered a plan for the 44th
and France Commercial District. She added that if the City were going to
address such a plan in the near future, the Planning Commission would be one
of its first stops.
Discussion ensued regarding the 44th and France commercial area. Board
members agreed that they would like to study the plan Ms. Bennett referred to
prior to commenting one way or another.
Mary Carte explained that she is concerned that changes to the commercial
district could negatively impact the strong sense of community in Morningside.
Member Ratelle stated that a distinction should be made between buildings and
people; pointing out that the City is also concerned about the sense of
community.
A
Responding to a question regarding the next steps, Mr. Vogel explained that
after the HPB has had time to review and discuss the report, they would
determine the findings of significance. From that point they will determine which
properties would qualify for landmark designation.
Planner Repya added that after the findings of significance are made, the HPB
will hold an informal informational meeting with residents of the Morningside
neighborhood to explain the report and gain input from those most closely
affected.
This item was continued to the April meeting. No formal action was taken.
IV. 2004 HERITAGE AWARD:
Planner Repya shared a copy of an article that will appear in the City's spring
issue of the "About Town" magazine. The article explains the Heritage Award
program and encourages people to submit nominations for the award by April 1St
Ms. Repya also explained that a similar article will appear in the Edina Sun -
Current newspaper in early March. Discussion ensued. No formal action was
taken.
V. PRESERVATION WEEK:
Planner Repya explained that Preservation Week 2004, sponsored by the
National Trust for Historic Preservation is scheduled for May 3, through 8. The
theme is "New Frontiers in Preservation". The announcement of the 2004
Heritage Award recipient is scheduled for Preservation Week. Ms. Repya
suggested that the Board consider other activities that could be planned during
that time period to draw attention to heritage preservation in Edina.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
Historic Bridge Research —
Planner Repya advised the Board that Consultant Vogel will be working with the
City Engineer, Wayne Houle to research the historic bridges in the city;
particularly those which cross Minnehaha Creek. There are federal funds
available to assist in the financing of improvements to historic bridges. The
Engineering Department is sharing the cost of Mr. Vogel's consulting fee to cover
the bridge research. More information will be forthcoming once Mr. Vogel has
had an opportunity to complete his search.
7
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 9, 2004
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kjjovyc Repya
City of Edina
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: March 9"' Meeting - Cancelled
DATE: February 27, 2004
You may have noticed when you received your invitation to the Annual Boards and
Commissions meeting, that it is planned for the same evening as our March HPB
meeting. Since we have no requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and Robert
Vogel will be out of town, I am taking the liberty to cancel the meeting; hoping you will
be able to attend the dinner meeting at the Braemar Clubhouse. If you haven't already,
please RSVP to Susan Heiberg, 952/826-0403.
City Hall
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394
www.cityofedina.com
952-927-8861
FAX 952-826-0390
TTY 952-826-0379
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 10, 2004
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
CAHILL SCHOOL/GRANGE HALL - WINDOW REPLACEMENT
IV. MORNINGSIDE REPORT
V. 2004 EDINA HERITAGE AWARD
VI. 2004 WORK PLAN
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2004
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Bob
Kojetin, Herman Ratelle, Ann Swenson and Marie
Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings and Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Vince Cockriel, Park & Recreation Superintendent
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
- Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
• Member Ratelle moved approval of the minutes from the February 10, 2004
meeting. Member Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Planner Repya explained that it was again the time of year to elect officers to the
Board and asked if there were any nominations. Member Swenson asked
Member Nyberg if he would like to continue serving as chairman of the Board.
Mr. Nyberg stated that he would be happy to continue serving. Discussion
ensued regarding the vice chairman position. Planner Repya pointed out that
Member Wray, has been the vice chair for several years; however he now has a
conflict with the meeting date and may not wish to continue serving as vice chair.
Repya added that she was not comfortable appointing a person to office in their
absence. Board members agreed with Ms. Repya. Member Swenson then
asked Member Kojetin if he would be willing to serve as vice chairman. Mr.
Kojetin stated that he would be happy to.
Member Swenson then offered the motion that Member Nyberg serve as
chairman and Member Kojetin serve as vice chairman of the Heritage
Preservation Board for 2004 — 2005. Member Crawford seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: CAHILL SCHOOL &
GRANGE HALL — 4918 EDEN AVENUE — New Windows
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their July 2003 meeting they had
reviewed the maintenance schedule for the Cahill School and Grange Hall with
Vince Cockriel, the Park and Recreation Superintendent responsible for
maintaining the structures. At that time, it was identified that the windows for
both buildings needed to be replaced. Since then, Vince has received two bids
for the job from firms familiar with working on historic buildings. He is proposing
the Board accept the bid of $21,575 from A -CRAFT Windows to replace 12
windows and 12 storms on the Grange Hall and 8 windows on the Cahill School
(the storm windows are in good shape and not in need of replacement).
Board members discussed the window construction. Vince explained that the
windows are proposed to be single pane, true divided lite windows with thicker
than usual muntins. He added that the Grange Hall had screens at one time,
which came in handy on warm summer days. Member Kojetin asked whether it
would be practical to install air conditioning in the building. Vince commented
that the furnaces had been replaced in both the Cahill School and Grange Hall
not too many years ago. He added that he would not recommend adding air
conditioning for several reasons: The buildings are poorly insulated and there is
not ductwork in place to accommodate air conditioning - to add that would be
very costly. Planner Repya also questioned whether the buildings are utilized
enough in the summer months to warrant such an expense.
Member Swenson asked Mr. Cockriel if he had researched the cost of new
screens for the Grange Hall. Vince pointed out that the screens would cost
approximately $5,000. Discussion ensued regarding the practicality of the
screens.
Responding to a question regarding the budget for the scheduled repairs to the
Cahill School and Grange Hall, Vince explained that approximately $88,000
remains in the budget after having re -roofed both buildings last summer. Once
the window replacement has been completed, approximately $60,000 - $65,000
will remain which he has targeted for new wood siding for both buildings. He
pointed out that while $60,000 seems like a lot of money, to re -side both
buildings with the wood lap siding would take all of the remaining funds. He
added that wood siding is the right way to go for these historic buildings. Board
members agreed with Mr. Cockriel.
Consultant Vogel commented that the proposed bid for window replacement
meets the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He explained that per
the plan of treatment for the buildings, when the windows are beyond repair, they
don't need to be re-created, but the look should be replicated; which is what is
being proposed.
2
�r
Member Swenson stated that she was comfortable with the bid from A -CRAFT
Windows and moved to accept their bid of $21,575 to replace the windows on
the Cahill School and the windows and storms on the on the Grange Hall. She
added that she felt that constructing screens for the windows on the Grange Hall
should be done now while the windows are being addressed and further moved
to authorize an expenditure of up to $25,000 to include the new screens.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. MORNINGSIDE REPORT:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that Consultant Vogel had presented his
research and recommendations for the Morningside neighborhood to them at the
last meeting in February. At that time, Mr. Vogel reviewed his findings and
asked to Board to spend some time studying the report and be prepared to
discuss the findings and recommendations.
Ms. Repya explained that Member Jennings, who could not attend this evening,
asked that her reflections on the report be forwarded to the Board. Paraphrasing
Mrs. Jennings' comments, Ms. Repya observed that Morningside is a very
distinctive neighborhood with a tremendous amount of character. The highly
individual and unassuming presence of the many styles of homes within the area
gives it a unique place in the history of Edina. Rezoning the entire area certainly
seems ambitious given the diversity in style, age and the number of buildings
involved. She indicated that the Morningside Church and former Oddfellows Hall
were focal points in the daily life of the community and continue to have a great
presence. Furthermore, the 8 homes in the "Bungalow District" along West 44th
Street have always appeared to be their own entity and it would be appropriate
to recognize that.
Member Jennings indicated that she supports the idea of creating opportunities
for education and information sharing for homeowners in the area. Encouraging
voluntary compliance with preservation guidelines would create a positive
emphasis rather than in imposed or hierarchical mandate. In closing, Mrs.
Jennings applauded all the recommendations from the survey stating that they
seem sensible, conservative and realistic.
Consultant Vogel commented that Morningside is the perfect laboratory to devise
a non -regulatory, completely voluntary, compliance based neighborhood
preservation program. The City's position should be not to mandate
preservation, however at the same time, the City should ensure that nothing they
do negatively impacts the neighborhood. The City can also contribute
enhancements to the historic neighborhood in the form of signage, light fixtures,
fire hydrants, etc.
3
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the direction the Board chooses to take with the
Morningside neighborhood will set a template for other neighborhoods in the
City. Heritage preservation in the Morningside neighborhood can either be
addressed from a regulatory standpoint or with a non -regulatory approach,
stressing education and providing support when asked.
Following a brief discussion, Board members agreed that it is important to
determine the level of interest and the perceived needs of the Morningside
residents. Member Swenson suggested that a survey be mailed to the property
owners in the neighborhood to convey the results of Mr. Vogel's report and
determine their interests and desires. Board members agreed that such�a
survey would serve the dual purpose to both educate the neighborhood and gain
insight regarding their concerns.
Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue and Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street were
present representing the Morningside Neighborhood Association. Chairman
Nyberg asked for their reflections on the report and areas they feel the HPB
should address.
Ms. Bennett stated that she had shared the report and recommendations with
members of the neighborhood association. She indicated she was looking
forward to hearing the reaction of the Heritage Preservation Board and was
hoping the neighborhood would have input before a decision is made. She
added that the two items, which she feels raise the most concern with the
neighborhood, would be the redevelopment of the 44th & France commercial
area and the increasing number of tear-downs/new construction.
Ms. Carte agreed with Ms. Bennett pointing out that it is frustrating for residents
to experience the teardown of a neighboring home with no idea what will be
taking its place.
Discussion ensued regarding the proliferation of teardowns occurring throughout
the City. Planner Repya explained that because Edina has very few
undeveloped properties, many people are choosing to purchase a property for
the lot with the intention of building a new home. Consultant Vogel indicated that
the City of Farmington has addressed demolitions is their zoning code that he
will share with the HPB.
Ms. Bennett asked if the neighborhood would have any involvement prior to a
decision being made. Mr. Vogel explained the report is a working document that
does not require action at this time. The next step will be for the Board to glean
information from the neighborhood regarding their desires.
Board members agreed that the next step should be to create an information
piece/ survey for the neighborhood, much like what was done prior to action
being taken on the Country Club District. Member Swenson offered assistance
rd
in creating the survey. Planner Repya stated that she would have a draft copy of
the survey ready for the Board to review at their May meeting. No formal action
was taken.
Chairman Nyberg thanked both Ms. Bennett and Ms. Carte for attending the
meeting and welcomed their continued input. Member Kojetin, President of the
Edina Historical Society asked both ladies if the Morningside Neighborhood
Association had any plans for the 100 Year Anniversary of Morningside in 2005.
Ms. Bennett thanked Mr. Kojetin for pointing out the date and indicated that she
was sure the neighborhood would be interested in a celebration. Mr. Kojetin
pointed out that the Edina Historical Society would be happy to assist the
neighborhood with their plans.
V. 2004 EDINA HERITAGE AWARD:
Planner Repya explained that two nominations were received for the Edina
Heritage Award. The first was received in May, 2003 from two high school
seniors who did a photographic project on "A Day in Edina". Unfortunately,
because the girls graduated last June, the timing wasn't right for the 2004 award.
The second nomination is for the renovation/preservation of the Edina Theater
sign and marquee. The owners of the theater, Gene and Suzanne Haugland
along with Landmark Theatres have done an excellent job of bringing the sign,
which is vital to identifying the community, back to the original design.
Board members were thrilled with the theater nomination, agreeing that the
Edina Theater is one of the most visually prominent features associated with the
community, not only worthy of the Heritage Award, but also a prime candidate for
landmark designation.
Member Swenson, who submitted the nomination, explained that she had a nice
conversation with Gene Haugland who was honored with the nomination. At that
time, she explained Edina's landmark designation procedures. She added that
Gene appeared surprised that Edina worked with the property owners unlike
HPB's in other communities that take a dictatorial approach.
Member Kojetin then moved to accept the Edina Theater sign and marquee for
the 2004 Edina Heritage Award. Member Ratelle seconded the motion. All
voted aye. The motion carried.
5
VI. 2004 WORK PLAN:
Consultant Vogel explained that 50% of his time for 2004 has been spoken for
by the City's Engineer to research and offer advise on the historic bridges in the
City. He asked how the Board envisions the remainder of his time being used.
Discussion ensued regarding pending and future projects. All agreed that
completing the Morningside study and possible designations should take top
priority. Additional projects identified included:
Landmark designation of the Edina Theater sign and marquee
Renovations to the Browndale Bridge and possible individual landmark
designation of the bridge as well as the mill site.
Individual landmark designations from the Morningside report or by
request.
Board members agreed that the listed projects should take up the remaining
consulting time available to the City. No formal action was taken.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairman Nyberg shared a promotional brochure he picked up from a house for
sale on Drexel Avenue. Mr. Nyberg pointed out that within the description of the
property, the realtor wrote that, "Built in 1927, this home holds a place on the
National Register of Historical Places. With the Edina Heritage Landmark
Designation in place, the City can protect the historic integrity by ensuring that
new construction is in keeping with the goal and objectives identified for the
neighborhood." Mr. Nyberg asked if the Board felt the description was deceiving
to the public due the reference that the house was listed on the National Register
(the house isn't, the District is). Following a brief discussion, Board members
agreed that while the realtor may have been stretching the truth somewhat, the
brochure was attempting to educate prospective buyers to the historic
importance of the neighborhood, which is a good thing. All agreed that it was
interesting to see language from the plan of treatment being used to market the
homes... helping the cause of the Board. No formal action was taken.
Vlll. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 11, 2004
IX. ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: APRIL 13, 2004
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-2: 4624 Arden Avenue — Demolish Detached Garage & Construct a
New Detached Garage
B. H-04-3: 4602 Moorland Avenue- Convert Existing Attached Garage to
Living Space & Construct a New
Detached Garage
III. MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
IV. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. H-04-1 4508 Arden Avenue — Move existing detached garage
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: JUNE 8, 2004
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, May 11, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 501H STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford,
Bob Kojetin, Herman Ratelle and Marie Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Jennings, Ann Swenson and Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: -Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
-Anne Gaskill, 4624 Arden Avenue
-Dan Kreiter, Matthias K. Builders
-Margaret Hoppmann, 4602 Moorland Avenue
-Karen Sullivan, The Foundation Architects
-Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
-Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Ratelle moved for approval of the minutes from the April 13, 2004
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-2 4624 Arden Avenue - Demolish existing detached garage and
construct a new detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
Arden Avenue five houses north of Country Club Road. The house, constructed
in 1928 is of the English Cottage architectural style and has a detached garage
directly behind the house along the north property line.
The existing detached garage proposed to be demolished is a simple frame
structure measuring18.3' x 20.3', which is small for a two -car garage by today's
standards. The garage is located directly behind the house, only 3 feet from the
deck. The garage lacks architectural distinction and has no historical
is significance.
i. I
The proposed new garage is a two -car detached structure measuring 24'x 24'.
The garage will be located in the southwest corner of the property abutting the
garage for the neighbor to the south at 4626 Arden Avenue. A side and rear yard
setback of 3.5 feet is shown on the plan, which is consistent with the setback for
the adjacent garages and meets the city code requirements.
The plans illustrate a garage that compliments the English Cottage style home.
The exterior material is shown to be stucco with wood sticking in the gable end
above the door. The height of the garage is shown to be 8.5 feet to the eave line
in contrast to the garage to the south shown at 8.66 feet at the eave. The height
is illustrated at 18 feet at the highest point, which may be slightly taller than the
adjacent garage due to the difference in roof pitch.
Ms. Repya observed that the Country Club District Plan of Treatment recognizes
garages as a form of new construction requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness,
however provides no specific guidelines for its design. 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.
The photographs submitted with the request illustrate how the existing garage sits
very close to the dwelling, limiting the homeowner's ability to enjoy the backyard.
The new location for the garage in the southwest corner of the property will open
the rear for living space and keep the garage activities in a location appreciated
by the abutting neighbors.
Planner Repya concluded that based upon the information provided supporting
the request, staff finds that the proposed new garage should not detract from the
historic character of the property nor the adjacent homes. Approval of the
request to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new
detached garage was recommended, subject to the plans presented.
Planner Repya added that Anne Gaskill, owner of the property and Dan Krieter
the contractor were present to address any questions.
Chairman Nyberg asked if the small shed illustrated in the photographs on the
spot where the new garage is planned would remain on the property. Mr. Krieter
stated that the shed would be removed.
Member Kojetin asked if an addition was planned for the home after the garage is
removed. Mr. Krieter stated that an addition has been planned for the rear of the
home to include a family room, kitchen and mud room for the first floor with a
master bedroom and bath on the second floor. Chairman Nyberg pointed out that
2
while the Heritage Preservation Board does not require a Certificate of
Appropriateness for additions, when an addition is part of a project requiring a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the board appreciates the ability to see the
addition plans as part of the overall project. Mr. Krieter offered a copy of the
addition plans to be included in the file. Board members thanked Mr. Krieter for
providing the plans and then took time to review them.
Stating that he thought the plans were thorough, Member Kojetin moved approval
of the Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing detached garage
and construct a new detached garage in the southwest corner of the property.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. H-04-3 4602 Moorland Avenue — Convert existing attached garage to
living space & construct a new
detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the
4600 block of Moorland Avenue, two lots south of Bridge Street. The existing home is a
1929 English Cottage style with a 2 -car attached garage located on the north side of the
rear of the house. The garage is accessed from a driveway running along the south
property line.
The subject request involves converting the existing attached garage to two stories of
living space and building a new detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear
yard. A new curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will access the
proposed garage.
Plans for the proposed garage illustrate that it will compliment the English Cottage
architectural style of the home, incorporating wood sticking and stucco on the walls and
a slate roof. The height of the garage is shown to be 21.75 feet at the highest peak,
15.5 feet to the midpoint of the gable end with a 12/12 pitch to the roof. The closest
detached garage is in the southwest corner of the southerly adjacent property at 4604
Moorland Avenue. A three-foot side and rear yard setback are proposed which meets
the code requirements for a detached structure in the rear yard.
Planner Repya pointed out that the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a 2 -car garage in
the R-1 zoning district. The existing attached garage measures 18'x 20', while
considered a 2 -car, is small by today's standards. It is not uncommon to see plans for S-
car garages, particularly if the lot coverage for the property is not compromised. From a
practical standpoint, a 3 -car garage can be preferable because it provides storage for
equipment and accessory vehicles, which might otherwise be stored on the driveway or
behind the garage.
Ms. Repya concluded that the information provided supporting the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Country Club Plan of Treatment. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the exterior
materials of the new garage will compliment the existing home and the new structure
meets the setback, height and lot coverage requirements set out in the code.
Considering the aforementioned, Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to build a new -detached garage in the rear yard subject to the plans
presented.
Property owner Margaret Hoppmann and Karen Sullivan of The Foundation Architects
were present to address any questions.
A board member asked why the 12/12/ pitch is proposed for the garage roof. Ms.
Sullivan explained that the pitch chosen for the roof replicates the slope of roof on the
house. Robert Vogel asked when the attached garage was added to the house. Mrs.
Hoppmann stated that it is her understanding that the garage is part of the original
construction of the house. Pointing out that in 1929 the desire was to ensure that the
garage was not visible from the street.
Following a brief discussion, Member Ratelle moved approval of the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new detached garage in the rear yard.
Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
111111. MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
Planner Repya explained that she had provided the Board with copies of a draft survey
to be filled -out by the Morningside neighborhood as well as a cover letter explaining the
survey and a summary of the Morningside Report completed by Robert Vogel. (Note — a
copy of the aforementioned was also sent to the Morningside Neighborhood Association
representative, Joni Bennett) Ms. Repya then asked for input on the proposed
materials.
Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue presented the Board with a written response to the
draft survey and report summary. Board members took time to read Mrs. Bennett's
submittal. In addition to several clarifications she proposed for the survey, Mrs. Bennett
opined that she did not agree with Mr. Vogel's conclusions in the Morningside Report,
adding that she felt that Morningside should be designated a Heritage Landmark District,
not for its homes (although many are historic and distinctive), but for the fact that it does
derive its significance from being a unified entity — pointing out that Morningside is the
first residential, suburban, commuter neighborhood created in Edina when "middle-class
city professionals" beginning in 1905, became able to ride the newly —constructed
streetcar line between their homes in Morningside and their jobs in Minneapolis.
Furthermore, Morningside is also the only neighborhood in Edina to have existed as a
separate village. Morningside's identity is not only rooted in its variety of homes, but
also is rooted in its sidewalks and tree -lined streets, its convenient commercial district
and its sense of history and community.
4
Chairman Nyberg stated that he felt Mrs. Bennett made a very good point. In the past,
the Heritage Preservation Board has focused most of their energy toward preserving
architecture, however, the planning and history of an area can be equally important to its
historic significance.
Member Ratelle agreed with Mr. Nyberg pointing out that an operative word in these
discussions should be "community"; and indeed, Morningside is a distinctive
"community".
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that whatever direction is chosen for the
Morningside neighborhood, they must remember that the distinction needs to fit within
the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance regulations for Historic Landmark properties;
specifically, the Board will review all applications for city permits for demolition of any
building, moving a building, new construction and excavation of archeological features in
areas where there may be heritage resources. If the Board chooses to designate the
entire Morningside neighborhood a landmark district, with over 700 homes, the amount
of work for staff and the Board could be daunting.
Chairman Nyberg stated that he senses that the neighborhood is concerned about the
teardown of homes and controlling what is taking their place.
Mrs. Bennett explained that there are really two important elements as she sees it:
protection and recognition. She added that definition would be more important than
restrictions.
Mr. Vogel explained that there are creative approaches that Edina could take that have
not been done before, like establishing a conservancy district for instance. The first step
however, should be to survey the neighborhood and establish where the consensus of
priorities lie.
Following a brief discussion, Planner Repya stated that she would revise the survey and
summary report as recommended and target a mailing for the week of May 24th with a
return deadline of June 18tH
Board members then thanked Mrs. Bennett and Mrs. Carte for their opinions and
suggestions, and encouraged them to continue participating in the on going planning
and discussion.
IV. EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
Consultant Vogel provided a handout entitled "Edina Heritage Landmarks" in which he
identified three categories of properties:
5
1. Designated Heritage Landmarks:
Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street
Cahill School, Frank Tupa Park
Country Club District
Grimes House, 4200 W. 44th Street
Minnehaha Grange Hall, Frank Tupa Park
Peterson House, 5312 Interlachen Boulevard
2. Determined Eligible for Landmark Designation:
Edina Mill Site, Dwight Williams Park
Edina Theater, 3911 W. 50th Street
3. Determination of Eligibility Recommended:
Browndale Bridge, Browndale Avenue at W. 50th Street
Erickson House 4346 Scott Terrace
Odd Fellows Hall, 4388 France Avenue
St Stephen the Martyr Episcopal Church, 4439 W. 50th Street
Simmons House, 4116 W.44t Street
Leeskov House, 4410 Curve Avenue
Skone House, 4311 Eton Place
Morningside United Church of Christ, 4201 Morningside Road
Onstad House, 4305 Morningside Road
Morningside Bungalow District, W. 44th Street (8 houses)
Mr. Vogel explained that the Board has previously addressed the first two categories.
The third category, which includes 10 properties recommended to be eligible for
landmark designation needs to be adopted by the Board. He pointed out that by means
of identifying these properties as eligible for landmark designation provides a small level
of protection for them. If in the future, a plan were presented to demolish any of these
structures, the fact that they have been identified as potentially eligible for landmark
designation would enable the HPB to raise the issue of concern.
Board members discussed the recommended properties and agreed that they were all
worth considering. Member Crawford then moved to adopt the list of 10 properties as
recommended to be.eligible for heritage landmark designation. Member Kojetin
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
C-1
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. H-04-1 4508 Arden Avenue — Move existing detached garage
Planner Repya reported that the subject property is an American Colonial Revival with
Italian Renaissance Revival influences built in 1927. The homeowners have lived there
for many years and would like to stay in their home as they age. To accommodate their
current needs, the owner is proposing to add a single story, 516 square foot addition to
the rear of the house as well as a deck and ramping system for access. Originally, the
garage was not going to be moved, however, the designer discovered that once the
addition touched the detached garage, it became an attached garage, requiring a 25 foot
rear yard setback —19.8 feet was what existed.
Rather than applying for a variance from the rear yard setback requirement, the
homeowner opted to move the existing garage to the southwest corner of the lot.
Because the Country Club District Plan of Treatment requires a Certificate of
Appropriateness for moving a structure in the district, the plan came to Ms. Repya for
heritage preservation review.
Ms. Repya further explained that after discussing the proposed plan with Consultant
Vogel, members of the Planning Staff and several members of the Board, it was agreed
that because the garage already exists, and is merely being moved from one location on
the lot to another, the impact would not be the same as if a new structure were
introduced, thus the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued administratively.
Board members discussed the concept of administratively issuing COA's in instances
such as moving a structure on the same site, and agreed that would be appropriate. No
formal action was taken
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 8, 2004
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
eyce epya, Associat lanner
7
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: MAY 11, 2004
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-4: 4517 Arden Avenue — Construct a New Detached Garage
III. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION DISCUSSION
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 13, 2004
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH 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
-Peter Eskuche, Eskuche Creative Group
-Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
-Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street
-Lisa Fagan, 4164 W. 44th Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2004
meeting. Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS — COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-4 4517 Arden Avenue - Construct a new detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of
the 4500 block of Arden Avenue. The house, constructed in 1929 is of the
English Cottage architectural style and has a one car attached garage. A
driveway is located on the north side of the property, which currently stops at the
garage.
The subject request involves removing the attached garage (which has already
occurred) and continuing the driveway around the north side of the home to
access a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard.
The new detached garage is proposed to compliment the architectural style of the
home, incorporating a sloping roofline, prominent gables on the ends with low-
pitched shed dormers. Trim details to match the home are proposed with cedar
y.. i
shake siding to match as well. The garage door is proposed to be a wood
carriage house style with three divided light windows, in keeping with the English
Cottage style of the home. The garage floor is proposed to be several feet below
grade on three elevations to accommodate the elevation of the lot. The garage
for the northerly neighbor at 4515 Arden Avenue is similarly built into the lot. The
proposed three-foot setback from the side and rear lot lines meets the zoning
ordinance requirements.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the closest structure to the proposed garage is the
detached garage in the northeast corner of the southerly property at 4519 Arden
Avenue. The garage is shown to have a building height of 17' 6". the subject
garage proposes a height of 21' 6" to the peak, 15' 6" to the eave of the shed
dormer and 6'4 '/2" to the eave line. These heights are consistent with other
detached garages the Board has reviewed in the district and in keeping with the
roofline of the home.
Ms Repya concluded that the information provide supporting the subject request
meets the requirement of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club
District Plan of Treatment. Furthermore the plans indicate that the exterior
materials of the new garage will compliment the existing home. Staff
recommended approval of the request to build a new detached garage subject to
the plans presented.
Planner Repya added that Peter Eskuche, architect for the project was present to
address any questions.
Member Swenson asked why the garage is shown to have a rhomboid shaped
angle in the southeast corner instead of being squared -off. Mr. Eskuche
explained that by angling the garage on the lot, the added space in the southeast
corner will provide for storage as well as easier access. He also pointed out that
the angle of the southeast corner looks more severe on the site plan than the
actual structure will appear.
Chairman Nyberg observed that placement of the garage in the southeast corner
of the lot seems the most logical location in order to preserve the existing trees
along the northeast corner of the lot.
Responding to a question regarding the new retaining walls proposed for either
side of the garage, Mr. Esckuche explained that a natural rock material similar to
lannon stone is proposed.
Chairman Nyberg stated that the English Cottage house is unique in the district
and the proposed garage is a good plan that will be a compliment the property.
Member Swenson moved approval of the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to build a detached garage in the rear yard subject to the plans
presented and the condition that the building materials match the house.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Side Note:
Regarding the issuance of a Certificates of Appropriateness, Member Swenson
explained that although she was unable to attend May's meeting, she was
concerned about the garage that was approved for the home at 4602 Moorland
Avenue. The pitch of the roof was proposed to be 12/12, which is quite steep
and provides for almost as much roof area as building wall. Although the
proponent indicated the pitch matched the house, the section of the house with
the 12/12 pitch was very small. Another very large detached garage approved
that included a potting shed and upstairs area was for the home at 4405
Browndale Avenue. Mrs. Swenson asked the Board, as they move forward, to
be careful that the garages that are approved do not get too tall; the garage
should be an accessory structure, not as massive, nor necessarily replicating the
principle structure. Chairman Nyberg thanked Mrs. Swenson for her comments.
HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION DISCUSSION:
Consultant Vogel explained that he feels the Heritage Preservation Board needs to
make a policy decision regarding the criteria for heritage landmark "district" designations.
He foresees a potential problem when addressing not only Morningside, but also future
neighborhoods, because landmark districts derive their significance from being a unified
physical entity (even though they may be composed of a wide variety of heritage
resources.) In historic preservation practice, a landmark district would need to convey a
strong visual sense of the overall historic environment of a neighborhood.
Residential landmark districts are usually nor large than 10 to 12 homes because large
landmark district are too difficult to manage. Edina's Country Club District may well be
the largest residential district in the state with 550 homes. However, the Country Club
District is unique in that it was a planned residential area that conveys a strong,
consistent visual sense throughout the designated area, and furthermore, it had already
been identified as an historic district with its 1980 National Register of Historic District
designation.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that when addressing the definition of a landmark district, one
must start with the intent of the preservation ordinance, which is to preserve significant,
three- dimensional, perishable and non-renewable things, and to mitigate change
through official controls. The criteria for the eligibility of a landmark district is no different
from that of a structure which includes:
1. Association with an important event or patterns of events that reflect
significant broad patterns in local history; or
2. Association with the lives of historically significant persons or groups
significant; or
3. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style,
design, period, type or method of construction; or that possesses high
artistic values; or
4. Important archeological data or the potential to yield to important
archeological data.
Furthermore, the designation must have integrity, which means that what one sees
today is what was significant in the past.
Mr. Vogel added that the reason heritage preservation is included in the zoning
ordinance is because the zoning ordinance is regulatory and provides a means to
enforce the established policies. When creating a landmark designation, the city must
be sure that the designation meets the criteria of both the historic context study and the
heritage preservation section of the zoning ordinance.
When dealing with districts, they are all different, so it is hard to come up with an
elaborate set of guidelines that applies to all. Generally, the sense is that if a district is
going to be determined historically significant, than it has to be deemed significant
within the historic context study. For the Country Club District, the theme was the
planned community. For Morningside, the contextual theme identified centered on the
streetcar, taking in the era of 1905 — 1935.
The Edina Historic Context Study clearly identifies the historical significance of
Morningside as the early "streetcar" neighborhood dominated by bungalows and other
buildings constructed from 1905-1935. If the Morningside chapter of the study were to
be rewritten to encompass everything up to the 1960's, a case could be made for an
entire district designation of the Morningside neighborhood, however, as it stands, the
historically significant properties that could meet the landmark criteria are those built
during the streetcar era from 1905 -1935.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that a less commonly used heritage preservation tool is a
Conservancy District, which is viewed as not necessarily an historic district, but subject
to defined regulations. In an area such as this, the intent is to selectively apply
regulations on a case-by-case, property -by -property basis, however; typically heritage
preservation doesn't work very well because decisions can be deemed as arbitrary or
capricious.
Another program that is not specifically historic preservation, but definitely has its
preservation merits is a neighborhood community -building group. Such groups are not
directed by the city and as such are not regulatory, however they would encourage
beautification, education and perhaps offering a list of resources for residents. These
neighborhood groups would not necessarily fall within the guidance of the Heritage
Preservation Board. The city would need to determine which department could best
assist neighborhoods in this capacity, however, ideally such a program could also work
without any city oversight, much like the National Register program, which has no
regulatory process.
One needs to keep in mind that the area that is considered the Morningside district is an
enormous piece of urban territory from a zoning standpoint. It is easy to see that
Morningside is a culturally significant area, however unlike the Country Club District,
which is a very homogeneous historic area, Morningside is very heterogeneous which
makes it next to impossible to establish standards and guidelines to encompass the
entire area.
Discussion ensued regarding the best way to deal with historic neighborhoods.
Consultant Vogel pointed out that in order for Morningside to receive landmark
designation, he would recommend revising both the "Morningside" chapter of the
"Historic Context Study" as well as the Heritage Landmark section of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Planner Repya suggested that the Board not consider rewriting codes and policies to
meet the needs of one specific area. If Morningside does not meet the criteria for
landmark designation as specified by city code, to change the code could establish an
undesirable precedence when addressing other areas of the city.
Responding to a question as to how the City of Minneapolis deals with their historic
districts, Mr. Vogel explained that he is not aware of any residential historic districts in
Minneapolis. Due to the vast number of homes and the age of the housing stock, it
would be virtually impossible to administer a program encompassing significant
residential districts.
Chairman Nyberg observed that it appears the greatest area of concern expressed in
Morningside appears with the tear down of homes and rebuilding on the lots. Board
members agreed, pointing out that the tear down/ rebuild trend is of concern throughout
the city. Member Swenson pointed out that tear downs and new construction are not
always negatives; this trend also keeps the housing stock desirable and maintains the
vitality of a 1St tier suburb. Mr. Nyberg agreed, however stated that the problem occurs
when the new construction totally out -scales the surrounding homes.
Consultant Vogel explained that when the heritage preservation section of the Zoning
Ordinance was rewritten, the City Council intended to provide protection from those
elements that kill historic sites.
Member Kojetin stated that when he looks at Morningside, he sees it as unique being
that it was at one time, its own village. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the history of an area
can be recognized, however it isn't anything that can be preserved or regulated.
Chairman Nyberg opined that the fact that Morningside was at one time a village,
separate from Edina makes it a unique and more pure neighborhood. In contrast, where
the Country Club neighborhood was planned, Morningside evolved.
Member Thorpe observed that prior to making a decision regarding the landmark
designation of districts in the city, she would like Mr. Vogel to provide the Board with
information regarding the ramifications of large district designations, and perhaps some
history of other communities that have dealt with similar situations.
Mr. Vogel agreed that he would research district designations and provide the Board
with his findings at the regularly scheduled August meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the intentions for a district designation. Chairman Vogel
then asked the representatives from the Morningside Neighborhood Association if they
had anything they would like to add to the discussion.
Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue asked the Board if they would look at two examples of
the tear down / rebuild phenomenon that have recently occurred in Morningside; a good
example on Littel Street and a poor example on W. 45th Street, which she indicated is
disrespectful of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Bennett added that regarding the concept of what is historically significant about
Morningside, she sees the "historic village" much more significant than the "street car
community".
Responding to Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Vogel pointed out that the reason Morningside evolved
as it did was tied directly to the street car — that was the driving force for creating the
community and over time, the village.
Chairman Nyberg thanked the members of the Morningside Neighborhood Association
for their input and indicated that he looked forward to receiving Mr. Vogel's findings in
August. No formal action was taken.
lII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. H-04-5 4506 Arden Avenue — Move existing detached garage
Certificate of Appropriateness Administratively Approved
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is an Italian Renaissance Revival
home built in 1926. The homeowner is proposing to move the existing 2 -car garage
from the north side of the lot to the southwest corner. The garage currently sits four feet
from the north lot line and 19 feet from the rear lot line. By moving the garage to the
southwest corner, 3.5 feet from the side and rear lot lines, the homeowner will have
better use of the back yard area.
The builder has indicated that the homeowner is not proposing an addition to the home,
but feels that the new location for the garage will improve the livability of the rear yard
and enhance the property value.
Planner Repya reminded the Board that a similar garage move request was
administratively approved in April, 2004 for the northerly adjacent neighbor (4508 Arden
Avenue, H-04-01).
Ms. Repya then informed the Board that on June 7, 2004 staff issued a Certificate of
Appropriateness for 4506 Arden Avenue to move the garage from the north side of the
rear yard to the southwest corner.
The Board thanked Ms. Repya for keeping them advised of the administrative action and
agreed that it was appropriate. No formal action was taken.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 13, 2004
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: JUNE 8, 2004
IL CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-6: 4600 Sunnyside Road — Remove detached garage & build a new
Detached garage
B. H-04-7: 4526 Drexel Avenue — Remove attached garage & build new
detached garage
C. H-04-8: 4620 Drexel Avenue — Remove detached garage & incorporate
new attached garage with addition to home
D. H-04-9: Highway 100 from Minnehaha Creek, north to W. 44th St. —
Construct a sound wall
III. MORNINGSIDE SURVEY
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 10, 2004
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Jennings, Vice Chair. Bob Kojetin, Herman
Ratelle, Ann Swenson, Marie Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg and Bill Crawford
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Lisa Miller, 4600 Sunnyside Road
- Dan Kreiter, Matthias K. Builders
- James Cradit, Architect for
- Anne Whitman, 4620 Drexel Avenue
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
- Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Road
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval from the June 8, 2004 meeting. Member
Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
A. H-04-6 4600 Sunnyside Road
Remove detached garage and build a new one
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is a 1931 English Cottage
style home located on the north side of Sunnyside Road west of Browndale
Avenue. The homeowner is proposing to tear down an existing, simple frame,
detached 2 -car garage. Although the house is a pure English Cottage style,
which could qualify for landmark status on its own merit, the garage appears to
be more contemporary than the house, contributing slightly to the historic
character of the property, but is not architecturally significant in its own right.
The proposed new garage is a 3 -car detached structure measuring roughly 24'X
33", or 770 square feet in area. A building height of 23 feet to the highest peak
and 15.5 feet to the midpoint of the gable is demonstrated on the plan.
Furthermore, a 9/12 -roof pitch is proposed. Regarding placement of the
structure, the new garage is shown to be approximately 20 feet further back on
the lot than the existing garage, but still approximately 30 feet from the rear lot
line. A setback of 3 feet is provided from the side lot line, which is within the
code requirements. Adjacent elevations of neighboring structures were not
provided with the application because the homeowner indicated that there are no
structures adjacent to the proposed garage. An air photo of the property was
provided to illustrate the subject property relative to the abutting properties.
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.
Robert Vogel, the Board's Heritage Preservation Consultant inspected the
property from the street and indicated that the plans submitted for the new
detached garage show a much larger and ornate, eclectic, Tudor -influenced
structure; although it lacks historical precedents in size, scale, mass proportions
and materials, the new design should not have an adverse effect on other
historic homes in the district, including the adjacent properties.
Based on the drawings submitted with the application, information provided by
the applicant and the comments from Robert Vogel, Planner Repya concluded
that the proposed garage should not detract from the historic character of the
property and adjacent historic homes. Approval was recommended for the
request to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new
detached garage, subject to the plans presented.
Member Swenson asked why all three applications for Certificates of
Appropriateness were accepted without the required elevation drawing of
adjacent structures. Planner Repya explained that all of requests for
consideration were submitted on the deadline date, while she was on vacation.
Normally, the applications would be considered incomplete until all the required
information was provided. Mrs. Swenson stated that she was inclined to table
the items until the next meeting awaiting the elevations of adjacent structures,
but would not. She did ask Ms. Repya to convey to members of the Planning
staff that until all the required information is provided, an application will not be
accepted.
Regarding the subject request, Member Swenson asked if it was appropriate for
the front facade of the garage to be stucco and stone, like the dwelling and the
remaining three sides lap siding? Consultant Vogel explained that lap siding is
2
not inconsistent in the district, and is identified as one of the recommended
applications in the plan of treatment. There are no hard and fast rules dictating
that all four elevations of a structure consist of the same materials. Board
members observed that it is not uncommon for the front facade of a structure to
be more ornate than those elevations not visible from the front street.
Member Jennings observed that the height of the garage is proposed to be 23
feet and asked how that compared to the height of the existing garage. Lisa
Miller, the homeowner stated that she did not know the height of the existing
garage. Robert Vogel pointed out that the existing garage is a simple single
story structure that probably measures around 15 feet high. Mrs. Jennings
opined that the proposed 3 -car garage will be about 8 feet taller and
considerably larger than the existing garage, and wondered how the new
structure would affect the adjacent properties.
Consultant Vogel stated that the garages built in the 1930's do not compare to
what is being built today. The trend is toward more of a "carriage house" with
room for storage and at least two vehicles; that wasn't the case years ago. He
added that while the proposed garage is larger and somewhat taller than what it
is replacing, it is comparable to other requests for detached garages that have
come before the Board.
Member Swenson opined that she can appreciate the need for the size of the
garage, however she questioned the design of the rear elevation; pointing out
that she felt that the 33- foot wall of lap siding will be quite an imposition on the
neighboring property and in need of some detail to break it up.
Vice Chair Kojetin asked the property owner if she had any comments. Lisa
Miller, 4600 Sunnyside Road explained that the existing garage is in terrible
shape and they are attempting not only provide a better looking, more useful
structure, but also, by moving it back on their property, lessen the impact of the
structure on the neighboring properties. She added that in designing the garage,
they have attempted to be consistent with their home as well as the
neighborhood.
Member Swenson stated she had no argument with the garage plan, pointing out
that the front elevation is very attractive. She then asked Mrs. Miller if she would
consider adding some detailing to the rear elevation to break-up the long flat
surface. Mrs. Miller said she would be happy to work with the Board and asked
for clarification of the requested added detailing. Mrs. Swenson explained that
she did not want to require any specific design, however suggested the Miller's
might work with their architect to pull in some elements from the front fagade on
to the rear elevation.
Member Wray then moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove an existing detached garage and construct a new detached garage
3
subject to the plans presented and the condition that a revised rear elevation
providing added detailing be submitted for approval by city staff. Member Kojetin
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. H-04-7 4526 Drexel Avenue
Remove attached garage and build a new
detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the northwest
corner of Drexel Avenue and Bridge Street. The home, a 1935 English Cottage
style with Norman Influence, has an attached garage that appears to be an
addition to the original house.
The proposed plan involves the conversion of the existing attached garage to
living space and the construction of a new 2 -car garage in the rear yard. The
changes to the home involve taking the existing 458 square foot attached garage
and converting that to 377 square feet of living space; reducing the footprint of
the home by 91 square feet.
The proposed detached garage is shown to be set back four feet from the side
and rear lot lines. The curb cut for the driveway will be moved west on the lot to
accommodate the location of the new garage. The design of the proposed
garage includes a lay -on dormer above the garage doors, 10/12 -roof pitch, slate
shingles and stucco to match the house, as well as limestone veneer on the
lower portion of the south elevation. The height of the structure is shown to be
approximately 15 feet to the peak of the roof.
Although no elevation drawings were provided for adjacent properties, the
photographs provided with the application along with the proposed plans depict a
project that is compatible with the size, scale, mass and proportions of the
nearby historic buildings. Staff finds that with the exception of the elevation of
adjacent structures, the application complies with the requirements of the
Country Club District Plan of Treatment, thus would recommend approval of the
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to build a detached garage in the
rear yard, subject to the plans presented.
Member Swenson asked if a permit was required for the new driveway curb cut.
Planner Repya explained that a permit would be required from the Engineering
Department. She added that the permit should not be a problem because it is
actually advantageous to move the driveway further west from the Drexel/Bridge
Street intersection.
Mr. Dan Kreiter, the builder representing the homeowner apologized to the Board
for neglecting to include the elevation of adjacent properties with his submittal
package. He pointed out all adjacent structures are at least 30 feet away from
9
the proposed garage, with the exception of a freestanding lawn gazebo in the
rear yard of the property to the north, which is 20 feet away.
Addressing the plan, Mr. Kreiter explained that it was important to the
homeowner to pay close attention to the details of the plan to ensure that the
overall aesthetic integrity of their home and the neighborhood were maintained.
He added that the conversion of the attached garage to living space and the
construction of the detached garage will enhance the property not only from the
perspective of the subject home but from the neighborhood as well.
Board members discussed the proposal, agreeing that the changes to the
property would be an enhancement. Member Swenson then moved for approval
of the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to build a new detached
garage. Member Jennings seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
H-04-8 4620 Drexel Avenue
Remove a detached garage and incorporate a new
attached garage with an addition to the home
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
Drexel Avenue, six lots north of Country Club Road. The home is a 1925 English
Cottage style structure with a 2 -car detached located in the rear yard. The
garage sits roughly 19 feet from the rear lot line, 9 feet from the side lot line, and
is accessed by a driveway running along the north property line.
The subject garage to be removed lacks individual architectural distinction, and
is not historically significant in its own right. A Certificate of Appropriateness is
not required for the addition to the home, which includes the new attached
garage, however because the project involves a major alteration of the existing
home, it is relevant to see what is necessitating the demolition of the garage.
Ms. Repya pointed out that in her absence, Consultant Vogel reviewed the
proposed plan and determined that the attached garage is shown to be visually
compatible with the proposed exterior remodeling, which is an embellished high -
style Tudor Revival treatment. Mr. Vogel indicated that although not subject to a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the addition and fagade detailing would be
compatible with the size, scale, mass, proportions, color and materials of other
Tudor -influenced homes in the district. Furthermore, the design does not
destroy any significant historic architectural material and will not adversely affect
the neighboring historic properties.
Planner Repya found that, with the exception of not receiving exterior elevations
of adjacent structures, the remainder of the materials submitted with the
application package comply with the Country Club District Plan of Treatment;
and the proposed plans meet the zoning ordinance regulations regarding lot
coverage and setbacks, thus staff recommends approval of the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the detached garage on the subject
property and incorporate an attached garage with an addition to the home,
subject to the plans presented.
Member Swenson inquired about the setbacks of the new attached garage
relative to the building height. Mr. James Cradit, architect for the homeowner
explained that he has reviewed the proposed plan with Kris Aaker of the
Planning Staff and feels sure that the setbacks fall within the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Board members discussed the plan, commenting that the attention to detail and
the proposed hip- roof reduce the massing of the structure and enhance the
design. Mr. Cradit and the homeowner, Anne Whitman were complimented for
creating a plan that will add to the historic integrity of the subject property as well
as the neighborhood. Member Ratelle then moved approval of the request for a
Certificate Appropriateness subject to the plans presented. Member Swenson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
D. H-04-9 Highway 100 Sound Wall
from Minnehaha Creek north to W. 44th Street
Planner Repya explained that a sound wall is proposed for the east and west
sides of Highway 100. The wall proposed for the east side is subject to Heritage
Preservation Board review and the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness
because it will abut the westerly boundary of the Edina Heritage Landmark
designated Country Club District.
The subject wall will extend from Minnehaha Creek north to the north side of
West 44th Street. The wall over the bridges for Minnehaha Creek and W. 44th
Street is proposed to be 10 feet high. The portion of the wall abutting the
neighborhood is proposed to be 20 feet high.
The City Council approved this project at their June 1, 2004 meeting. Board
members received the project information from the Engineering Department as
well as a copy of the June 1St City Council minutes. In addition to the Certificate
of Appropriateness requested from the Heritage Preservation Board, the project
is also being presented to the Minnesota State Historical Society for their review.
In a memorandum to the Heritage Preservation Board, City Engineer, Wayne
Houle explained that although the wall will have a visual impact on the historic
neighborhood, the benefits of providing a barrier from the noise and air pollution
of the highway will actually enhance the historic integrity of the district.
n
Consultant Vogel, providing his reflections on the proposed sound wall,
explained that the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation
projects and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment are the required basis
for Certificate of Appropriateness decisions. While neither document provides
specific guidance with respect to the visual impacts of large public works
construction projects, the general standard is to avoid destruction of the
distinguishing original qualities of a historic property or its environment.
Mr. Vogel explained that in his opinion, the proposed sound wall is an
appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. The wall will be a large
structure and it will be visible from the historic homes in the district, but no
significant historic properties will be destroyed or damaged by the construction.
The wall will also serve as a buffer against air and noise pollution from the
highway, which adversely affect the historic character of homes in the district.
Mr. Vogel advised the Board that in approving the Certificate of Appropriateness,
they should bear in mind that highway sounds walls are engineered primarily to
fit with the environment and architectural elements of the highway system,
therefore noise wall aesthetics tend to emphasize a consistent visual
appearance from the perspective of the motorists. He opined that it would be
possible to mitigate the visual effects of the sound wall on nearby historic homes
by using vegetation to soften and screen the surfaces visible from within the
historic district. He added that the Board might wish to make the Certificate of
Appropriateness conditional upon the development of a sound wall aesthetics
plan for the district.
Mr. Vogel also provided the Board with a handout entitled "Noise Walls" that
provided some suggested aesthetic design recommendations.
Board members discussed the impact the proposed wall might have from the
neighborhood perspective. Concern was expressed that the wall may be quite
imposing and look very different in realty than on a piece of paper. The question
was raised whether the City had any control over the design of the wall. Mr.
Vogel explained that the walls are limited to specifications from the State
Highway Department from which there is virtually no deviation.
Member Thorpe observed that she knows several property owners directly
affected by the proposed wall, and they have worked for years to mitigate the
impact of the highway on their properties. Member Jennings agreed with Mrs.
Thorpe, pointing out that she knows some affected people who haven't used
their back yards for years.
Member Ratelle observed that he did not feel comfortable acting on the request
until Member Crawford, a retired State Highway Department Engineer weighed in
on the discussion.
7
Member Swenson stated that she would like to receive more information about
the impact of the wall from the neighborhood perspective; pointing out that the
project information focused on the wall from the highway perspective. Board
members agreed with Mrs. Swenson.
Member Ratelle then moved to table the request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to construct a sound wall along Highway 100 abutting the
westerly boundary of the historic Country Club District until the next meeting of
the Board on August 10, 2004, at which time, Member Crawford can provide his
expertise and questions regarding the impact on the neighborhood can be
answered. Member Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
Members then brainstormed over the questions they would like addressed at the
August meeting, and came up with the following list:
1. HPB would like to see an elevation of the sound wall from the
neighborhood perspective, indicating scale and proportion relative
to the houses. They would also like to see a creek side of the wall
over the bridge.
2. Is there precedence for a sound wall over the creek? If so, what
does the wall look like from the creek side?
3. Did the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have input on the
project?
4. Is it possible to enhance the design of the wall on the neighborhood
side?
5. Is there a process to ensure that some type of vegetation is
included on the neighborhood side?
III. MORINGSIDE SURVEY:
Planner Repya advised the Board that of the 720 properties in the Morningside
neighborhood, subtracting the duplicate owners and City parcels, 681 surveys
were mailed to the property owners identified by Hennepin County's Assessing
records. Taking into account surveys returned to the City as undeliverable, 675
surveys were delivered. Although the deadline for return of the surveys was
June 18th, staff continued to tabulate results until July 8th when 290 surveys had
been returned for a return rate of 43%.
Ms. Repya observed that the return rate was very good, however, not
unexpected. Edina is notorious for receiving excellent input from the residents,
be it for a survey, or during an election. Several years ago, when the Heritage
Preservation Board surveyed the Country Club neighborhood, the response rate
was 58%, again and excellent turnout.
Referring to the survey results (attached to these minutes), Planner Repya found
it interesting that the favorable response rate for the historic preservation of the
neighborhood and City involvement with the process is almost identical with the
responses received in the Country Club survey. She added that due to the
considerable concern expressed by neighborhoods throughout the city regarding
the tear down of homes and new construction, one might see a similar response
if the survey were conducted citywide.
Ms. Repya pointed out that many respondents included comments with their
surveys, which were very interesting. The majority requested that the eclectic,
small town charm of the neighborhood be preserved. Many commented that the
44th / France commercial area should not change; some wanted a 50 & France
feeling and others wanted to see an Excelsior & Grand (St. Louis Park)
development with multi -family housing interspersed with commercial.
Ms. Repya concluded that no action was required regarding the survey; asking
the Board to take the results into consideration when the topic of historic
designations is discussed at the next meeting on August 10th
Vice Chairman, Kojetin asked the two members of the Morningside
Neighborhood Association, Joni Kelly and Mary Carte if they had anything they
would like to say. Mary Carte explained that a group from Morningside, including
the Morningside Neighborhood Association, attended the July 6th City Council
meeting to express their concerns about the 44th and France Redevelopment
Plan. In preparation for that meeting, a group from the neighborhood association
came to City Hall and tabulated the survey results for themselves. As part of
their tabulations, Mrs. Carte explained that they categorized the comments
relative to the 44th and France commercial area and determined that 6% of those
commenting suggested changes to the area, the majority wanting it to remain the
same. Mrs. Carte completed her recitation of the group's results and then
provided Planner Repya with a copy to add to the file.
Mr. Kojetin asked Mrs. Kelly and Mrs. Carte if they thought the survey was
valuable. Mrs. Kelly stated that most people value the historic character of the
neighborhood and are concerned with preserving that. She added that the
people she has spoken with were grateful to have the opportunity to express
themselves, and added that the process is new for many who still have quite a
few questions about the implications and processes.
Sharing his insights about the survey, Consultant Vogel stated that the results
interestingly mirrored those of the Country Club District survey, and those
mirrored the Gallup polls. None of these neighborhoods are that different from
other neighborhoods in the United States. Three-fourths of people who live in
older neighborhoods think they shouldn't change. Studies find that the areas
most opposed to historic zoning are the commercial districts.
9
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the remarkable thing about the Morningside Survey
and what makes it different from other surveys he has studied are the vast
number of comments received from the respondents. This survey could be
looked at as a miniature public hearing. It can be a useful tool when creating a
work plan to address concerns of the constituents.
Board members agreed that they look forward to the work session at the August
meeting when Mr. Vogel will present his study on the ramifications and
implications of historic zoning, particularly as it applies to the Morningside
neighborhood. No formal action was taken.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS: None
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 10, 2004
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
10
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: JULY 13, 2004
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-04-9: Highway 100 from Minnehaha Creek, north to W. 44' St. —
Construct a sound wall
III. LANDMARK DESIGNATION BRIEFING:
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: MONDAY, September 13, 2004
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH 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: - Wayne Houle, City Engineer
- Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
- Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Road
- Lisa Fagen, 4164 w. 44th Street
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Kojetin moved for approval from the July 13, 2004 meeting. Member
Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member
Swenson then complimented Ms. Repya on the tabulation of comments for the
Morningside Survey, which were included with the minutes.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
H-04-9 Highway 100 Sound Wall
from Minnehaha Creek north to W. 44th Street
Planner Repya reminded the Board that this item was continued from the July
13th meeting to afford City Staff an opportunity to provide information regarding
the impact of the sound wall from the neighborhood and creek side perspectives.
City Engineer, Wayne Houle offered background information regarding the
proposed project, pointing out that the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MNDOT) has a ranking for sound walls they will fund. Typically, Edina does not
rank high enough to qualify for state funding. However, in light of the fact that
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
the subject wall is the continuation of a wall built to the north in St. Louis Park,
MNDOT has agreed to pay 25% of the engineering, construction and
administrative fees. The abutting properties, east to Browndale Avenue have
agreed to an assessment on a 4 -tier payment scale providing the remainder of
the funds.
Engineer Houle explained that MNDOT has designed the 10 -foot wall over the
creek to have no concrete piers, but wood posts on the creek side, which will be
secured directly to the jersey barriers. He also pointed out that the difference
between the 20 -foot wall adjacent to the homes and the 10 -foot wall over bridges
would be a gradual drop.
The wall is designed to look identical to the existing wall to the north providing
visual continuity along the roadway. No vegetation has been budgeted for
aesthetics because there is currently a great deal of existing vegetation.
Furthermore, if vegetation had been included in the plan, it would have increased
the assessment to the property owners.
Member Jennings observed that most of the existing vegetation appeared to be
deciduous which would not provide cover during the winter months.
Engineer Houle responded that once the wall was constructed he could explore
appropriate vegetation with the City's horticulturist. He added that the
homeowners might have individual plans for how they would like to address the
aesthetics of the wall
Chairman Nyberg observed that he felt the design of the wall over the creek was
in need of something more creative. Engineer Houle indicated that he could ask
MNDOT if they could provide a more aesthetically pleasing design, however, his
experience has been that MNDOT usually doesn't deviate from the proposed
plan. He added that the additional cost of a more aesthetically pleasing design
would probably have to be absorbed by the assessed residents.
Consultant Vogel remarked that from a heritage preservation standpoint, the
Secretary of the Interior's standards don't address noise or pollution, thus there
is really no historic precedence for the installation of a sound wall abutting the
historic district. He pointed out that the Board should consider the compatibility
and ambiance when addressing this issue. Furthermore, he observed that the
sound wall is no more intrusive on the district than other 21St century
phenomenon. The Board needs to determine if the sound wall constructed on
the west boundary of the historic district would be appropriate. Mr. Vogel added
that considering the benefits that will be derived — reduced noise, air and visual
pollution, in his opinion, the proposed wall is justifiable.
Member Swenson then moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to
construct a sound wall along the west boundary of the Country Club District from
i•:
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Minnehaha Creek to West 44th Street subject to the plans presented and the
caveat that Engineer Houle work with MNDOT to provide a more aesthetically
pleasing view of the wall over the creek, from the creek side. Member Crawford
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. LANDMARK DESIGNATION BRIEFING:
Consultant Vogel walked through the City's Heritage Preservation section of the
Zoning Ordinance No. 850.20, pointing out that there are five functions the Board
is responsible for: 1. Planning
2. Identification
3. Evaluation
4. Registration, and
5. Treatment
He added that it is the responsibility of the Heritage Preservation Board to
determine what properties are eligible for nomination as heritage landmarks. The
Zoning Ordinance specifies four criteria for landmark eligibility, those being:
1. Association with an important event
2. Association with lives of historically significant persons.
3. Embodiment of distinctive architecture, or
4. Important archeological data
The Zoning Ordinance also sets out the processes for evaluating how a
proposed property meets the eligibility criteria. Of utmost importance when
determining eligibility of a prospective historic site is the portion of the code
addressing the integrity or authenticity of a site - one must be able to see or
experience the historical significance of a site.
The Heritage Preservation section of the Comprehensive Plan is an excellent
place to set out the policies and goals and objectives for implementing the
heritage landmark program as set out in the Zoning Ordinance.
Consultant Vogel added that the Historic Context Study his firm completed in
1998 is another tool available to provide direction as to the historically significant
areas within the City where the energies of the Board can be directed.
Again addressing the Heritage Preservation section of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr.
Vogel pointed out that Edina's code is designed to protect historically significant
resources, focusing on those things that kill historic sites. To date, a
comprehensive risk assessment of how many potentially threatened historic
properties exist in Edina has not been done. Furthermore, the Board needs to
determine the capacity for designations from both the staff/budget perspective as
well as from the perspective of what is manageable for the Board. Mr. Vogel
recalled that in 1998, when the Historic Context Study was created, the Board
identified 1 historic district (the Country Club District) and 25 individual
properties as being manageable given the amount of resources the Council was
willing to direct toward preservation.
3
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Consultant Vogel then offered the following suggested policy statements, most of
which the Board either already implements or has discussed in the past:
In determining whether or not a particular building, site or district is
eligible for Heritage Landmark designation, its age or date of
construction will not be the primary factor in evaluating its
significance or preservation value.
2. The HPB shall issue a Determination of Eligibility for any property
that it determines eligible for nomination as an Edina Heritage
Landmark.
3. Heritage Landmark zoning applies to the whole property (tax
parcel), though the designation documents should clearly
extinguish between historic and non -historic features, and between
historically significant and non-significant aspects of a property.
4. Buildings (including historically and functionally related units, such
as a house and garage) are eligible for designation as Edina
Heritage Landmarks when they include all of their basic structural
elements. Parts of buildings, such as interiors, facades, or
outbuildings, cannot be considered eligible for landmark
designation independent from the rest of the existing building.
5. An Edina Heritage Landmark District is an area deriving its
significance from being a unified entity; even though it may be
composed of a wide variety of buildings representing different
styles and periods of architecture. The identity of the district results
from the interrelationship of its resources, which must convey a
strong visual sense of the overall historic environment. A district
must a significant for its historical, architectural, or cultural values
as well as an identifiable entity. It may be considered eligible for
Heritage Landmark designation if the majority of the buildings lack
individual distinction, but the majority of the buildings must
contribute to the district's character and retain essential aspects of
their historic integrity.
6. In allocating staff resources, properties designated or determined
eligible for Heritage Landmark designation shall have priority over
all other properties.
Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding the proposed policy
statements. Member Swenson asked what the Board should focus on first, the
need for an historical comprehensive plan, or a determination of the capacity for
designations. Mr. Vogel indicated that both tasks could be undertaken at the
L,
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
same time. Mrs. Swenson disagreed with Mr. Vogel pointing out her belief that
the capacity of the work load for the Board and Staff should be determined first,
after which the comprehensive plan could be drafted taking into consideration
the capacity deemed manageable.
Mr. Vogel appreciated Mrs. Swenson's concerns, but pointed out that much of
the work for the Comprehensive Heritage Plan has already been completed.
Since there are currently no threats to historic resources, which would take up
much of the Board's time, it is realistic to complete the Comprehensive Heritage
Plan at the same time we're working on other projects.
Member Swenson observed that depending upon the items that come before the
Board, there are times when some of the projects identified in the yearly work
plan need to be set aside — for example, the Morningside Survey and Certificate
of Appropriateness reviews in the Country Club District have taken precedence
over projects that have been identified. The Board attempts to be proactive, but
often is forced to act in a reactionary mode. To identify and control the capacity
of the Board would be helpful to allow for proactive heritage preservation
planning.
Member Thorpe agreed with Mrs. Swenson stressing the need for a
Comprehensive Heritage Plan that will provide the guidance necessary for
consistent decisions.
Addressing the schedule of the proposed work, Planner Repya suggested that
the Board begin by reviewing the proposed policy statements, which will make up
part of the Comprehensive Heritage Plan along with the goals and objectives.
Discussion ensued regarding the Comprehensive Heritage Plan. Planner Repya
offered to provide the Board with a copy of the existing Heritage Preservation
section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board agreed to review the six policies
proposed by Consultant Vogel, and be prepared to consider them at the
September meeting. From there, consideration of goals and objectives will
follow.
Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Road observed that although the Morningside study
was not on the agenda, she wondered what the next steps would be now that the
survey has been completed, and how the neighborhood group can be involved.
She pointed out that the neighborhood is anxious to proceed with landmark
designation of the district and offered assistance to the Board by providing a list
of properties threatened by teardowns that are currently taking place.
Chairman Nyberg pointed out that the Board would not review a teardown unless
the property was designated as historic. Elaborating on what would be
considered "historic", Consultant Vogel explained that the property would have to
5
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
be one of the 10 properties identified in May 2004 as "Determined to be Eligible
for Landmark Designation".
Member Swenson explained that part of the challenge facing the Board at this
time is that the list of eligible properties probably does not include all those that
could qualify. If the Board focuses all its energy on Morningside, the heritage
preservation needs of the entire city will be put on hold. The Board feels it is
important to get policies down and expand the list of eligible properties (to
include those already identified in Morningside).
Responding to Ms. Carte's question as to how the neighborhood can get
involved, Consultant Vogel suggested that they do what neighborhood groups do
best — get to know your neighborhood and educate your neighbors about what is
special in Morningside.
Member Kojetin asked what the next step would be relative to Morningside. Mr.
Vogel explained that the Board needs to prioritize properties determined eligible
after which he will prepare the registration documents. The 2004 work plan
identified the designation of the Edina Mill Site and The Edina Theater. If the
Board determined that specific properties in Morningside, or for that matter, the
entire Morningside district should be designated, that task would be placed on
the 2005 work plan.
Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue asked why the Morningside study was started
when so much policy making still needs to be done. She also questioned
whether the policies being fashioned are to support of decisions already made,
specifically regarding the Morningside neighborhood. She then reiterated her
belief that, taking into consideration the criteria for landmark designations
outlined in the City Code, the Morningside District does qualify for landmark
designation.
Consultant Vogel explained that the reason the Morningside study was
undertaken is because it was identified as the next step of work proposed in the
Historic Context Study, right after the Country Club District. In time the other
identified contexts — Southdale, Country Clubs and Parks and Minnehaha Creek
will also be studied.
Member Swenson, addressing Mrs. Kelly's concern that policy is being created
to support a preconceived notion regarding Morningside, explained that the study
of Morningside was undertaken because the Board needed to know what the
neighborhood encompassed, and what kind of plan would be realistic; taking into
consideration what the Heritage Preservation Board does, is capable of doing or
might do in the future.
9
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mrs. Kelly stressed her concern that Morningside is currently being threatened by
the tear/down of homes with new construction deteriorating the character of the
neighborhood. Landmark designation of the district she opined, would protect
that character.
Member Swenson pointed out that taking into consideration what has been
learned about the Morningside District, when one considers the amount of work
entailed with managing the Country Club District designation from both the Staff
and Board perspective, in order too manage the Morningside district (which is
larger than the Country Club District), the City would have to be willing to at least
hire two new staff persons and increase the Heritage Preservation Board to
accommodate twice monthly meetings. She added that in these days of budget
cuts, that would not be a likely scenario.
Mr. Vogel pointed out, as he has in the past, that the landmark designation of
properties is not a speedy process - much research and study must take place to
support a determination of eligibility. The 550 individual property surveys of the
Country Club District undertaken in 1980 took well over a year to complete, and
cost thousands of dollars. Because that work was already done, and little
change had taken place, another survey was not required for the 2002 district
designation. However, if a district designation of Morningside were to be
considered, individual surveys of all 720 properties would have to be undertaken,
entailing considerable cost.
Responding to a question from the Board regarding his recommendations for
Morningside, Consultant Vogel explained that taking into consideration the
results of the Morningside study, he would recommend landmark designation of
the 8 bungalow properties on West 44th Street as a district designation and the
individual designation of the 8 properties identified as eligible at the May 2004
meeting. Those properties are clearly significant and meet the ordinance criteria
for landmark designation.
Mr. Vogel further explained that for an area to qualify for designation as a
heritage landmark district, the district must have an historic identity that can be
articulated or seen in order to craft a plan of treatment. To say that it was a
distinct residential neighborhood, platted in 1906 and became a separate
political entity from 1920 until the 1966 — that's the basic concept for the
Morningside district. When determining landmark designation, one must ask
how to preserve the historic concept. He added that he does not think that the
Morningside neighborhood qualifies for a district landmark designation.
Mrs. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Vogel pointing out her opinion that the Morningside
district was worthy of preservation consideration because of its history,
archaeology, architecture and culture. Mr. Vogel responded that it is his
responsibility to advise the City of practical matters of policy. The preservation
worthy attributes Mrs. Kelly cited for the Morningside neighborhood could be
7
Minutes — August 10, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
found throughout Edina. Everyplace has identity and history — some of it is
longer than others. That is why properties are not designated wholly on the
basis of their historical association.
Chairman Nyberg observed that Morningside is unique, however, it appears the
neighborhood is most concerned about landmark designation as a means of
protection from the teardown and rebuilding activity taking place. Because this
teardown phenomenon is not unique to Morningside, and since Mr. Vogel is not
recommending a district designation, perhaps there is another means to address
teardowns in the City.
Following a discussion regarding the potential work and the costs related to
addressing the Morningside neighborhood, Member Swenson moved that the
Board meet with the City Council to discuss realistic expectations regarding the
workload for the Board. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 13, 2004
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
oyce Repya, Associate Planner
51
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 10, 2004
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-04-10: 4619 Drexel Avenue — Convert an attached garage to living space &
build a new detached garage
III. COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN: Establish Goals
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 — ARNESON ACRES
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50"' STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bill Crawford, Peggy Jennings,
Bob Kojetin, Herman Ratelle, Ann Swenson, Marie
Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Wray
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- Heather Dexheimer, 4619 Drexel Avenue
- David Root, M. A. Peterson Designbuild, Inc.
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval from the August 10, 2004 meeting.
Member Thorpe seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
H-04-10 4619 Drexel Avenue
Convert existing attached garage to living space
and build a 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 1929 English
Cottage style with Norman influence. A 2 -car attached garage is located in the
northeast corner of the house, accessed by a driveway running along the south
property line.
The request for a Certificate of Appropriateness involves converting the existing
attached garage to two -stories of living space and building a new detached
garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard. A new curb cut is not required
since the existing driveway will provide access to the proposed garage.
Minutes — September 13, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new detached garage is proposed to compliment
the English Cottage architectural style of the home, incorporating stucco walls
with trim board and a shake roof to match the house. The height of the
proposed garage is shown to be 19.87 feet at the highest peak and 10 feet to the
eave line. The closest adjacent structure, the home to the south is shown to be
12.58 feet from the proposed garage and measures 21 feet to the eave line and
another 10 feet to the highest point of the roof. A proposed five-foot side yard
setback is shown from the south property line, exceeding the three feet required
for a detached structure in the rear yard. The plans provided with the subject
request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project relative to the
principle home as well as the home to the south.
The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 2 -car garage in the R-1 zoning
district. The proposed 22'x 22', detached garage allows for conversion of the
attached garage to living space and an addition that will add another 98 square
feet to the home. Currently the footprint of the home equals 21.4% lot coverage;
a maximum of 30% lot coverage is allowed. The proposed plan illustrates new
lot coverage of 29.3%. No variances from the Zoning Ordinance will be required
for the proposed plan.
In closing, Planner Repya stated that the information provided supporting the
subject request meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the
exterior materials of the new garage will compliment the existing home, and the
new structure will meet the setback, height and lot coverage requirements.
Thus, approval of the request to build a new detached garage is recommended
subject to the plans presented.
Board members briefly discussed the proposed plan. Member Swenson
complimented M.A. Peterson for providing plans that clearly illustrated the height
and massing of the new garage relative to the existing home and adjacent
properties. She then moved approval of the request to convert the attached
garage to living space and construct a new detached 2 -car garage in the rear
yard subject to the plans presented. Member Crawford seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
Ill. COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN: Establish Goals
Consultant Vogel explained that the purpose of a comprehensive historic
preservation plan is to help City decision makers (the HPB, Planning
Commission, administrative staff and City Council) plan for the wise use of the
City's significant heritage resources. Comprehensive plans are useful because
they provide a basis for making sound, although not always easy or popular,
2
r
Minutes — September 13, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
decisions; they can also lead to increased understanding and awareness of the
need for a city heritage preservation program among city officials. Perhaps even
more importantly, a plan that is truly comprehensive in scope will provide an
efficient means of evaluating the performance of the City's heritage preservation
program.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that a good place to start the comprehensive planning
process is to look at the historic preservation standards already adopted by the
City as part of the heritage preservation chapter of the City Code and see how
they have been translated into policies, procedures and strategies.
Mr. Vogel observed that preservation professionals commonly separate historic
preservation into five program areas: preservation planning, identification
(surveys), evaluation, registration and treatment. Sometimes a sixth area, public
education is added.
Mr. Vogel provided the Board with a listing of the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation used to guide the national
historic preservation program. Because Edina is a Certified Local Government,
these same standards have been adopted and implemented as part of the Edina
Heritage Landmarks program. In addition to the listing of the standards, Mr.
Vogel included Edina's current state of implementation for each standard.
Board members discussed the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and agreed
that it was a good exercise to see the standards relative to the City's
preservation program. Mr. Vogel then suggested that as the Board begins
working on the Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan that they consider
using the following Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the goals for the plan:
I. Standards for preservation planning:
Preservation planning establishes historic contexts.
Preservation planning uses historic contexts to develop goals and
priorities for the identification, evaluation and treatment of historic
properties.
The results of preservation planning are made available for
integration into broader planning processes.
Standards for identification (i.e. survey):
Identification of historic properties is undertaken to the degree
required to make decisions.
The results of identification activities are integrated into the
preservation planning process.
Identification activities include explicit procedures for record-
keeping and information distribution.
3
Minutes — September 13, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
III. Standards for evaluation:
Evaluation of the significance of historic properties uses
established criteria.
Evaluation of significance applies the criteria within historic
contexts.
Evaluation results in a list or inventory of significant properties that
is consulted in assigning registration and treatment priorities.
IV. Standards for registration:
Registration is conducted according to stated procedures.
Registration information locates, describes and justifies the
significance and physical integrity of a historic property.
Registration information is accessible to the public.
V. Standards for historic preservation projects:
Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve
archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any acquisition,
stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or
reconstruction project.
Consultant Vogel concluded by noting that when the comprehensive historic
preservation plan is complete it will act as a "cookbook" for historic preservation
in the City providing the necessary steps for making preservation decisions in an
orderly fashion.
Responding to a question from the Board, Planner Repya explained that the City
has adopted Secretary of the Interior's Standards as part of the Zoning Code.
By utilizing the standards as goals for the comprehensive historic preservation
plan, the Board would ensure that the City Code and preservation plan work
together.
Member Swenson asked for clarification regarding where the Historic Context
Study fits into the process of determining eligibility for a landmark property. Mr.
Vogel explained that the Historic Context Study would be addressed right up
front when initially researching the history of a property.
Chairman Nyberg inquired as to the action required to adopt the standards as
goals. Mr. Vogel explained that there is no need to adopt the individual portions
of the plan. Once finished with all aspects, the Board will be asked to adopt the
plan in its entirety. He added that now that the goals have been established, at
the next meeting the task will be to establish policies for implementing the goals.
Board members agreed that this was a good exercise in understanding the
preservation process. No formal action was taken.
4
Minutes — September 13, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Minnesota State Preservation Conference — September 24, 2004 at
the Paramount Theater in St. Cloud
Planner Repya announced that she would be attending the Annual
State Preservation Conference in St. Cloud with members Nyberg
and Kojetin. She promised a report by the attendees at the next
HPB meeting.
B. Joint Meeting with the City Council — Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at
5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at Arneson Acres in the
Upstairs meeting room
ADJOURNMENT: 7:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
2
Joyce Repya
5
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY OCTOBER 12, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 W. 70TH STREET - UPSTAIRS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 13, 2004
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
H-04-11: 4903 Bruce Avenue — Convert an attached garage to living space &
build a new detached garage
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 9, 2004
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 WEST 70T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Crawford, Vice Chair. Bob Kojetin, Ann Swenson,
Marie Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings, and Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: - Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
- John Sweet, 4903 Bruce Avenue
- Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design
- Jason Band, Sharratt Design
- Curtis Irmiger, Curtis Irmiger Construction
- Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval from the September 13, 2004 meeting.
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT
H-04-11 4903 Bruce Avenue
Convert existing attached garage to living space
and build a new detached garage
Planner Repya advised the Board that the subject property is located on the east
side of the 4900 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home is a 1935 English
Cottage style. A 2 -car attached garage is located in the northeast corner of the
house, accessed by a driveway running along the south property line.
The request for a Certificate of Appropriateness involves converting the existing
attached garage to a one story screened porch and building a new detached
garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard. A new curb cut is not required
since the existing driveway will provide access to the proposed garage.
Minutes — October 12, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Repya pointed out that the new detached garage is proposed to compliment
the English Cottage architectural style of the home, incorporating stucco and
stone walls with trim boards. A tile roof is proposed to match the house, and a
roof pitch of 17/12 is provided to duplicate the pitch of the gable on the front of
the house. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 26 feet at the
highest peak, 18 feet to the mid point of the gable and 9 feet 1 1/8" to the eave
line. The closest adjacent structure is the home to the south, 4907 Bruce
Avenue which maintains a five-foot setback from the shared side property line.
A proposed garage is shown to maintain a three-foot setback from the side and
rear property line.
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 a historic district when it is compatible in size,
scale, materials, color and texture with other buildings in the neighborhood.
Detached garages are consistent with the historic pattern of residential
development in the Country Club District.
Ms. Repya observed that the Heritage Preservation Board has reviewed plans
for 10 similar detached garages in the district. Interestingly, 9 of the 10 were for
homes of English Cottage architectural style. All of the plans reviewed thus far,
to include the subject proposal have done a good job of incorporating building
materials to compliment the principle structures. The subject plan however is
unique in that it duplicates the roof pitch and height of the home. Of the 10
garage plans reviewed thus far, the average heights of the structures were 19.87
feet at the highest peak, 14.5 feet to the mid -point of the gable and 8.5 feet to
the eave line. The pitch of the roofs varied from 9/12 to 12/12. Comparatively,
the subject request measures 26 feet to the highest peak, 18 feet to the mid-
point of the gable and 9 feet to the eave line and provides a 17/12 -roof pitch.
Photographs of adjacent homes were submitted with the application indicating
the roof heights of the houses. If the subject proposal were for a new home, the
heights of the adjacent houses would be relevant, however because the subject
review is for a detached garage, the fact that the proposed height is as tall or
taller than the adjacent houses is unsettling. A detached garage is considered
an accessory structure. Staff finds it inconsistent with the building patterns the
Board has reviewed in the district for the garage to be as tall as the home.
In closing, Ms. Repya reiterated that the plans show that the building materials
and details provided are consistent and complimentary to the English Cottage
architectural style of the home. However, due to the extreme height and severe
pitch of the roof, staff finds the Secretary of the Interior's standard requiring
compatible size of a structure to similar structures (detached garages) in the
2
Minutes — October 12, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
district has not been met, thus approval of the request for the subject Certificate
of Appropriateness is not recommended.
Ms. Repya then added that since the report was written, the designer and
homeowner have studied staffs concerns with the plan and would like to present
a revised plan for consideration.
Mr. Mike Sharratt, Principal with Sharratt Design explained the rationale behind
the original proposal, pointing out that they were attempting to meet the
customers need for extra storage while designing a structure that met the zoning
standards, complimented the house and enhanced the property. He observed
that design review is a subjective activity and at times a plan that meets all the
standards might not be the best for a property.
Mr. Sharratt then presented the several alternative plans, however the preferred
alternative for Mr. and Mrs. Sweet would provide a 14/12 pitch rather that the
original 17/12, a roof height to the peak of 23 feet instead of 26 feet and a
measurement to the mid -point of the gable of 16 feet compared to the original 18
feet.
Member Swenson questioned Mr. Sharratt regarding the length of the roof
including the overhang on either end. He indicated that the overall length is
shown to be 33 feet. Mrs. Swenson observed that was a lot of roof and 3 feet
longer than the house, which measures 30 feet deep. She added her concerns
that the proposed garage was a very large structure, almost the equivalent of a
small house tucked into the corner of the yard having a definite impact on the
neighboring properties.
Consultant Vogel provided his insight into the proposed plan pointing out that
when the compatibility and scale of a detached garage mimics the historic
house, the plan strays from the Secretary of the Interior's standard of not
recreating historic structure. One should be able to differentiate the 2004 garage
from the 1935 home, and a new detached garage should not overwhelm or
compete with the principle structure. In closing, Mr. Vogel opined that the plan as
revised meets the concerns addressed by staff and would be acceptable for the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Member Thorpe stated that she finds both the original plan and the revision to be
beautiful. Considering the impact on the neighboring properties she would
support the revised plan.
Member Kojetin observed that he likes the original plan, however finds the 33 -
foot length to be excessive, pointing out that it is longer than the house. He
added that unfortunately, the revised plan does not lessen the length or reduce
the mass of the structure.
3
Minutes — October 12, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Following a brief discussion, Member Swenson moved approval of a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the revised plan including a 14/12 roof pitch, 16 foot
height to the mid -point of the gable and 23 foot roof height to the peak. Don
Wray seconded the motion. Members Crawford, Thorpe, Wray and Swenson
voted aye. Member Kojetin voted nay, citing his opposition to the excessive
length of the structure. Motion carried.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
- Landmark Designation Schedule
Board members asked for clarification regarding the schedule for designating
additional landmark properties. Consultant Vogel explained that a reasonable
workload for the Board would be two new designations a year. There are
currently three properties in line for designation: #1 Browndale Bridge, #2 Edina
Mill Site, and #3 Edina Theatre marquee. He pointed out that the Browndale
Bridge and Edina Mill Site will be designated simultaneously. Member Swenson
stated that she would like the Edina Theatre Marquee designation to proceed as
soon as possible. Mr. Vogel stated that he would bring the proposed
designations to the Board at the November meeting. No formal action was
taken.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 9, 2004
ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
so EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
1%
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Crawford, Vice Chair. Bob Kojetin, Ann Swenson,
Marie Thorpe and Don Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nyberg, Peggy Jennings, and Herman Ratelle
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Swenson moved for approval of the minutes from the October 12, 2004
meeting. Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN OUTLINE:
Consultant Vogel offered an outline and definitions to consider for the Historic
Preservation Plan. The following format was created with the City's Vision 20/20
plan in mind, focusing on bullet points with less text:
1. Introduction - Several paragraphs of background information on
the history of historic preservation in Edina, the role of the HPB,
Edina Heritage Landmarks, and Certified Local Government.
2. Mission - A simple statement such as, "The mission of the city
historic preservation program is to protect and enhance Edina's
significant heritage resources for the benefit of present and future
generations."
3. Vision - This section focuses on future planning needs. One way
to do this would be to identify "outcomes" or benchmarks that
would allow future city policy makers to evaluate the success of the
Minutes — November 9, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
preservation program; e.g., "By the year 2020, the city historic
preservation program will have achieved the following:..."
4. Objectives, Issues and Actions— This would be a policy manual,
the heart of the planning document; 10 —12 broad program
objectives would be listed, with bullets identifying issues and
recommended actions for achieving each of the objectives.
5. Historic Contexts — A summary of the Historic Context Study
results, focusing on important themes and categories of potential
landmark properties.
6. Inventory — Brief descriptions of the buildings, sites, and districts
that have been designated or determined eligible for designation as
Edina Heritage Landmarks.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that once the City Council adopts the completed
Preservation Plan, it will serve as an authoritative policy guide for making
important decisions about preservation priorities, allocation of budget and staff
time resources and integrating historic preservation with other city services, all
strategic decisions that will determine how the preservation program operates in
the future. In addition to its educational value, the plan would also have a
practical value as the "cookbook" used by the HPB when it makes policy by
determining such things as Heritage Landmark eligibility, nominating properties
for Heritage Landmark rezoning, approving or denying Certificates of
Appropriateness, etc.
Mr. Vogel also provided the Board with a list of 10 Principles of Heritage
Preservation that he often uses when addressing groups on the topic of heritage
preservation. The Board members agreed that the listing would be very helpful
as they work on the plan, particularly when creating the "Vision" section.
Board members agreed that they favored the proposed six -point format Mr.
Vogel proposed. Discussion ensued regarding which points to address first. Mr.
Vogel suggested that the Introduction be saved for last when the plan was a
known entity that could be summarized. Member Swenson opined that she liked
the Mission statement proposed by Mr. Vogel and would be prepared to move
forward with that, then work on completing the Vision section at next month's
meeting. The Board agreed with Mrs. Swenson who then moved that the Board
adopt the following Mission for the Plan: "The mission of the city historic
preservation program is to protect and enhance Edina's significant
heritage resources for the benefit of present and future generations."
Member Crawford seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
The Board then agreed on the following work schedule for the Plan:
1. introduction Last item to address (Feb/March 2005)
2. Mission Adopted — November 2004 *1
2
Minutes — November 9, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
3. Vision December 2004
00 4. Objectives, Issues & Actions January 2005
5. Historic Contexts Already established
6. Inventory Already established
Member Thorpe suggested that all Board members come to next months
meeting with a vision they feel would be appropriate for the plan. All agreed that
would be an excellent idea. No further action was taken.
III. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES IN THE COUNTRY
CLUB DISTRICT:
Addressing concerns raised by the Board at the October meeting regarding the
desire for some direction when addressing requests for detached garages,
Planner Repya provided the Board with a spreadsheet comparing the 11
detached garages reviewed in the Country Club District thus far regarding the
following elements: Architecture, Square footage, Height at peak, Height at mid-
point, Height at eave, Length of Ridge and Pitch of the roof. (Copy attached to
these minutes. Taking into consideration the information in the spreadsheet,
Consultant Vogel compiled the following proposed guidelines for the Board's
review:
No detached garage should be taller, longer or wider than the house,
Undecorated side walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided
whenever possible, and
New detached garages should be differentiated from historic homes
and clearly identifiable as contemporary works.
Mr. Vogel explained that applying these guidelines to new -detached garages would
ensure that the new construction would be compatible with the character of the
district. Large, architecturally embellished garages would be permitted as a form of
historic property alteration, but they would be treated as "temporary" structures that
could be removed in the future without doing harm to the essential historic character
of the house or the neighborhood. He indicated that he did not think it would be
appropriate to require the new construction match the architecture of the older
homes since there are no historical precedents for two -car garages for period revival
style suburban homes built between 1924 and 1941; however, issues of size, scale,
mass, color and materials are still important and should be considered in design
review.
Board members agreed that the proposed guidelines addressed their issues of
concern, but added that they would also like to see something addressing the height
of a new garage not exceeding the height of the adjacent homes.
3
Minutes — November 9, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Vogel stated that he would prepare a revised set of guidelines for detached
garages to be addressed at December's HPB meeting. Discussion ensued as to
whether the Plan of Treatment for the District would need to be amended to include
the new guidelines. It was decided that the Plan of Treatment would not have to be
amended. The guidelines would simply be added to the existing "Guidelines for
New Construction". No formal action was taken.
IV. EDINA THEATER PRESERVATION CONCEPT:
Consultant Vogel provided the Board with a draft heritage preservation landmark
nomination study for the Edina Theater, focusing on the sign, including the changes
and updating, which have occurred over the years. Mr. Vogel opined that the
theater sign is eligible for Edina Historic Landmark designation in the category of
public art. He then recommended a plan of treatment for the sign based upon the
significance of the sign to the identity of the community.
Mr. Vogel stated that if the Board agreed that the theater sign was eligible for
landmark designation, the next step would be to approach the property owner with
the concept; if he is in favor, the Board could then take the steps laid out in the City
Code to recommend the designation to the City Council.
Board members all agreed that the theater sign was worthy of designation. Member
Swenson moved to approve the draft Heritage Preservation Landmark nomination
study in concept and to authorize staff to meet with the property owner to discuss
the landmark designation. Member Thorpe seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
V. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE
BROWNDALE BRIDGE AND EDINA MILL:
Consultant Vogel explained that as part of his 2004 work plan he has undertaken an
intensive survey of the Browndale Bridge and Edina Mill properties in order to gather
the information necessary to prepare Edina Heritage Landmark nomination studies.
Although the mill site was previously included in the city's heritage preservation
overlay district, there is no official record of the site's boundaries, nor does the 1977
archaeological excavation report explain how the site met the old ordinance eligibility
criteria. The bridge is located with the boundaries of the Country Club District, as
delineated in the 1980 National Register of Historic Places nomination form, which
forms the basis of the current Edina Heritage Landmark District designation,
however, the historic structure is not mentioned in the National Register
documentation.
Mr. Vogel presented the histories of both the Edina Mill Site and Browndale Bridge, 401
and explained that in terms of their Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility, both should
4
Minutes — November 9, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
be evaluated with the local historic context, "Edina Mills: Agriculture and Rural Life
40 (1857 — 1923)". He added that the study unit "Minnehaha Creek: From Wilderness
Stream to Urban Waterway (10,000 BC to AD 1974)" is also applicable.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that there is ample historical documentation to make the case
for historical significance on the basis of both properties' links to important historical
events and patterns of events, such as early settlement, farming and rural life, the
contributions of Andrew Craik to Edina's 19 century development, merchant milling,
early transportation and the effects of the automobile, settlement patterns and route
geography. In order to be considered historically significant, however, the bridge
and mill would need to demonstrably retain historic integrity of those physical
features necessary to convey their significance.
Notwithstanding the information gaps resulting from the lack of construction
documents„the Browndale Bridge seems to possess most of the important aspects
of historic integrity. It is located at its original place of construction and its design
and materials reflect its historic function and late -19th century bridge construction
technologies. Although there have been changes in land use and the morphology of
Minnehaha Creek, the physical environment of the bridge is largely unchanged. The
stone arch provides physical evidence of a particular historic bridge configuration
and the high quality of workmanship that went into construction. Finally, the bridge
continues to visually convey the structure's historic character — it cannot be
mistaken for a modern bridge. He concluded that the Browndale Bridge (Stone Arch
Bridge) should be designated an Edina Heritage Landmark, and would complete his
historical research prior to submitting the nomination study.
Regarding the Edina Mill Site, Mr. Vogel stated that it is also well documented and
the location has historical significance based on its association with important
historic events. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough for the
site to qualify for Heritage Landmark designation as an archaeological site; in order
to be considered significant, the site must be shown to contain important information
in the form of archaeological date (intact buried architectural features and artifacts)
that has potential value in answering important research questions. The 1977
archaeological investigation appears to have excavated less than 2% of the
potential site and was a simple search for mill ruins. The researcher's report does
not adequately address cultural or historical research questions, contains very little
comparative analysis, and has little to say regarding site preservation issues. Mr.
Vogel pointed out that his research focused on research questions that could be
answered by future archaeological investigation with Dwight Williams Park. He
added that if he is able to determine that the site possesses significant research
value, it would be important to define archaeological site boundaries before future
public works construction destroys the data.
Mr. Vogel continued by explaining that in terms of preservation treatments,
assuming that both the Browndale Bridge and the Edina Mill Site will be rezoned as
Heritage Landmarks, the preliminary results of his research suggests that
preservation in place is the only appropriate strategy for both properties. Before any
5
Minutes — November 9, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
new transportation facilities are designed, an effort will need to be made to provide a
compatible use for the Browndale Bridge that requires minimal alteration of the
historic structure. The best alternative use, if it cannot remain in service for vehicle
traffic because of its substandard geometry, would appear to be using it for a
pedestrian bridge. The Edina Mill Site also needs to be treated with sensitivity.
Before any new construction work is allowed to proceed within Dwight Williams
Park, Mr. Vogel recommended that the City arrange for a professional
archaeological survey of all terrain that must be disturbed by the project. If the
survey were to reveal important subsurface features, that area should be avoided; if
avoidance is not practical, the archaeological data will need to be salvaged in
accordance with current archaeological practices. At a minimum, The City would
need to take steps to minimize disturbance of terrain around the areas excavated in
1977 before, any new public works construction, retaining the existing mill
interpretation station intact.
In closing, Mr. Vogel indicated that his final report of the Edina Mill and Browndale
Bridge survey should be complete by the end of the year.
Board members discussed Mr. Vogel's interim report, agreeing that both areas are
very interesting, but each possesses unique challenges. They then told Mr. Vogel
that they looked forward to receiving his final report. No formal action was taken.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
Member Swenson reported that she received an invitation for the HPB from Brad
and Arlene Forrest, owners of the Baird House, 4400 West 50th Street. Mr. and
Mrs. Forrest have graciously offered to provide the Board with a tour of their
home now that all of the construction has been completed. Board members
expressed their delight and discussed a date/time that might work best. It was
agreed that one-half hour prior to the regular December 14th meeting (6:30 p.m.
to 7:30 pm) might work best. Vice Chair Kojetin reminded the Board that if the
meeting time were to be changed from 7:00 to 7:30 p.m., that change would
have to be published. Mrs. Swenson said she would verify the time/date with
Mrs. Forrest and report back to Ms. Repya, who would then in turn take the
necessary steps to change the starting time of the meeting.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 2004
ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
6
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 9, 2004
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN: Vision — Outcome/Benchmarks
III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Revised Guidelines for Detached Garages
IV. PRESERVATION WEEK PLANNING — May 2005
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, January 11, 2004 - 6:30 p.m. Baird House Tour
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
I•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gary Nyberg, Bob Kojetin, Peggy Jennings,
Herman Ratelle, Ann Swenson, and Marie Thorpe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Crawford, Don Wray and Consultant Robert Vogel
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Ratelle moved for approval of the minutes from the November 9, 2004
meeting. Member Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN OUTLINE: Vision
Planner Repya reminded the Board that they had scheduled working on the
"Vision" section of the Preservation Plan for the December meeting. In
preparation, Consultant Vogel prepared an outline, providing bullet points to spur
discussion. In a memo to the Board, Mr. Vogel pointed out that the "Vision"
section of the comprehensive preservation plan should focus on future planning
needs. A relatively simple way to do this is to identify "outcomes" and
"benchmarks" that would allow future city policy makers to evaluate the success
of the preservation program. He then provided the following list of statements
that reflect broad policy goals the Board has identified in the past:
In 2020, the city historic preservation program will be characterized by the
following program achievements (outcomes):
1. Edina will be a distinctive and recognizable community where preserved
historic buildings and sites provide physical links to the past and foster a
sense of community identity.
2. Historically significant buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts will
be preserved as functional, useful parts of the modern city and will be the
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
focus of important education, edification, recreation, and economic
development activities.
3. The city will provide historic property owners and neighborhood groups
with technical assistance and education in historic preservation.
4. Historic preservation programs sponsored by the city will stress
empowerment of individuals and communities through stewardship,
advocacy, education and partnership.
By the year 2020, the city historic preservation program will have reached the
following benchmarks:
1. Identified and evaluated all buildings more than 40 years old to determine
their heritage landmark eligibility.
2. Surveyed the Morningside, Browndale Park, West Minneapolis Heights,
Minnehaha Creek and Southdale neighborhoods to determine their
historic preservation potential.
3. Re -surveyed the Edina Country Club District to refine and update the
1980 survey data.
4. Reviewed and updated each Heritage Landmark plan of treatment every
ten years.
5. Carried out archaeological surveys of all undeveloped lands within the city
limits.
6. Developed and implemented effective, voluntary, non -regulatory
approaches to preserving significant historic properties.
7. Fully integrated historic preservation with other city planning for parks,
recreation, community development, public safety, public works and
education.
8. Developed historic property interpretation programs for selected heritage
landmarks in partnership with property owners and outside agencies.
9. Made all pertinent information on preserved heritage landmarks
accessible to the general public.
10. Made local history and heritage preservation a vital part of K-12 school
curricula and lifelong learning for Edina residents.
Addressing the four "outcome" points that Mr. Vogel identified, Member
Jennings observed that she really liked point 1., however thought it might be
clearer if broken down into two sentences to read, "Edina, as a distinctive and
recognizable community, will preserve historic buildings and sites. The
city will provide physical links to the past and foster a sense of community
identity." Member Thorpe agreed with Mrs. Jennings, pointing out that she
thought this point was very important and could easily be part of an opening
paragraph for the "Vision" section of the plan. Board members agreed with Mrs.
Thorpe and indicated that they agreed with the three remaining points in the
"outcome" section.
2
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
When looking at the ten "benchmark" points, the following suggestions were
made:
Benchmark 1. Member Thorpe questioned the requirement to identify and
evaluate all buildings more than 40 years old. She pointed out that by 2020,
that would be anything built before 1980, which would encompass practically
the entire city — quite an undertaking. Chairman Nyberg agreed with Mrs.
Thorpe and indicated that he would like to have Mr. Vogel further explain his
intent for that requirement.
Benchmark 2. Member Swenson questioned identifying specific
neighborhoods for surveys — pointing out that she would prefer not
mentioning specific neighborhoods, leaving the options more open and less
exclusive. Board members agreed.
Benchmark 5. Member Swenson questioned why archaeological surveys
would be carried out for all undeveloped lands within the city limits — asking, if
a site is privately owned, can an archaeological survey be required of the
owner? Discussion ensued among the Board. All agreed they would like to
discuss this point with Mr. Vogel.
Benchmark 6. Board members questioned whether the words voluntary
and non -regulatory should be used when referring to the approaches the city
should take when preserving significant historic properties. Board members
agreed that they would like to discuss the choice of words with Mr. Vogel
Benchmark 7. Member Swenson pointed out that she really liked this point
which provides for fully integrating historic preservation with other city
planning for parks, recreation, community development, public safety, public
works and education, however she would like to see it as one of the first
benchmarks, not #7. Board members agreed.
Benchmark 9. Member Kojetin stated that he thought it was important that
all pertinent information on preserved heritage landmarks be accessible to
the general public. He asked if the Edina Historical Society isn't already
doing that. Planner Repya pointed out that while the Historical Society
currently houses most of the historical information for the city in its files; by
2020 information from both the Historical Society and the Heritage
Preservation Board should be available to the public via the internet, or
whatever technology is current at that time.
Benchmark 10. Board members pointed out that they liked this point, which
makes local history and heritage preservation available in the K-12 curricula
as well as for all residents. Member Jennings stated that she felt local history
is best suited for students in middle school, to be used as an enrichment
component. Board members agreed.
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Following a brief discussion, Member Jennings stated that she felt these
points were a great starting point for discussion. Member Ratelle agreed, but
pointed out that it is important for Mr. Vogel to be a part of the discussion
because so many questions have been raised regarding his intentions with
some of the word choices. All Board members agreed. Mr. Ratelle than
moved to table further discussions regarding the "Vision" until the January
meeting when Mr. Vogel can provide his input. Member Swenson seconded
the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES IN THE COUNTRY
CLUB DISTRICT:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that this item was carried over from the
November meeting to include changes the Board proposed. Mr. Vogel provided the
Board with a memo in which he indicated that by ordinance, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required prior to issuance of a building permit to construct a new
detached garage in the Edina Country Club District. The Country Club
District Plan of Treatment, adopted in 2003 included design guidelines for new
home construction but not garages; the following document was developed as an
appendix to the district plan of treatment.
In reviewing applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for new, detached
garages in the Country Club District, the Heritage Preservation Board will apply the
following guidelines:
No detached garage should be taller, longer or wider than the
house on the same lot.
No new, detached garage should have a roofline taller than that of
the adjacent homes.
Undecorated sidewalls longer than 16 feet should be avoided
whenever possible.
New detached garages should be differentiated from historic
homes and clearly identifiable as contemporary works.
Board members agreed with the first three points of the guidelines, but questioned
the last point. Member Swenson pointed out that when the homes were first built in
the Country Club District, detached garages were not that prevalent; and those that
were built were smaller, quite utilitarian in design and for the most part, not visible
from the front street. In this day and age, detached garages are much larger, often
visible from the front street. Homeowners are spending a lot of money on these
detached structures, which they are hoping to replicate the design of their home.
Board members agreed that is the trend they are seeing. Chairman Nyberg
questioned the use of the term "contemporary works". Although that term is often
used in heritage preservation circles to refer to "current" or "up-to-date" structures,
4
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
often the public sees "contemporary" as an architectural style. Board members
agreed that the guidelines should be "user friendly" with a careful use of technical
jargon.
After a brief discussion, the Board agreed on the following revised language for the
last point: "New detached garages should be differentiated, but compatible with
historic homes."
Member Swenson stated that she was pleased with the proposed appendix to the
guidelines, and moved for approval as proposed, with the exception of the last point,
which should reflect the change agreed to by the Board. Member Kojetin seconded
the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mrs. Swenson then asked that after
the Board has reviewed another year of detached garages, these guidelines be
reviewed to see if they need to be adjusted. The Board agreed that would be a
good idea.
IV. PRESERVATION WEEK PLANNING — May 2005
Due to Consultant Vogel's absence, the Board agreed to table this item until the
January meeting.
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) Correspondence
Planner Repya provided the Board with copies of a letter addressed to Mr. Dennis
Gimmestad, the Government Programs and Compliance Officer with the Minnesota
Historical Society from the Design Project Manager of MNDOT, Heather Lott. As
attachments to the letter, Ms. Lott provided photographs of a typical wall attached to
bridge railings along with a structural design of the wall. She indicated that the
bridge is in the final design phase and invited Mr. Gimmestad to contact her with
comments or concerns.
Board members discussed the photographs and agreed the design looked very
plain, as though no concessions were made for the historic neighborhood and
creek. All agreed that the examples provided were for bridges over highways, which
is very different from a scenic waterway such as Minnehaha Creek.
Planner Repya offered to pass the Board's comments to Mr. Gimmestad, and
indicated that she would keep them posted on the project as new information is
available. No formal action was taken.
E
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
2. New HPB Member from Planning Commission
Member Swenson explained that this would be her last meeting, not only because
her second, one-year term is up, but also because she is moving on to her position
as a Council Member. David Runyan, a Planning Commission member for well over
25 years will be replacing Mrs. Swenson. Mr. Runyan is a retired architect, who Mrs.
Swenson said would be an asset to the HPB. Board members expressed their
delight for Mrs. Swenson as she moves on to her position as a Council Member, and
thanked her for the excellent service she provided the Board as the first
representative from the Planning Commission. Board members then stated that
they looked forward to welcoming Mr. Runyan to their ranks. No formal action was
taken.
3. Potential 50th & France Redevelopment
Member Thorpe stated that she has received several comments from people who
are aware of a potential redevelopment project at the 50th & France area. The area
involved includes the building south of W. 50th Street, from the theater east to
France Avenue and from that corner, south, to include the Arby's parcel. The word
on the street is that a redevelopment is in the works that would include retail on the
street level and residential on the upper levels, not unlike new developments in
downtown Hopkins and Excelsior & Grand. Mrs. Thorpe explained that the
individuals who have approached her are concerned that 50th & France area will be
changed to the point that it might lose it's historic charm; and they are wondering if
the Heritage Preservation Board will have any input in the development of the
project.
Planner Repya explained that because the 50th and France Commercial area does
not have Edina Heritage Landmark status, the Heritage Preservation Board would
not have a required review. However, the Planning Commission or the City Council
could ask for the HPB opinion on the project. Board members briefly discussed the
potential project. No formal action was taken.
4. Edina Theater Sign — Update
Planner Repya explained that she and Robert Vogel met with the owner of the
theater building, Gene Haugland to discuss the possible Edina Heritage Landmark
designation for the theater sign. Mr. Haugland expressed concerns regarding the
landmark designation, citing the negative experiences he has had with the
Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. In response, Ms. Repya and Mr.
Vogel explained how Edina's Heritage Preservation Ordinance is unique in that the
property owner is a team player with the Heritage Preservation Board, creating
together a plan of treatment that best suits the property. Mr. Haugland asked what
the timeline would be for the designation. He was advised that the first week of May
C:
Minutes —December 14, 2004
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
2005, during Preservation Week would be the target date. Mr. Haugland left the
meeting with copies of the preservation ordinance as well as a draft plan of
treatment for the sign. He indicated that he would get back to Ms. Repya with his
ideas about the designation sometime after the first of the year. A brief discussion
among Board members followed. No formal action was taken.
5. Board Member Herman Ratelle Resigns
Member Ratelle advised the Board that this would be his last meeting. He explained
that his term was up for reappointment and he found his work commitments had
reached a point that he was spread too thin. Board members shared their regrets
that Mr. Ratelle would leaving, thanked him for his years of service and wished him
the best in the future.
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 11, 2005
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Repya
7