HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 10, 2006
II. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN: Disaster Plan
III. INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD TRAIL SURVEY: Interlachen Country Club Survey
IV. DESIGN REVIEW & COMPLIANCE POLICIES:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 14, 2006
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Arlene Forrest
and Chris Rofidal
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara, Lou Blemaster, and Ian Yue
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Thorpe moved for approval of the minutes from the January 10, 2006
meeting. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. DESIGN REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE POLICIES:
A. Frequently Asked Questions
Following up on the request of the Board at the January meeting, Planner Repya
provided following list of twelve "Frequently Asked Questions" the Board might
consider for inclusion in a brochure as well as on the Heritage Preservation Board's
section of the City's website:
1. What is the Heritage Preservation Board?
2. Who are the members of the Heritage Preservation Board and how are they chosen?
3. What does the Edina Heritage Landmark designation mean?
4. How does Edina's Heritage Landmark designation differ from the National Register of
Historic Places designation?
5. Where are the Edina Heritage Landmarks in Edina?
6. What is a Plan of Treatment?
Minutes — February 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
7. What is a Certificate of Appropriateness?
8. If my property is listed within a Heritage Landmark District under what circumstances
must I apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness?
9. What is the process for applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness?
10. How does the Heritage Preservation Board evaluate Certificate of Appropriateness
applications?
11. Are neighboring properties notified when an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness is being considered?
12. After a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued can the plans be
changed?
Board members discussed the proposed list and agreed that the questions did a good
job of addressing some of the confusion expressed relative to heritage preservation in
Edina.
Member Kojetin stated that he has wondered about the difference between the terms
"heritage" and "historic" and wondered if that could be clarified. Consultant Vogel
explained that the terms are often used interchangeably, and often it is a matter of
preference.
Member Thorpe suggested adding a question that addresses the affect of a landmark
designation on the property's value. Board members agreed that would be a good
addition.
Member Forrest opined that it is a good idea to define the distinction between a local
and a national heritage designation, and was glad to see that included as questions
#4.
Ms. Repya thanked the Board for their input and offered to work on the answers to the
questions with Consultant Vogel and have them available for review at the March
meeting.
B. Instructions/Requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
Application
Planner Repya offered a revised instruction sheet for COA applications. The sheet
provided general requirements for all applications, and added a separate listing of
additional requirements for a new home, including:
• A meeting with the Planner prior to submitting the application;
• A survey of the existing home with an overlay of the proposed new home;
2
Minutes — February 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• An increased application fee to address the additional meetings and
inspections; and
• A rendering of the new home must be made available.
Board members discussed the proposed changes and agreed that it would be clearer
to have two separate instruction sheets; one for the teardown/new home scenario and
another for all other situations (demolishing a garage, a new garage, or moving a
garage) — not only because there are different requirements, but also due to the
different fees.
Planner Repya agreed that she would draft two separate application instruction
sheets and provide them at the March meeting for Board review. No formal action
was taken.
C. Neighborhood Notification of a Proposed Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA)
Planner Repya reminded the Board that the City Council asked them to consider ways
in which the neighbors might be notified about an impending teardown in the Country
Club District. Requiring a colored rendering of the new home to be posted on the
property was one idea the Board had considered. Ms. Repya suggested that a notice
of the upcoming meeting to consider the application for a COA could be mailed to
abutting and adjacent property owners. She explained that rather than targeting the
homes within a determined number of feet from the perimeter of the property as is
done for public hearings, she was recommending the houses abutting and adjacent
(basically next to, in front of, and behind) be notified because those are the homes
most impacted.
Ms. Repya also provided a sample meeting notice that included the subject address,
nature of the request, meeting date, meeting time, and meeting place. At the bottom
of the notice, the neighbors are advised that the proposed plans will be available for
review at the City of Edina Planning Department, with Planner Repya's phone number
and email address listed if questions. Ms. Repya added that if the Board agreed to
send the notices, the deadline for application submittal should be pushed back one
week to allow time for the notification.
Board members agreed that sending a notice of an upcoming COA request makes
sense, pointing out that the neighbors reactions to the teardowns approved thus far
have been "Why didn't we know this was happening? While the notification is not
required by code, the courtesy of notifying those most affected appears appropriate.
A brief discussion ensued as to whether a notice should only be mailed for a
teardown, or if all applications should be included in the mailing requirement. Board
members agreed that all COA applications should be treated the same.
3
Minutes — February 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Thorpe moved to approve the mailing of a meeting notice to abutting and
adjacent property owners for all Certificate of Appropriateness applications. Member
Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN: Disaster Plan:
Consultant Vogel advised the Board that when drafting the City's Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan, it is important to consider that disasters can and do
happen, and the loss of significant heritage resources might result. Historic buildings
are especially vulnerable to the following types of disasters:
House and building fires
• Tornados and straight line winds
Thunderstorms and lightning
• Winter storms
• Hazardous materials
• Flooding
Thus, it is appropriate to consider disaster management procedures as part of the
plan.
Vogel pointed out that the key players in disaster planning are the city's emergency
management team which includes law enforcement, fire protection, building
inspection, and community development planning personnel. The objectives in the
comprehensive plan will be to 1) identify the role of the HPB and its staff in existing
plans, and 2) develop policies that will address disaster management responses
unique to heritage resources.
Most historic property disaster management plans emphasize historic building
identification, documentation, and establishing links with other emergency
management agencies such as FEMA and SHPO. This will give heritage preservation
a "presence" in disaster management.
Mr. Vogel suggested that the HPB focus on the following disaster management
priorities:
• Provide a list of significant heritage resources to all staff with emergency
management responsibilities (fire, police, building inspections, etc.);
• Compile a directory or sources of technical assistance who could be called
upon to help in the event of a disaster at a heritage landmark;
• Form an Edina heritage landmark damage assessment team; and
• Adopt a damage assessment form for historic properties.
Vogel then offered the following objective, issues and strategies addressing disaster
management for consideration:
0
Minutes — February 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Objective #11: Be prepared to respond to disasters involving heritage
resources.
Issues:
a) Heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed by structure fires,
tornadoes, wind storms, thunderstorms, lightning, winter storms,
hazardous materials, flooding and other events.
b) Disaster management for heritage resources needs to emphasize
preparedness.
c) Emergency response procedures need to be developed to give
preservationists the tools they need to respond to a disaster.
d) Premature demolition of weakened historic buildings must be avoided.
e) The disaster management plan needs to be shared with outside
organizations.
Strategies:
1) Define the role of heritage preservation in disaster preparedness,
response, and recovery.
2) Provide members of the city disaster management team with information
on heritage resources and preservation priorities.
3) Encourage property owners to develop disaster preparedness plans.
4) Establish a disaster response team of experienced preservationists,
architects, historians, and planners.
5) Perform a risk assessment to identify the types of disasters likely to occur
and evaluate the vulnerability of specific heritage resources.
Board members discussed the importance of including the disaster plan in the
comprehensive plan, and how various situations might be addressed. Member
Rofidal asked if the disaster plan would get involved in bigger state or federal
incidences. Mr. Vogel said it would as it interfaces with the City's overall disaster
management plan. Board members agreed the objectives, issues and strategies
presented do a good job of identifying the disaster management concerns, and would
be an important part of the comprehensive plan. No formal action was taken on this
piece of the plan. Once the all elements of the plan are complete, it will be brought
back to the Board for action.
IV. INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD TRAIL SURVEY: Update
Consultant Vogel explained that in light of his absence from the January meeting, he
wanted to update the Board on the status of the Interlachen Boulevard Trail Survey
his company is conducting for the City's Engineering Department. Vogel explained
that he has completed the first phase of the survey and determined that the following
properties have potential historical significance and will require a further Phase II
5
Minutes — February 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
survey to determine whether they would be eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places:
• 5224 Interlachen Boulevard — private residence
• 5312 Interlachen Boulevard — private residence
• 5528 Interlachen Boulevard — private residence
• 6200 Interlachen Boulevard — Interlachen Country Club
Mr. Vogel explained that while the HPB has no responsibilities to oversee this project,
the information provided to the City will be very beneficial to the Board; particularly
with regard to the goals and priorities identified in the Historic Context Study under
Context IX. Entitled "Country Clubs and Parks".
Mr. Vogel invited the Heritage Preservation Board to assist with some of the archival
research and field survey. He pointed out that participation by the HPB will provide
hands-on experiences in resource identification and evaluation. The work is proposed
to take place over the next several months.
Board members discussed the project, agreeing that it would be an excellent
experience. All agreed that the best time for them to participate would be in April,
once the new members have been appointed to the Board. Vogel agreed that would
work well with his time frame. No formal action was taken.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 14, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jays& Repya.
A
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 501h STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 14, 2006
III. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
1. H-06-1 4527 Casco Avenue
Request: Convert attached garage to living space and build a detached
garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard.
2. H-06-2 4608 Bruce Avenue
Request: Demolish existing house and build a new house.
IV. BROWNDALE BRIDGE REHABILITATION:
V. INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD TRAIL SURVEY: Robert Vogel's Report
VI. MAY — PRESERVATION MONTH & ANNUAL PRESERVATION AWARD:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 11, 2006
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
further observed that the subject plans do a good job of fitting in with the architecture
of adjacent properties.
Planner Repya concluded that staff finds that detached garages are consistent with
the historic pattern of residential development in the Country Club District.
Furthermore, the proposed plan appears to meet the requirements of the Country
Club District Plan of Treatment and will compliment the principle structure, thus
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended subject to the plans
presented.
Mr. Scott Busyn, applicant for the Certificate of Appropriateness explained that the
intent of the garage design is to both compliment the home and maintain the
character of the neighborhood. Scale was considered, and at Staff's
recommendation, the height of the proposed structure was lowered by 4 feet to be
consistent with the garages previously reviewed by the Board.
Mr. James Vose the neighbor at 4529 Casco Avenue, abutting subject garage to the
south asked the Board if they had visited the site. He pointed out that the subject
property has a retaining wall running along the south property line creating a grade
difference of 3 Y2 to 4 feet between their properties. That being the case, the 22 foot
high garage is actually 26 feet high from his property. He then asked if the garage
should be further reduced to accommodate the grade change.
Member Rofidal asked Mr. Vose if he was concerned about the architectural design of
the garage. Mr. Vose responded that he was not concerned about the design or
construction. His concern was how the garage would appear from his property. He
added that he believed too often very large structures are being built on the small lots
in the Country Club District neighborhood.
Member Blemaster appreciated Mr. Vose's concerns, pointing out that the livability of
his rear yard should be a consideration.
Responding to the question of whether the height of the garage could be lowered, Mr.
Busyn observed that to reduce the 22 foot height by 4 feet to accommodate the grade
change would create an 18 foot high structure, and the pitch of the roof would be too
wide.
Mr. Busyn further explained that he has been working with Mr. Vose in designing the
garage and did not realize the grade difference between the two properties was a
concern. He added that to alleviate drainage problems they will provide footings for
the garage as well as a drain tile system.
Member Benson asked Mr. Vose how tall he felt the garage should be. Mr. Vose
answered that he didn't know and wasn't sure it needed to be lowered. His concern
was whether the new garage is appropriate, and if the HPB felt it was appropriate
K1
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
after taking the grade difference into consideration, then he would be satisfied.
However, he questioned whether a decision could be made without visiting the site.
Discussion ensued regarding the differences between the two properties, after which,
Consultant Vogel pointed out that the subject garage meets the standards and
guidelines determined for the district. When the homes were originally built, garages
were smaller and more utilitarian — rarely did they architecturally match the house,
and more often they were not visible from the front street. However, the garages
desired for today's lifestyles are larger to accommodate that second car, bicycles,
lawnmowers, etc. and more closely match the architectural style of the home — this is
not a bad thing.
Mr. Vogel further pointed out that the charge of the HPB is to protect the character of
the subject property as well as the neighboring properties. He added that the
topography of the district is undulating, and it is not uncommon to find variances in
grade between abutting properties.
Mrs. Marilyn Pertl, 4525 Casco Avenue explained that she lives in the home abutting
the subject property to the north, in the home built by her parents. She remembered
when her home was built garages needed to be recessed from the street. The district
is becoming so built out that some yards are no larger than postage stamps.
Member Forrest agreed with Mrs. Pertl expressing her concern for the loss of
permeable surfaces. She added that due to the grade difference, she would want
assurance that the new garage was well engineered so problems don't occur down
the road.
Mr. Vose stated that he was comfortable with the plans for the garage.
Mrs. Forrest further stated that she felt the proposed garage was extremely attractive.
Although the garage will be visible from the street, the original design of the district did
not take into consideration current lifestyles and compromises must be considered.
Member Blemaster observed that she did not believe that reducing the pitch of the
garage would address Mr. Vose's concerns. Board members agreed, pointing out
that perhaps buffering the south property line with landscaping or a fence would
soften the impact of the structure on Mr. Vose's property.
Member Thorpe stated that she felt the plan was fabulous; the garage meets the
guidelines for the district, however, the grade difference between the properties was a
concern. Mrs. Thorpe then moved to hold this item over, allowing the Board an
opportunity to visit the site.
Members Ferrara and Forrest opined that while the difference in grade should be
taken into consideration, the request should not be put on hold and action should be
taken now. Member Thorpe's motion died for lack of a second.
0
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Vose agreed that the garage will be a handsome structure and indicated that he
would be open to work with Mr. Busyn on a plan to mitigate the impact of the garage
on his property. Mr. Busyn and Mr. Vose agreed to come up with a
landscape/screening plan that would address Mr. Vose's concerns regarding the
impact of the garage on his property.
Member Ferrara moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to build a new
detached garage in the southeast corner of the property subject to the plans
presented and the condition that the Mr. Busyn and Mr. Vose agree upon a
landscape/screening plan for the south property line. Member Forrest seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
2. H-06-2 4608 Bruce Avenue
Request: Demolish existing house an build a new house
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the
4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home, constructed in 1974 is a
Contemporary style with a 2 car garage attached garage front loading off of Bruce
Avenue. The existing home is unique in the district for several reasons, not only is it
one of the few Contemporary style homes, all of which were built in the 1970's, but
the home is also a rear walk -out which created some challenges when designing the
proposed home.
The subject request is to demolish the existing home and construct a new home on
the site. The plans for the new home illustrate a 2 -story English Cottage style
structure with an attached 2 car garage on the rear, walk -out portion of the house.
The garage will be accessed by a new driveway proposed on the south side of the lot.
The exterior finishes for the home are shown to be wood shake like siding
(Hardiboard composite) with stone accents. The roof is proposed to offer varying
sized gables (from a 12/15 pitch to a 12/10) and will be covered with a composite
shingle material.
Ms. Repya pointed out that an important element when reviewing a new home in the
Country Club District, in addition to the architectural style, is to determine how the
home will compare in size and massing to the adjacent homes. The comparative
illustration provided by JMS Homes demonstrates an overall building height of 27.5
feet to the highest point of the ridge for the proposed home. The home to the north,
4606 Bruce Avenue is shown to have an overall height of 24 feet, 4.9 feet shorter
and the home to the south measures 21.66 feet at the highest point of the ridge,
totaling 5.9 feet shorter that the proposed home. The survey for the subject property
illustrates the ridge elevations of the houses on the east side of Bruce Avenue,
directly across the street which range from .7 to 4.6 feet shorter than what is being
proposed.
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The proponent has indicated that every attempt has been made to lessen the
difference in building heights — 9 foot ceilings are provided on the first floor, but only 8
foot ceiling heights are proposed on the second story to lessen the overall building
height.
The subject proposal requires no variances from the Zoning Ordinance as it meets the
criteria established for building height, lot coverage and setback requirements.
Planner Repya observed that the preservation goals in the Country Club District focus
on maintaining the historic integrity of the neighborhood. While the plan of treatment
does not prevent the demolition of original structures, the charge of the Heritage
Preservation Board is to ensure that the new structures not only meet the identified
guidelines, but also blend in well with surrounding structures and add to the district's
historic character.
The Country Club District plan of treatment stipulates that the facade walls for new
construction should be two stories in height. Given the challenges of the subject lot,
the proposed home, while somewhat taller than the adjacent homes, appears not to
be out of place with the neighborhood.
Consultant, Robert Vogel has reviewed the proposed plan and determined that the
tear down and proposed new construction meets the objectives of the plan of
treatment and is consistent with the guidelines for new home construction in the
Country Club District. Furthermore, the proposed structure appears to be visually
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Vogel suggested that a plaque be
displayed on the new home with the year of construction — "2006" to differentiate it
from the original homes in the district.
Ms. Repya concluded that she agreed with Mr. Vogel, and would recommend
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request subject to the plans presented
the requirement that a year built plaque be displayed on the structure, and approval of
the plan by the Building, Planning, and Engineering Departments.
Andy Porter with JMS Homes stated that he had a correction to the information
provided with the application. The height of the home to the south was presented at
21 feet 8 inches, however it actually stands 25 feet high. The difference between the
proposed home and the southerly home remains at 5.9 feet as reported.
Kitty O'Dea the owner of the southerly home, 4610 Bruce Avenue stated that she has
reviewed the plans and finds the proposal to be lovely, however she expressed
concern regarding the elevation of the subject property as it relates to the neighboring
properties. Mrs. O'Dea observed that the subject lot sits higher than the adjacent
properties to accommodate the existing walkout home on the site. She wondered if it
wouldn't be possible to reduce the grade of the subject lot.
,1
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Porter explained that the home was designed to taking the differences of grade
into consideration. The first floor ceiling height is proposed to be 9 feet with an 8 foot
height on the second floor; typically, 10 foot ceiling heights are seen in new homes.
Mr. Porter added that currently the drainage on the subject lot and surrounding
properties works. To reduce the grade of the subject property could potentially cause
drainage problems for the neighboring homes.
Consultant Vogel explained that varying elevations and undulating streetscapes add
to the charm of the Country Club neighborhood. He observed that the HPB should
not control the grades.
Mrs. O'Dea explained that she was O.K. with a 6 foot difference in building height — It
was the fear of a 10 foot difference that concerned her. She added that she liked the
shake siding on the entire south elevation, pointing out that the existing home has
cinderblock walls on the walkout level abutting her home.
William Mize the owner of 4606 Bruce Avenue, the property abutting to the north
stated that he was had originally seen a plan with a shared driveway on the north side
of the property and was curious to see the current proposal. He indicated that he
liked the plan and had no objections.
Member Rofidal asked Planner Repya if there would be interim inspections of the
project to ensure that the home was being built in compliance with the plans that
would be approved. Ms. Repya responded that the interim inspections would occur.
The Board briefly discussed the proposed plan agreeing that they appreciated the
attention to detail and the consideration taken for the differences in grade of the
neighboring homes. Member Ferrara then moved for approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish the existing home and build a new home. Member
Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Member Forrest observed that JMS has gone through two Certificate of
Appropriateness applications processes with the Board and asked if Mr. Porter and
Mr. Schoenwetter would be willing to share their insights into the process, as well as
what they find homebuyers are looking for in a new home.
Mr. Porter observed that in the Country Club District, character is very important. Old
world charm in the architecture with today's technology is a high priority. Families
also desire large kitchen/family activity rooms, in addition to a formal dining room that
can accommodate a crowd on the holidays.
Addressing the process, Mr. Porter stated that he has found it to be productive in
meeting the goals of the established plan of treatment for the district and beneficial in
creating a quality product.
7
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Schoenwetter observed that when designing new homes in Edina that meet the
desires of the current homeowner, he has found it very important to start with a new
foundation. So many of the rebuilt lots that work with existing foundations create
structures that loom over neighboring properties in order to accommodate the taller
ceilings demanded. With the exception of the new home review in the Country Club
District, in the rest of the City, the relationship of the new home to neighboring
properties is not taken into consideration, creating situations where a new home may
be taller than it would have to be if a new foundation were dug; going deeper can
allow for the accommodation of the taller ceilings in the home with less impact on
surrounding properties. Mr. Schoenwetter opined that it would serve the city well to
require new foundations for rebuilt homes; the added expense he stated would be
incremental to the advantages reaped.
Board members thanked Mr. Porter and Mr. Schoenwetter for their insights and
wished them luck on their project.
IV. BROWNDALE BRIDGE REHABILITATION:
Planner Repya explained that she sent them copies of the Staff Report the City Council
received requesting a resolution to support a variance from MNDOT's requirements for
bridge construction. Specifically the variance requested involves a reduced bridge width
of 21'10" from the 24' requirement. The variance will be heard by MDOT on Thursday,
March 16, 2006. Assuming the variance is approved, the City's Engineering Department
working with the engineering firm TKDA & Associates will begin the final plans. Wayne
Houle, City Engineer has advised that he will bring the Certificate of Appropriateness
application for the rehabilitation to the HPB in May or June with projected construction to
occur in the fall.
Ms. Repya pointed out she intended is to keep the Board advised on the progress of the
project. No formal action was required.
Board members appreciated the update and looked forward to addressing the project
later in the spring.
V. INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD TRAIL SURVEY: Update
Robert Vogel explained that his firm will begin survey work on the four identified
historic properties abutting the proposed trail in April and May. Of the properties
identified, he would like volunteers from the HPB to assist in the research on the
Interlachen Country Club. He will have a work schedule developed by the April
meeting at which time Board members will be able to sign up to participate in the
research.
Minutes — March 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Board members expressed their interest in participating in the research. No formal
action was taken.
VI. MAY — PRESERVATION MONTH & ANNUAL PRESERVATION AWARD:
Planner Repya reminded the Board that May is Preservation Month. Traditionally, the
Board has taken this opportunity to recognize the preservation efforts in the
community by awarding the Edina Heritage Award. Advertisements for the
acceptance of nominations will appear in the "Edina Sun Current" and "About Town"
magazine. The deadline for nominations will be the middle of April with the award to
be presented by the City Council at their May 16th meeting.
Ms. Repya encouraged Board members to reflect on projects they have seen which
they may choose to nominate for the award. She reminded them that members of the
HPB are not eligible to receive the award.
A brief discussion ensued in which Board members discussed possible candidates.
Member Forrest stated that she thought Heritage Award program was a great way to
educate the public on the importance of heritage preservation in the community. No
formal action was taken.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS: None
Vlll. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 11, 2006
IX . ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,T6yc&Refiya
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 14, 2006
II. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDE PRESENTATION:
III. ANNUAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION AWARD: Deadline April 14th
IV. 2006 GOALS & OBJECTIVES:
V. SOUTHDALE'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY:
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 9, 2006
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal, Lou
Blemaster, and Ian Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, and Arlene Forrest
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Scherer, Edina Planning Commission
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Thorpe moved for approval of the minutes from the March 14, 2006 meeting.
Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDE PRESENTATION:
Referring to a book provided to all the HPB members entitled "A Field Guide to
American Houses" by Virginia & Lee McAlester, Consultant Vogel explained the
evolution of historic architecture in the Midwest and particularly in Minnesota. Mr.
Vogel pointed out that prior to 1950 less than one half of all Americans owned their
own homes and the sense of "neighborhood" was a concept that evolved as the
percentage of home ownership increased.
Member Kojetin observed that he found the book to be very informative and
suggested that if one is researching a particular architectural style, most of the
pertinent information can be found in the first few paragraphs of the relative chapter.
Discussion ensued regarding the numerous architectural styles highlighted in the book
and the interesting details provided for each. Board members agreed that "A Field
Guide to American Houses" will be a valuable resource. No formal action was taken.
Minutes —April 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
III. ANNUAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION AWARD:
Planner Repya explained that the deadline to submit applications for the 2005
Heritage Award is Friday, April 14th. To date, no applications have been received.
Board members discussed potential nominations for the award as well as the
possibility that no qualifying applications will be received. Member Thorpe observed
that the previous recipients of this award — The Baird House, The Edina Theater Sign
and The Morningside Neighborhood all represent excellent examples of historic
preservation. To present the award randomly, without the recipient meeting the
criteria established for the program would be a disservice. Board members agreed
and determined that if by Friday, no qualifying applications are received, no heritage
award would be presented for 2005.
IV. 2006 GOALS & OBJECTIVES:
Board members reviewed the goals and objectives that were identified in 2005, then
reviewed the following goals and objectives Consultant Vogel recommended for 2006:
• Complete the Comprehensive Heritage Preservation Plan.
• Initiate a city-wide survey of significant properties associated with the heritage
of Edina women.
• Work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and others to develop
long-range plans for preservation and heritage interpretation at the Edina Mill
and Mill Pond sites.
• Increase efforts to provide city officials with information, education and training
in heritage preservation.
• Work with Public Works, Parks and other city departments to ensure that
historic properties are taken into account in planning for city infrastructure
maintenance and improvements.
• Increase public education and outreach efforts.
Board members found the second item, the survey of women associated with
significant properties to be very intriguing. Mr. Vogel explained that the turn of the
century was a pivotal point for women in America. At that time, the design of homes
started to take into account the work of the "woman of the house". He pointed out
that the bicycle was also an important liberator for women. Mr. Vogel added that
much is known about George Baird and Jonathan Grimes, however it would be
interesting to find out more about Sarah Baird and Mrs. Grimes.
2
Minutes — April 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Rofidal pointed out that to increase education and community outreach is an
important item that was identified at the joint meeting with the City Council in January.
He added to update the heritage preservation information on the City's website will be
an important start to opening communication with the community. Board members
agreed.
A brief discussion ensued regarding all the items identified. No formal action was
taken.
V. SOUTHDALE'S 50' ANNIVERSARY:
Consultant Vogel observed that this coming October will be the 50th Anniversary for
the Southdale Mall. Since Southdale has been identified in the City's Historic Context
Study under the Shopping Mall Culture (1955 —1974 chapter), it seems apparent that
the mall warrants recognition on this milestone anniversary.
Member Kojetin stated that the Edina Historical Society is planning something for the
mall's anniversary. Planner Repya suggested that the Heritage Preservation Board
partner with the Historical Society in the anniversary celebration. Board members
agreed that would be a worthwhile project. A brief discussion ensued, after which Mr.
Kojetin promised to keep the Board advised as the plans for the anniversary
celebration unfold. No formal action was taken.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Rambler Preservation Workshops — Edina Community Center
Member Rofidal announced that two workshops on the history and preservation
of the rambler are being offered at the Edina Community Center on Thursday,
April 13th and May 10th. The workshops are offered by the Midwest Preservation
Institute in collaboration with the Edina Community Educational Services.
B. Morningside's Final Celebration of their 100th Anniversary
Member Kojetin advised the Board that the Edina Historical Society will have a
final celebration of Morningside's 100th Anniversary on May 100h. He will provide
more information to the Board as it becomes available.
C. Street Name Change — W. 56th Street to Surrey Lane
Member Rofidal explained that he lives on W. 56th Street which he has learned
was originally named Surrey Street or Avenue. However, when the plat was filed
in 1947, it was decided to use the name W. 56th Street to coincide with the street
M
Minutes —April 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
on the east side of what is now Highway 100. Once Highway 100 was updated
the rationale for using the numbered street name no longer applied.
Mr. Rofidal pointed out that the other streets in the neighborhood have the
English names such as Kent, Windsor, Richmond and Warwick. Several
neighbors would like to start a campaign to change the name of the street from
W. 56`h to Surrey. The process involved includes a petition from the residents of
the street and perhaps some endorsements from groups such as the Heritage
Preservation Board and the Historical Society. Mr. Rofidal asked if it would be
appropriate for the HPB to support the initiative.
Consultant Vogel indicated that if the City didn't have a problem with the name
change and the rationale for the change was based on the history of the area, it
would not be inappropriate for the HPB to express an opinion.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the name change. Member Rofidal thanked
the Board for their input and agreed to keep them posted on the project.
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 9, 2006
IX . ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JayeRepyw
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Board
FROM: Joyce Repya
SUBJECT: May 9th HPB Meeting - Cancelled
DATE: May 1, 2006
The regularly scheduled Heritage Preservation Board meeting for May has been
cancelled because no applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness were received and
Robert Vogel will be out of town.
The next meeting of the Board will be Tuesday, June 11th. Look forward to seeing you in
June!
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 11, 2006
II. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN:
III. SOUTHDALE'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY:
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 11, 2006 — must be rescheduled — Wed. July 12th perhaps
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 501H STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal, Lou
Blemaster, Laura Benson, Nancy Scherer, and Ian Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara, and Arlene Forrest
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Thorpe moved for approval of the minutes from the April 11, 2006 meeting.
Member Yue seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN:
Consultant Vogel presented the Board with a completed draft copy of the
Comprehensive Heritage Preservation Plan for their review. The major elements of
the plan include the Introduction, Mission, Vision, Objectives with related Issues and
Actions, Historic Contexts and an Inventory of historic properties. He pointed out that
a brief history of preservation in the city could be added to the Introduction and a map
identifying the designated and eligible landmarks could be added to the Inventory.
Mr. Vogel reminded the Board that they have reviewed the individual elements of the
plan as they were created and now that the plan is complete, if the Board agrees to
adopt the plan, it will be handed over to the planners who are working on the City's
overall Comprehensive Plan. Vogel noted that the HPB will not present the Heritage
Preservation Plan to the City Council at this time because the plan actually makes up
one of the chapters in the City's overall Comprehensive Plan which is in the process
of being updated.
The Board asked for clarification regarding some items within the plan as they
discussed the following eleven objectives:
Objective #1: Prepare and adopt a heritage preservation plan.
Minutes — June 13, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Objective #2: Identify significant heritage resources worthy of consideration in
community planning.
Objective #3: Evaluate heritage resources to determine whether they meet defined
criteria of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance.
Objective #4: Rezone significant heritage resources as Edina Heritage Landmarks or
Landmark Districts.
Objective #5: Protect heritage landmarks through design review.
Objective #6: Carry out public facilities maintenance and construction projects in
such a manner that significant heritage resources are not destroyed or damaged.
Objective #7: Encourage voluntary compliance with historic preservation treatment
standards.
Objective #8: Preserve significant heritage resources on city property.
Objective #9: Provide public education in heritage preservation.
Objective #10 Participate in the federal -state -local government heritage preservation
partnership.
Objective #11 Be prepared to respond to disasters involving heritage resources.
Consultant Vogel pointed out that the Heritage Preservation Plan provides a blue print
for the entire city. Because it encompasses the entire city, it is somewhat general in
nature. One will find more specifics in the individual plan of treatment adopted for
each of the designated properties.
General discussion ensued among the Board about the adoption of the plan.
Member Thorpe asked if the history of preservation to be added to the Introduction
and the map of designated properties for the Inventory needed to be completed prior
to adopting the plan. Consultant Vogel stated that the Board could approve the plan
subject to staff signing off on the history of preservation and designation map. Board
members agreed that rather than continuing the discussion of the plan to the July
meeting, it would be a good idea to move on the plan and allow staff to approve the
final details.
Member Thorpe then moved to adopt the Comprehensive Heritage Preservation Plan
subject to staff's approval of the history of preservation and the landmark inventory
map. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
r.
Minutes — June 13, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
III. SOUTHDALE'S 50T" ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION:
Chairman Kojetin explained that he and Planner Repya attended a meeting at the
Edina Historical Society with Rachel Macht, a marketing representative from
Southdale regarding the upcoming 50th Anniversary celebration for the mall. At this
time, Southdale is starting to formulate their plans and are open to suggestions and
assistance from both the Historical Society and the Heritage Preservation Board.
Currently, they are anticipating kicking off a 50 day celebration on the 1St of October to
culminate with a gala to coincide with the holiday shopping season.
Kojetin added that he has been in contact with Marty Ruud who was instrumental in
the opening festivities for the mall in 1956. Mr. Ruud is retired, still living in Edina and
would probably be thrilled to be a part of the anniversary celebration.
Planner Repya stated that she suggested Ms. Macht contact some of the planners of
the high school reunions that will be occurring this summer to gain insight into the
Southdale memories the Edina grads hold dear.
Consultant Vogel pointed out that Southdale Mall has been identified as one of the
Tier II Historic Contexts in the Historic Context Study. Within the study, the goal of
identifying and recording historically important art objects and fixtures associated with
the mall, as well as exploring preservation alternatives to identifying the mall as an
historic preservation site were recognized as priorities. Vogel added that the 50th
anniversary would be an ideal time to target those planning goals.
Board members agreed that they would be pleased to participate in the celebration.
Chairman Kojetin promised to keep the Board advised of the progress. No formal
action was taken.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. 6001 Pine Grove Road — Maryhill
Planner Repya explained that Maryhill, the home at 6001 Pine Grove Road was built
by Dr. Paul and Mrs. Mary Carson in 1941, and designed by renowned architect
William Gray Purcell. Dr. Carson recently passed away and the home will be going
on the market this summer. As a means of introducing the home to the public, tours
were offered over three dates in June. The Board received notice of the tours;
apparently, none of the members made it to the open house.
Responding to questions regarding whether the property was eligible for landmark
designation, Ms. Repya explained that at least ten years ago, the HPB pursued
landmark designation of the property, however Dr. and Mrs. Carson chose to list their
3
Minutes — June 13, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
property with the Minnesota Land Trust rather than applying the local historic
designation. Board members thanked Ms. Repya for the information. No formal
action was taken.
B. Paul Peterson House Tour — 5312 Interlachen Boulevard
Consultant Vogel explained that as part of his Interlachen Trail research he has
identified most of the historic properties abutting the proposed trail on the north side
of Interlachen. The Paul Peterson house is one of the historic homes, and because
there are so many new members on the Heritage Preservation Board, a tour of this
landmark designated home would be a good opportunity to provide insight into the
characteristics of a landmark property. Planner Repya offered to contact Paul and
Nancy Winter to schedule a time when the Board could meet at their home and
discuss its historic significance. She indicated that depending on the Winter's
schedule, she would attempt to schedule the tour prior to the July or August meetings.
No formal action was taken.
C. Interlachen Country Club — 6200 Interlachen Boulevard
Consultant Vogel advised the Board that he attended a meeting with the Manager of
the Interlachen Country Club to gain information for the survey of the historic
properties abutting the proposed Interlachen Trail. He observed that the club house
has been renovated so many times that it would no longer qualify for landmark
designation. However, the golf course remains relatively unchanged from the original
course designed by Donald Ross in 1911.
Discussion ensued regarding the significance of the course. Mr. Vogel indicated that
it is possible that the golf course could be eligible for National Register designation
and/or Edina Landmark designation due to the age of the course and the fact that
Donald Ross was such a famous golf course designer. Furthermore, Vogel pointed
out that the members of club appreciate the history of the original course and may
look favorably upon a landmark designation. No formal action was taken.
D. 2006 State Historic Preservation Conference — Sept. 28 & 29 in Red Wing
Chairman Kojetin announced that the State Historic Preservation Conference will be
held on Thursday and Friday, September 28 and 29 in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Because Edina is a Certified Local Government, we are required to send at least one
Board member to at least one day of the conference. Kojetin pointed out that in the
past, members have attended that Friday sessions and found them very beneficial.
Planner Repya explained that the City will pay the registration of Board members
wishing to attend and promised to keep the Board advised once the registration
opens up.
En
Minutes — June 13, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
E. Goals for Future Designations
Chairman Kojetin asked Consultant Vogel about the timeline for future landmark
designations. Vogel explained that under the terms of his contract, two designations
per year are doable. The process takes about four months per designation and it is
best to take on one designation at a time.
Kojetin asked Mr. Vogel to provide the Board with information regarding the cost per
designation - pointing out that in the event the Board would choose to undertake four
designations per year, he would like to know what the additional cost would be. Mr.
Vogel agreed that he would provide that information.
F. Street Name Change — W. 56th Street to Surrey Lane
Member Rofidal updated the Board on the progress he and his committee have made
relative to preparing the petition for the street name change. He met with the Building
Coordinator, Steve Kirchman to report that a survey was mailed to 40 neighbors; a
total of 25 Yes responses have been received; 8 No responses; 5 responses not
returned; and 2 need more information. Mr. Kirchman indicated that the response
data indicated 30% favorable rating. He suggested that the committee work on the 5
households that did not return their survey to see if they were in favor, thus increasing
the current 30% favorable rating. Mr. Kirchman also indicated that it would be helpful
if the committee received an endorsement from the Historical Society and the
Heritage Preservation Board.
Addressing the question about the concerns of the households that voted No,
Member Rofidal stated that some people wondered if their mortgage or deed would
have to be changed — the answer is no; others were concerned about the disruption
with the post office. However, he discovered that the post office will deliver to both
street addresses for a 1 year period of time.
Member Scherer observed that because West 56th Street runs intermittently from
France Avenue on the east side of Edina to Hansen Road on the west side, it can be
very confusing when trying to find an address if one is not familiar with the house
numbering system.
A brief discussion ensued among the Board. Member Blemaster then moved that the
Heritage Preservation Board provide Mr. Rofidal and his committee with a resolution
supporting the name change of their street from West 56th Street to Surrey Lane in
keeping with the developer's original plan to provide English names for the streets in
the neighborhood. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
5
Minutes — June 13, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: - July 11th to be rescheduled
Chairman Kojetin announced that the next regularly scheduled meeting asked that thon e 11th
r. falls on the evening of the Annual Braemar Inspection To
meeting be rescheduled to the next evening, Wednesday, July 12th at 7:00 p.m.
ate to July 12th would work for them. No
Board members agreed that change of d
formal action was taken.
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyc&Re'y01l
n
AGENDA
THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 501h STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 13, 2006
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
H-06-3 4512 Drexel Avenue
Request: Demolish existing detached garage and incorporate an attached garage
with an addition to the home.
III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS — HERITAGE PRESERVATION ON THE WEB
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 8, 2006 — 6:00 p.m. tour of Peterson House, 5312
Interlachen Blvd. 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Karen
Ferrara, Arlene Forrest, Laura Benson, Nancy Scherer, and
Ian Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant
Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue
Lisa Gervais, 4514 Drexel Avenue
Susan Kliner, 4513 Drexel Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Rofidal moved for approval of the minutes from the June 13, 2006 meeting.
Member Ferrara seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — Country Club District
H-06-3 4512 Drexel Avenue
Demolish existing detached garage and incorporate an
Attached garage with an addition to the home
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the
4500 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home, constructed in 1925 is of the
Mediterranean design style. The request for the Certificate of Appropriateness
involves the demolition of an exiting 2 -stall detached garage located in the rear yard,
38 feet from the rear lot line, 5 feet from the south lot line, and accessed from a
driveway running along the south property line. A new attached 3 -stall garage is
proposed as part of an addition to the home. The existing driveway is proposed to
continue providing access to the new attached garage.
The original plan for remodeling the existing home resulted in a change in the
architectural style from Mediterranean to what the owner described as English
Minutes — July 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Cottage style; replacing the stucco exterior with cedar shake siding, a boulder stone
base, added gables and an asphalt shingled roof.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the owner of the property, Scott Busyn with Great
Neighborhood Homes Inc. has done a considerable amount of communicating with
the neighborhood regarding the proposed changes to the property. A photo rendering
of the "finished product" home was installed in the front yard to communicate the
changes proposed for the home. As a result of the photo, the City and Mr. Busyn
received feedback from numerous neighbors on the block concerned that the new
architectural style was not compatible with the homes in the neighborhood.
After reviewing the original plans, City Staff and Heritage Preservation Consultant
Robert Vogel determined that the remodeled home as shown would detract from the
historical significance of the Country Club District as a cohesive heritage
neighborhood. Furthermore, Mr. Vogel observed that he felt the proposed work would
have a negative impact upon the historic integrity of the district. Mr. Busyn was
informed that for the aforementioned reasons, staff would not recommend approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness request.
On the date the staff reports were to be sent to the Board, Mr. Busyn, taking into
consideration the neighborhood's, Staff's and Robert Vogel's concerns, submitted a
revised plan for the subject property. In a letter to the Board, Mr. Busyn indicated that
based on dialog with the 4500 block of Drexel, the exterior design of the home was
revised to make it more traditional and appropriate for the neighborhood. He added
that in creating the revised design they made every attempt to follow the guidelines
set out in the Country Club District Plan of Treatment.
Mr. Busyn also invited the 4500 block neighbors to view the revised plans prior to the
HPB meeting to ensure that the neighbors knew that he was listening and taking their
concerns into consideration.
Addressing the revised plan, Consultant Vogel complimented Mr. Busyn upon his
responsiveness and willingness to provide a plan that does a much better job of
complimenting the historic character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, unlike the
original plan, the revised plan would not detract from the historic value of the
neighboring homes. Mr. Vogel added that he would recommend approval of the COA
request subject to the revised plans dated July 7, 2006 with the requirement that a
plaque with "2006" appear somewhere on the home to define it as a redesigned
structure.
Scott and Margaret Busyn of Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. were present to
address the revised plan. Mr. Busyn explained that the subject project at 4512 Drexel
Avenue is being constructed as a speculative home. He pointed out that they have
successfully purchased, upgraded and sold several homes in the Country Club
District and received neighborhood praise for the finished products. Great
Neighborhood Homes, Inc. pride themselves in addressing the contemporary
2
Minutes — July 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
functionality of their homes while at the same time adhering to the Country Club
District Plan of Treatment for the historic architectural styles.
When asked why architectural style was changed from Mediterranean to English
Cottage, Mr. Busyn explained that his research has proven that currently, the English
Cottage style is much more marketable.
Several Board members expressed concern that the architectural style of the home
was being changed. Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that although the
Heritage Preservation Board encourages consideration of the original architectural
style of the home when contemplating alterations or changes, the Plan of Treatment
does allow one to change the architectural style of the home as long as the new style
is one of the traditional historic architectural styles found in the district.
Discussion ensued regarding the original design of the Country Club District.
Consultant Vogel observed that while buyers in the 1920's and 1930's had a choice of
seven historic architectural styles to choose from, there was not a grand design to
ensure that so many of each style was built on each street. In fact, the market at that
time drove the makeup of architectural styles in the neighborhood. English Cottage is
the most prevalent style found in the District, making up 32% of the homes, followed
by 28% American Colonial Revival and 12% Mediterranean.
Member Benson questioned why the Board was discussing the house when the
requested COA is for the demolition of the detached garage. Consultant Vogel
explained that while the City Council wanted to provide property owners a certain level
of flexibility, the goal of the Plan of Treatment is to preserve the historic integrity of the
neighborhood. If when reviewing a request for a COA it is determined that the results
of the COA would create a structure that would be incompatible with the historic
architectural styles in the neighborhood, it is the responsibility of the Board to address
the incompatibilities.
The following neighbors were present to address the revised request:
Jane Lonnquist — 4510 Drexel Avenue — northerly neighbor
Ms. Lonnquist thanked the Busyn's for their responsiveness to the neighbors
concerns and commented that the revised plan was a vast improvement.
Ms. Lonnquist stated that she wished the street facade of the home would have been
maintained. She also questioned the front facing, 3 stall garage which she felt was
too large for the neighborhood and inconsistent with layout of the historic homes in
the neighborhood.
3
Minutes — July 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Lisa Gervais — 4514 Drexel Avenue — southerly neighbor
Ms. Gervais expressed her appreciation to the HPB and the Busyn's for having an
opportunity to weigh in on the proposed project. While Ms. Gervais agreed that the
revised plan was a big improvement, she was concerned about the change in the
architectural style. Specifically, she felt their block of Drexel Avenue was a more
formal street where the neighbors have all worked very hard when making changes to
their homes to maintain the original styles where the garages are not visible from the
front street.
Ms. Gervais added that she Liked the requirement that a year built plaque be included
in the plan; and wanted to bring to the attention of the Board that there are two
healthy elms on the property which she would like assurance would be protected.
Susan Kliner — 4513 Drexel Avenue — across the street
Ms. Kliner thanked the Busyn's for listening to the concerns of the neighborhood and
coming up with a plan that is a much better fit.
Planner Repya observed that she received a phone call from Abbie Thiss, 4518
Drexel Avenue who was unable to attend the meeting, however wanted the Board to
know that she and her husband were concerned that the original plan was not
compatible with the homes in the neighborhood. She expressed her appreciation to
the Busyn's for their desire to address the neighbors concerns with open
communication. She added that both she and her husband supported the revised
plan.
Board members thanked the neighbors for coming to the meeting and sharing their
concerns; stressing that it is important for the neighborhood to be a part of the
process.
Addressing the revised plan, Member Rofidal stated that he visited the property, and
feels the revised plan is much improved; however struggles somewhat with the
location of the attached garage which will be closer to the street than the existing
detached garage.
Mr. Busyn explained that because a 25 foot rear yard is required for attached
garages, the design required the garage to be placed 5 feet closer to the street than
the detached garage.
Ms. Gervais, questioned the need for a third stall on the garage. She added that she
would prefer the third stall be removed to reduce the length of the building abutting
her property to the south.
4
Minutes — July 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Forrest observed that she understands the need for the third stall in this day
and age. Most families utilize the third stall for storage of bikes, lawnmowers and
outdoor equipment which might otherwise be stored in the back yard.
Member Scherer stated that she felt the revised plan was a vast improvement over
the original plan. She pointed out that when she visited the site, she noticed that
many of the surrounding homes have had large additions which have caused rather
long building walls on those homes. It appears that when additions are added to
these historic homes, longer building walls result. Ms. Scherer questioned the
pergola shown on the second floor deck area. Mr. Busyn explained that usually
pergolas are found on the first floor, as seen on the house to the south; however they
are not uncommon in the District.
Member Blemaster pointed out that as a realtor she sees the changes occurring in the
District as a positive for preserving the livability of the homes as well as enhancing the
desirability of the neighborhood.
Member Ferrara explained that it is the obligation of the HPB to ensure that the plans
approved with requests for Certificates of Appropriateness meet the Plan of
Treatment established for the District. She added that the revised plan being
considered appears to do just that.
Mr. Busyn advised the Board that when working on homes in the Country Club District
it is very important for his company to be considerate of the neighborhood. Perimeter
fencing will be installed around the property; the sidewalks will remain open; and
special attention will be given to protect the elms on the property. He added that
adding a date plaque to the home can also be accomplished.
Following a brief discussion, Member Blemaster moved approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish the existing detached garage and incorporate a new
attached garage with an addition to the home subject to the revised plans presented
dated July 7, 2006 and the condition that a date built plaque be installed on the
building. Member Benson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Continued until the August 8t' meeting.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. 2006 State Historic Preservation Conference — Sept. 28 & 29 in Red Wing
Chairman Kojetin reminded the Board that the State Historic Preservation Conference
will be held on Thursday and Friday, September 28 and 29 in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Because Edina is a Certified Local Government, we are required to send at least one
Board member to at least one day of the conference. Kojetin pointed out that in the
k,
Minutes — July 1.2, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
past, members have attended that Friday sessions and found them very beneficial.
Planner Repya provided Board members with the registration forms and explained
that the City will pay the registration for those wishing to attend. The deadline for
registrations will be August 16th, so a final count of those planning on attending will be
taken at the August 8 HPB meeting.
B. Paul Peterson House Tour — 5312 Interlachen Boulevard
Planner Repya explained that a tour of the Peterson house has been scheduled for
6:00 p.m. on August 8th, just prior to the regular scheduled meeting on the same date.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 8, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
JoycelRepyw
RI
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
Peterson House Tour — 6.00 p.m. — 5312 Interlachen Boulevard (park on
Vandervork Avenue)
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 12, 2006
II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS — HERITAGE PRESERVATION ON THE
WEB
III. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS (NAPC)
FORUM — BALTIMORE, MD JULY 27 — 30: Report from Consultant Vogel
VI. OTHER BUSINESS:
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 11, 2006 - Monday (change in date due to primary
election on Tuesday the 12th)
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal, Lou
Blemaster, Arlene Forrest, Laura Benson,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara, Nancy Scherer, and Ian Yue
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
PETERSON HOUSE TOUR — 5312 INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD: 6:00 p.m.
Mark and Nancy Winter most graciously opened their historic home to the Heritage
Preservation Board. Board members delighted in the tour as the Winters shared their
knowledge of the home and Consultant Vogel provided a historical / architectural
perspective. All agreed that the City is fortunate to have Mark and Nancy as stewards
of the historic Peterson House.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: 7:00 p.m.
Member Blemaster moved for approval of the minutes from the July 12, 2006
meeting. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS — HPB OM THE WEB
Board members reviewed Consultant Vogel's answers to the fourteen commonly
asked questions which had been identified at a previous HPB meeting. All agreed
that the responses did a good job of clarifying issues related to Edina's heritage
preservation practices. After providing input and clarification to some of the
questions, the Board agreed to include the following additional questions to the list:
• What is the National Register of Historic Places?
• Is a Certificate of Appropriateness required for a remodel or addition to a
home?
• What is the difference between the Heritage Preservation Board and the
Edina Historical Society?
Consultant Vogel agreed to have the answers to these additional questions available
for the next HPB meeting.
Minutes — August 8, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Discussion ensued regarding the various ways of providing this information to the
public. It was agreed that a web presence is important; however it is equally
important to provide a written version. Chairman Kojetin opined that he would like to
see an informational brochure available to the public. Board members agreed that
would be a good idea.
Planner Repya suggested that when addressing the Heritage Preservation section on
the City's web site a separate page be devoted to each of the Edina Heritage
Landmarks with photographs, maps and an explanation of their significance. Board
members concurred. No formal action was taken.
Itl. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS (NAPC)
FORUM BALTIMORE, MD JULY 27 — 30• Report from Consultant Vogel
Consultant Vogel explained that the conference was well attended with heritage preservation
commissioners and staff members from 44 countries. The difference between most
preservation conferences and NAPC's is that the focus for NAPC is centered on providing
useful information for preservation commissions
Consultant Vogel observed that he sits on the Board of Directors for NAPC and
served as a speaker for a session focusing on how heritage preservation
commissions work within the city government. He provided several examples to the
group of how Edina's Heritage Preservation Ordinance works and the attendees were
very impressed with Edina's innovative approach to addressing the preservation of
heritage landmarks.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. 2006 State Historic Preservation Conference — Sept. 28 & 29 in Red Wing
Planner Repya reminded the Board that the State Historic Preservation Conference
will be held on Thursday and Friday, September 28 and 29 in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Because Edina is a Certified Local Government, we are required to send at least one
Board member to at least one day of the conference. Chairman Kojetin has agreed to
attend both the Thursday and Friday sessions. Planner Repya provided Board
members with the registration forms and explained that the City will pay the
reTstration for those wishing to attend. The deadline for registrations will be August
16 Board members agreed that prior to the 16th they would check their calendars
and let Ms. Repya know if they would be able to attend. No formal action was taken.
2
Minutes — August 8, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 11, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
joycellZepyal
AGENDA
THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM (UPSTAIRS)
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 8, 2006
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
1. H-06-4 4507 Drexel Avenue
Request: Demolish existing detached garage and build a new detached garage.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
IV. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — September 28th & 29th, Red Wing
V. OTHER BUSINESS:
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 10, 2006
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal, Arlene
Forrest, Laura Benson, and Nancy Scherer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara, Lou Blemaster, and Ian Yue
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Abby Leber, 4507 Drexel Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Thorpe moved for approval of the minutes from the August 8, 2006 meeting.
Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — Country Club District
H-06-4 4507 Drexel Avenue
Demolish existing detached garage and build a new
detached garage
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the
4500 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home is a 1925 English Cottage with
American Colonial Revival influence. A 2 -car detached garage is located in the
northeast corner of the lot, accessed by a driveway running along the north property
line.
The subject request involves demolishing the existing 377.6 square foot detached
garage and building a new, detached garage in its place. The plan illustrates the new
structure will maintain a 3 foot rear and side yard setback, the minimum allowed by
code. A variance was approved by the City's Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the
eave to project 18 inches into the 3 foot setback. The variance was subject to
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness by the Heritage Preservation Board. A
new curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will provide access to the
proposed garage.
Minutes — September 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The new 2 stall detached garage is proposed to be 457 square feet in area. The
design of the structure is proposed to compliment the architectural style of the home,
incorporating stucco walls and an asphalt shingled roof. The height of the proposed
garage is shown to be 16.9 feet at the highest peak, and the height at the eave line is
proposed to be 8.9 feet; well within the average of 2 stall garages previously approved
by the Board. With the construction of the new garage, the lot coverage for the
property will be 2,249.3 square feet in area; the maximum allowed by code is 2,250
square feet.
The proponent has provided a breakdown of the heights of the garages and dwellings
on either side and behind the subject property. The figures indicate that the proposal
is in keeping with the neighborhood.
The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 2 -car garage in the R-1 zoning
district. The proposed 457 square foot detached garage is standard for a 2 -car
garage.
Planner Repya concluded that the plans provided with subject request clearly
illustrate the scale and scope of the project relative to the principle home.
Furthermore, the information provided supporting the subject Certificate of
Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country
Club Plan of Treatment.
The plans indicate that the exterior materials of the new garage will compliment the
existing home, and new structure meets the height and lot coverage requirements set
out in the Zoning Ordinance, furthermore a variance was approved to allow 18 inches
of the eave to project into the required 3 foot setback. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the request to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a
new detached garage subject to the plans presented.
Chairman Kojetin observed that there is currently a gate across the driveway going
into the rear yard and he wondered whether the gate would remain. Abby Leber,
owner of the home explained that the gate will be removed.
Member Thorpe stated that she liked the design of the proposed garage, pointing out
that it is a good fit. Member Forrest agreed, adding that she liked the details
provided. All Board members appreciated that the plan did an excellent job
complimenting the house without attempting to create a replica version. Consultant
Vogel agreed, explaining that historically, the garage was a utilitarian structure which
was more understated than the home. He added that some of the garage plans the
Board has seen almost compete with the house.
Member Rofidal then moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the existing detached garage and build a new detached garage in its place
subject to the plans presented. Member Thorpe seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
2
Minutes — September 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (COA) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Planner Repya advised the Board that she received a request from the City Manager,
Gordon Hughes for the HPB to review the submittal requirements for Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) applications. Mr. Hughes's request was in response to a resident's
concern brought before the City Council regarding the elevation of new home being
constructed in the Country Club District at 4608 Bruce Avenue (COA approved by the Board
on 3/14/2006). Of particular concern was the fact that the elevation provided at the March
HPB meeting which depicted the proposed new house as well as the houses on either side
gave one the impression that the homes sat on a relatively even plane; whereas actually, the
foundation of the new home is 2.7 feet higher than the home to the south and 1.5 feet higher
than the home to the north. The grade difference was provided on the plan, however it does
not appear that the plan was drawn to scale.
Ms. Repya explained that upon receiving Mr. Hughes's request, she met with Steve
Kirchman, Edina's Chief Building Inspector to evaluate the elevation plans provided to the
HPB with the proposal to determine what changes could be made to ensure that the
elevations provided depict what will actually be seen.
Mr. Kirchman and Ms. Repya determined that to alleviate confusion regarding the elevations
in the future, the elevation requirement should be fine tuned to require exterior elevations
drawn to scale of the existing and proposed grade at the house, top of foundation and top of
floor. Ms. Repya provided the Board with the following revised requirements for COA
applications (revisions highlighted):
The following information is required to accompany the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness:
1. Application and $175.00. Checks made payable to the City of Edina.
2. A meeting is required with the Planner prior to submitting the application.
3. 2 surveys to comply with City requirements (attached) — one of the existing home
and one of the proposed home.
4. Detailed exterior elevations g `- `'
drawn to scale:
5. Exterior elevations of adjacent structures detailing grade as well as the roof
and eave lines in relation to the roof and eave lines of the proposed work.
6. One copy of the above required elevations reduced to fit an 11" x 17" sheet.
7. A narrative explaining the proposed project, zeroing in on how the proposal
meets the recommended design guidelines.
8. A rendering of the new home shall be made available.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference in the perception of a plan on paper
versus the actual construction. All agreed that the issue of concern relates to the
3
Minutes — September 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
vertical dimensions pertinent to the grade, and it is imperative that all the dimensions
provided are to scale and accurate as portrayed.
Responding to a question from the Board as to whether they need to move approval
of the revised requirements, Consultant Vogel explained that a motion was not
required. The reason the change was brought before the Board was to make sure the
HPB was aware of a concern raised regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness that
was issued for the newest home being constructed in the Country Club District.
Board members agreed that the added requirement of receiving the existing and
proposed grades with COA applications will be beneficial. No formal action was
taken.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Information for the Public
Consultant Vogel provided the Board with samples of brochures and information fact
sheets used by the City of Chicago to educate the public on issues relative to their
heritage preservation programs. Board members agreed that the brochures were
very inviting. All agreed that as they move forward to designing the fact
sheet/brochure, borrowing some concepts from Chicago's work would be worthwhile.
B. Country Club District Neighborhood Survey Inquiry
Member Rofidal asked Planner Repya to update the Board on the latest activities of
the neighborhood group from the Country Club District who were interested in
surveying their neighbors to identify their opinions regarding the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the current guidelines in the District.
Ms. Repya explained that after discussing the proposed survey with Jane Lonnquist,
the spokesperson for the group, it became clear that Ms. Lonnquist was unaware that
the District had been surveyed in 2001, and many of the questions on that survey
were the same as those being considered by her committee. A copy of the 2001
survey with the results was sent to Ms. Lonnquist as well as a chronology of public
meetings related to the designation of the District. Nothing further has been heard
from the committee. Board members asked Ms. Repya to follow-up with Ms.
Lonnquist. For formal action was taken.
C. Resurveying the Country Club District Homes
Consultant Vogel observed that within the past year several contractors have
attempted to present plans for new construction in the Country Club District which
have drawn upon architectural element found on several homes from within the
.19
Minutes — September 11, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
district; however when the elements are combined, they are in essence creating their
own architectural styles which are not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the architectural styles of the 550 homes in the district were
last surveyed in 1980. Since that time enough changes to the exteriors of the homes
have occurred that it would probably be wise to resurvey the homes, thus establishing
a current architectural base. He added that the initial survey did not take into
consideration elevations which we are now finding have quite a bearing when
evaluating some projects in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the initial survey
identified about a dozen architectural styles, when in reality there are basically four
predominant styles found in the district.
Mr. Vogel added that both the Plan of Treatment for the Country Club District and the
Historic Context Study recommend resurveying the district in the future — perhaps the
future is now.
Following a brief discussion, Board members agreed that it would be a good idea to
consider resurveying the Country Club District homes in their 2007 work plan. No
formal action was taken.
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 10, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
J0YC&Repya.
M
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 501h STREET
EDINA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 11, 2006
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
1. H-06-5 4622 Drexel Avenue
Request: Demolish existing house and build a new house
2. H-06-6 4526 Casco Avenue
Request: Convert attached garage to living space and build a detached garage in
the southwest corner of the rear yard
III. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — Report from participants
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
- Upcoming landmark designation of Edina Mill site
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: November 14, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
0
i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal,
Arlene Forrest, Laura Benson, Lou Blemaster and Ian
Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara and Nancy Scherer
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
Cary Teague, Planning Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Robert Miller, 4622 Drexel Avenue
Matthew Hoffman, Camelot Construction
Jennifer Dewing, 4526 Casco Avenue
Thomas Kasprzak, Durabilt Associates, Inc.
Robert Sykes, 4524 Casco Avenue
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Rofidal moved for approval of the minutes from the September 11, 2006
meeting. Member Thorpe seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — Country Club District
1. H-06-5 4622 Drexel Avenue
Demolish existing house and build a new house
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4600 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home, constructed in 1941 is
identified as an American Colonial Revival with Georgian Revival influence - a
two stall, front loading garage is located on the north side of the house.
The subject request involves demolition of the existing home and construction of
a new home on the site. Originally, the applicant's intent was to undertake a
significant renovation project to include converting the front loading garage to
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
N
living space and building a detached garage in the rear yard, achieving access by
way of a new driveway located on the south side of the property. Because the
minimum driveway width required by code is 12 feet, and the existing home is
setback 11'6" from the south lot line, a variance was requested for the proposed
driveway. The driveway width variance request was denied by the Zoning Board
of Appeals, as was an appeal of the decision to the City Council. The
homeowner then made the decision to remove the existing home from the
property and build a new home that would not deviate from any of the
requirements of Edina's Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Repya pointed out that the plans for the new home illustrate a 2 -story,
American Colonial style home with an attached 3 -car garage in the rear of the
home accessed by a 12 foot wide driveway running along the north property line
utilizing the existing curb cut. The exterior finishes are natural stone and
hardiboard composite siding. The hip roof is shown to have an 8/12 pitch with
roofing material to be an asphalt shingle that has a slate -like appearance.
An important element when reviewing a new home in the Country Club District, in
addition to the architectural style, is to determine how the home will compare in
size and massing to the adjacent homes. The comparative illustration of the
elevations and building heights of the proposed home and the adjacent homes to
both the north and south (provided below) demonstrate that the proposed home
is consistent with the siting of the existing adjacent homes.
Address
Elevation at Grade
Ridge peak Elevation
Height
4620 - north
895.0
923.22
28.22'
4622 - proposed
893.0
921.48
28.48'
4624 - south
893.0
921.48
28.48'
Planner Repya observed that Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel has
reviewed the proposed plan and determined that the existing house does not
individually meet the criteria for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark;
therefore, the new construction, rather than the demolition, is the primary issue
with regard to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The Country Club District Plan of Treatment clearly states that new construction
needs to be compatible in size, scale, color, and texture with the Period Revival
style houses that give the district its historic character. In general, the plans
provided indicate a Colonial styled house, which is one of the historical styles
recommended in the district guidelines for new construction. The information
provided also illustrates that in terms of its design and exterior materials, the new
house should be compatible with the architectural character of the neighborhood
in form and detailing.
2
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Repya added that when Mr. Vogel reviewed the subject plan, he observed
that what he likes most about the proposed design is that the new house will not
be a replica of an actual Colonial house, or a copy of another Country Club
Colonial. While it certainly shows the influence of the Georgian style, it also
incorporates elements of Adam and Early Classical Revival. Mr. Vogel has
indicated that overall, it is a very contemporary, 21St Century composition
(Georgian houses seldom had hip roofs or sidewall chimneys or two-story
porticos) that would not fool a careful observer into thinking it was a 1920's
Colonial Revival house. New houses should not pretend to be old houses, but
they need to be respectful. Mr. Vogel has added that the subject design shows
respect for traditional architecture and the neighborhood setting in which it is
proposed to be built.
Planner Repya concluded that staff agrees with Preservationist Vogel's
observations and recommended approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the existing home and build a new home subject to the following
conditions:
• The home should be constructed per the plans presented,
• Approval of the plans by the Building, Planning and
Engineering Departments,
• A plaque should be affixed to the building identifying the
year of construction, and
• A rendering of the proposed home should be displayed in
the front yard.
Chairman Kojetin explained that he along with other members of the Heritage
Preservation Board visited the site to gain a better understanding of the proposal.
Member Rofidal asked for clarification of the proposed building height compared
to the homes to the north (4620) and the south (4624). Planner Repya explained
that two elevations need to be considered; the elevation at grade as well as the
elevation at the roof peak. The proposed home at grade measures 893.0' (above
sea level) and 921.48' at the roof peak, the same as the southerly home, 4624.
The home to the north, 4620 sits 2 feet higher at grade (895.0') and 1.7 feet
higher at roof peak (923.22') than the proposed house.
Robert Miller, 4622 Drexel Avenue thanked the Board for considering his request
for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He observed that when developing the plans
for the home, he and his designer appreciated having the design guidelines for
the Country Club District as a guiding tool. He added that Consultant Vogel also
provided valuable advice to ensure that their plan would compliment the historic
architecture in the district.
Chairman Kojetin asked if any neighbors were in attendance — none were.
Planner Repya explained that the neighbor across the street, Mr. and Mrs.
3
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Fleischmann, 4621 Drexel Avenue came into the Planning office to review the
plans. Ms. Repya added that she gave the Fleishmann's a copy of the plans to
share with the southerly neighbors to the proposal, Mr. and Mrs. Delianedes,
4624 Drexel Avenue because they were unable to make it to City Hall to view the
plans.
General discussion ensued regarding the proposed plan. Board members
agreed that the plans presented were the most thorough they have reviewed for a
new home thus far. Member Forrest suggested that these plans be used as an
example for future applicants to ensure that the information required by the Board
is provided. Chairman Kojetin added that he was most pleased with this proposal
because the applicant worked closely with the Planning staff and Consultant
Vogel to ensure that their plan would meet the criteria established for the district.
Member Forest then moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to
demolish the existing home and build a new home subject to the conditions that:
1. The homes is built per the plans approved by the HPB,
2. The final plans meet the approval of the Building, Planning and
Engineering Departments,
3. A plaque should be affixed to the building identifying the year of
construction, and
4. A rendering of the proposed home should be erected in the front yard
depicting the design of the new home.
Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
2. H- 06- 6 4526 Casco Avenue
Convert attached garage to living space and build a
detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4500 block of Casco Avenue. The existing home is a 1936 Norman style
home with American Georgian influence. A 2 -car attached garage is located in
the northwest corner of the house, accessed by a driveway running along the
south property line.
The subject request involves converting the existing attached garage to living
space and building a new 23'10" x 22', detached garage in the southwest corner
of the rear yard. A new curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will
provide access to the proposed garage.
The new detached garage is proposed to compliment the architectural style of the
home. Hardie stucco siding with cedar trim is proposed for the garage which will
compliment the stucco and wood trim detail found on the front elevation of the
home. An asphalt shingled roof is proposed to match the house, and a roof pitch
of 8/12 is provided. The height of the garage is shown to be 15 feet at the highest
rd
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
peak, 11.5 feet to the mid -point of the gable, and 7.5 feet to the eave line; all
dimensions well within the average of detached garage plans previously
approved by the Board. The overhead doors are proposed to be carriage style.
There are no detached garages which abut the subject garage. The property to
the north has a 2 -car detached garage situated 4 feet from north lot line. The
proposed garage is shown to be setback five feet from the side and rear property
line to ensure that the evergreen trees in the southwest corner of the property are
not disturbed.
Ms. Repya observed that the Heritage Preservation Board has reviewed plans for
similar 2 -car, detached garages in the Country Club District. 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 provides attention to detail on all four elevations, with the use of
wood timbering to break up the long wall areas. The square footage and heights
at the roof peak, midpoint and eave line are all within the average of detached
garages previously approved by the Board.
Consultant Vogel has recognized that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the treatment of historic properties provide that new construction is an
appropriate undertaking in an historic district when the new construction is
compatible in size, scale, materials, color and texture with other buildings in the
neighborhood.
Staff finds that detached garages are consistent with the historic pattern of
residential development in the Country Club District. Furthermore, the proposed
plan appears to meet the requirements of the Country Club District Plan of
Treatment and will compliment the principle structure. A letter provided by the
contractor indicated that the overall height of the garage would not exceed 17 feet
at the peak; however a height of 15 feet was depicted on the plan. Approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended subject to plans presented,
which would include the 15 foot height at the peak as represented.
Ms. Repya added that the neighbors abutting the garage to the south (4528
Casco) came into the Planning office to view the proposed plan; and the neighbor
to the north, Robert Sykes (4522 Casco) provided a letter of support for the
project and was in attendance.
Jennifer Dewing, 4526 Casco Avenue elaborated on the rationale for their project,
pointing out that the existing 2 car attached garage was added onto years ago
without footings, and the exterior walls with wood siding; creating an unstable
structure that is not compatible with the architecture of the home. The proposed
new detached garage will provide for a more functional use of their property and
correct existing deficiencies, while at the same time respect the large white pines
in the southwest corner of the property.
5
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Blemaster commented that the Board has reviewed many new detached
garages in the Country Club District and she found the subject proposal to be well
thought out, adding that the architectural style is pleasing and does a good job of
complimenting the architectural style of the home. Board members expressed
their agreement.
Following a brief discussion, Member Thorpe moved for approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a detached garage in the southwest
corner of the rear yard subject to the plans presented to include the 15 foot
building height at the peak. All voted aye. The motion carried.
III. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — Report from participants
The annual Minnesota Historic Preservation Conference was held at the St.
James Hotel in Red Wing on Thursday and Friday, September 28th and 29tH
Chairman Kojetin represented Edina's HPB at the sessions on Thursday and
Friday. Planner Repya and Members Rofidal, Blemaster and Thorpe attended
the sessions on Friday. As a Certified Local Government, it is mandatory that at
least one member of the Board attend the State's annual conference.
Member Rofidal stated that he found the conference to be very worthwhile. Of
particular interest to him was the City Manager from Little Falls who explained
that the City owns the facades of the historic buildings in their downtown
commercial district — an interesting way to control the historic integrity of their
main street.
Member Blemaster appreciated the information regarding the importance of
volunteers to the business of preserving the heritage of a community. She
added that listening to the experience from those working in other communities
was helpful to understand that some of the issues we grapple with are not
necessarily unique to Edina.
Member Thorpe observed that she was raised in a small town and has always
been concerned with small towns maintaining their character. It was good to see
that there is a forum for preservation groups from both big cities and the smaller
towns where they can gain support for their preservation efforts.
Chairman Kojetin agreed with members Blemaster, Rofidal and Thorpe, and
added that he also enjoyed the Preservation Tour of Red Wing that included the
following highlights:
• A drive up to the Barn Bluff to observe the surrounding
Mississippi River Valley.
• A visit to the old Carlson Lime Kiln where raw limestone
was processed for commercial purposes from 1870 —
1908, and
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
• A walk through the historic residential district, which
included a tour of the Sheldon Mansion constructed in
1876.
Kojetin concluded that the conference was time well spent, and he encouraged
Board members to consider attending future conferences.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Edina Mill Site & Browndale Bridge Landmark Designations
Consultant Vogel explained that his firm is completing the nomination studies for
the landmark designations of the Edina Mill Site and the Browndale Bridge. He
indicated that the studies will be presented to the Board at the November
meeting. In the mean time, the studies will be sent to the State Historical
Society to comply with the 60 day review and comment period required by
Edina's Preservation Code. No formal action was taken.
2. Interlachen Path Update
Consultant Vogel explained that since he last reported to the Board, the
Interlachen Path project had taken a different turn — apparently due to public
concern, the path is now proposed for the south side of Interlachen Boulevard
instead of the north side. That does not have an effect from a preservation
standpoint because the historic properties identified were all on the north side of
the street. Vogel continues to work as a consultant for the Engineering
Department, assisting the City in compliance with the historic identification
requirements of the project. He added that he would continue to provide
updates to the Board if and when new information was available.
3. Country Club District — Neighborhood Survey Update
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at the September meeting she had
advised them of a group of residents in the Country Club District that were
interested in polling their neighbors to determine where the majority of the
residents stood regarding the changes that have occurred in the neighborhood
since it was designated a Heritage Landmark District. Ms. Repya had provided
the group with a copy of the survey the HPB completed in 2001 where a 58% of
the residents responded.
Ms. Repya was pleased to report that Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue who
is one of the neighborhood members working on their survey had contacted her.
Ms. Lonnquist appreciated the 2001 survey and as a result, her committee
decided to make some changes to their survey which they hoped to have on the
neighborhood web site by the middle of October. It is their intention to allow one
7
Minutes — October 10, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
month for residents to respond, after which they will compile their results and
tentatively be able to report their results to the HPB at the December meeting.
A brief discussion ensued. Board members thanked Ms. Repya for her update.
No formal action was taken.
V, NEXT MEETING DATE: November 14, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
Respectfully submitted,
Joyc&Rep.Ya'
1*1
40
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
4801 W. 501h STREET
EDINA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 10, 2006
11. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
1. H-06-7 4624 Drexel Avenue
Request: Convert attached garage to living space and build a detached garage in
the northwest corner of the rear yard
2. H-06-8 4608 Bruce Avenue
Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the plans for
a new home originally approved on March 14, 2006.
III. BROWNDALE BRIDGE & EDINA MILL SITE — Landmark Nomination Studies
IV. 2007 NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE:
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50'" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Marie Thorpe, Chris Rofidal,
Arlene Forrest, Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara and Nancy
Scherer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lou Blemaster and Ian Yue
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
Cary Teague, Planning Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Rofidal moved for approval of the minutes from the October 10, 2006
meeting. Member Thorpe seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — Country Club District
1. H-06-7 4624 Drexel Avenue
Convert attached garage to living space and build
A detached garage in the northwest corner of the
rear yard
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4600 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home is a 1933 American
Colonial Revival. A 2 -stall garage with a screened porch above it is attached to
the rear of the house accessed by a driveway running along the north property
line.
The subject request involves converting the existing 2 stall attached garage and
screened porch into living space and building a new detached garage in the
northwest corner of the rear yard.
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The new detached garage is proposed to measure 24'x 24', or 576 square feet in
area. The garage has been designed to compliment the American Colonial
architectural style of the home, with cedar shingles, siding, soffit, fascia and trim
detail to match. A round or elliptical window is proposed on the east gable end
above the overhead doors. The height of the garage is shown to be 18 feet at the
highest peak, 13.5 feet to the mid -point of the gable, and 8.9 feet to the eave line
on the east elevation. The garage is shown to set into the west side of the lot,
providing a 14 foot height to the peak and approximately 8.5 feet to the midpoint
of the gable on the back side, with a 4 foot retaining wall running along the north
and south sides of the structure. The plans also demonstrate a 3 foot side and
rear yard setback, as allowed by code.
The applicant provided photographs and the heights of adjacent structures to the
west (12' to soffit) and south (6' to soffit). The home to the north (4622 Drexel
Ave.) will be removed and a new home set back 8 feet from the shared lot line will
be built in its place.
Ms. Repya stated that the information provided supporting the subject Certificate
of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Country Club Plan of Treatment. Furthermore, the plans demonstrate that the
design and exterior materials of the new garage will compliment the existing
home and meet the setback and height requirements set out in the Zoning
Ordinance, thus approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended
subject to the plans presented.
Dan Kreiter of Matthias K. Builders, representing the homeowners Dan and
Christina Delianedis explained that the new detached garage is proposed to be
set into the higher elevation of the west property line surrounded on three sides
by a four foot retaining wall. The garage will be set back three feet from the side
and rear lot lines and a fence will be constructed on the property line. The new
driveway will be poured to replace the existing driveway along the north property
line.
Chairman Kojetin asked if the adjacent neighbor to the north was aware of the
proposed plan and the difference in grade. Planner Repya explained that the
owner of the adjacent home to the north, Robert Miller, 4622 Drexel Avenue did
come into the Planning Department to review the proposed plans.
Following a brief discussion, Member Scherer stated that the proposed garage
appears to compliment the home and is in keeping with garages previously
approved by the Board, thus she moved approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness to convert the attached garage to living space and build a
detached 2 car garage in the northwest corner of the rear yard subject to the
plans presented. Member Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
2
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
2. H- 06- 8 4608 Bruce Avenue
Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the plans
for a new home originally approved on March 14, 2006
Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of
the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Board approved a
Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing home and construct a new
2 -story English Cottage style home on the site at the March 14, 2006 meeting.
The approved plans for the new home illustrate a 2 -story English Cottage style
structure with an attached 2 car garage on the rear, walk -out portion of the house.
The garage will be accessed by a new driveway proposed on the south side of
the lot. The exterior finishes for the home are shown to be wood shake like
siding (Hardi board composite) with stone accents. The roof is proposed to offer
varying sized gables (from a 12/15 pitch to a 12/10) and will be covered with a
composite shingle material.
Ms. Repya further stated that JMS Homes has indicated that they have a buyer
for the home who is requesting some changes to the plan approved with the initial
Certificate of Appropriateness. Following is a listing of the proposed changes by
elevation:
FRONT (east)
• Second floor, left side of the south window stone was removed and
replaced by shakes.
• Front door threshold was dropped by approximately 2 feet by cutting a
small portion of the foundation at the stoop.
• Front door will be an 8 foot door instead of a 7 foot door.
SIDE (south)
• Stone replacing shakes and Hardi board panels on the first floor and
walk -out portion.
• Windows sizes changed and placement realigned.
SIDE (north)
• Window sizes changed on east and west sides, Hardi board panel
removed below center window on west side.
REAR (west)
• Cantilever provided for direct vent gas fireplace.
• Windows added to second story and walk -out (south side)
• Window size reduced above fireplace cantilever.
• Windows on walk -out below fireplace cantilever reduced from 3 to 2.
3
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Ms. Repya reminded the Board that the approval of the initial Certificate of
Appropriateness was subject to the plans presented. When changes to plans are
proposed, a new Certificate of Appropriateness is required to provide the Board
an opportunity to determine if the changes are in keeping with the District's plan
of treatment.
Consultant Vogel has reviewed the subject changes to the home and determined
that the changes to the plan as proposed are consistent with the District plan of
treatment regarding the size, scale, proportions and materials of the home. He
added that the architectural character of the proposed new construction will
compliment the historic character of the district and not disturb the historic
integrity of the new homes.
In closing, Planner Repya reminded the Board that when the plans were initially
reviewed, JMS provided a comparative streetscape illustration depicting the
height of the proposed structure as well as the houses on the north and south
sides. That plan illustrated an overall building height of the new structure to be
27.5 feet to the highest point of the ridge. The home to the north, 4606 Bruce
Avenue was shown to have an overall height of 24 feet, 4.9 feet shorter and the
home to the south, 4610 Bruce Avenue measured 24.3 feet at the highest point of
the ridge, totaling 5.9 feet shorter than the proposed home. Also, a survey for the
subject property illustrated the ridge elevations of the houses on the east side of
Bruce Avenue (directly across the street) range from .7 to 4.6 feet shorter than
the proposed home. The Board deemed the height differences to be
appropriate.
Since the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for the subject property at
the March HPB meeting, the original home has been demolished and the
basement/foundation for the new home is in place. Staff has heard from several
neighbors regarding the grade and siting of the new home on the property. Some
feel that the foundation sits higher than what was depicted on the comparative
illustration provided for Board review. Of particular concern is the perception that
the streetscape illustration was not to scale and did not depict the actual spacing
and heights of the homes on the plan. JMS has agreed to create a new
streetscape plan to scale that would accurately depict the front facades, setbacks
and grades of subject home as well as the homes on either side.
Andy Porter, JMS Homes then presented a new streetscape, drawn to scale
depicting the facades of the subject home as well as the homes to the north and
south. The building heights of all the structures are indicated to be the same as
the streetscape provided with the initial proposal in March 2006. The adjusted
grade at the entry, 898.0 for the proposed home was provided. The grades for
the adjacent homes were not provided, however it is apparent from the revised
0
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
drawing that the subject home, as the numbers indicate, is proposed to sit higher
than the homes on either side.
Mr. Porter recited the proposed changes to the plans which were approved in the
initial Certificate of Appropriateness. He pointed out that the proposal to lower
the front door threshold by 2 feet is an attempt to respond to the neighborhood
concern regarding the height of the foundation. The lower threshold will be
achieved by cutting a small portion of the foundation at the stoop. He added that
by lowering the threshold, the home will "nest" better on the property.
Mr. Porter added that his firm inherited a unique and challenging lot in the
Country Club District. The grade of the previous home was established for the
rear walkout home that was built in the 1970's. When designing the new home,
the existing grade of the property was not altered in an attempt to maintain the
drainage patterns established for the subject property as well as the surrounding
properties.
Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue (to the south) addressed the Board providing
photographs of the previous home at 4608 Bruce Avenue with respect to her
home as well as current photos illustrating the foundation for the new home. Ms.
O'Dea stated that she does not feel that the new home is in scale with the
neighborhood as required by the district's plan of treatment. Ms. O'Dea also
expressed her concern that the streetscape provided to the HPB at the March
2006 meeting when the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new home was
approved was misleading and misrepresented the home that is being built.
Ms. O'Dea added that in addition to the concerns she has relative to the
inaccurate streetscape, there is also an issue of the 12 foot driveway width
required. Apparently, JMS did not take into consideration the grade difference
between their site and her property. The proposed driveway was measured from
the foundation to the property line, however because they did not take into
consideration the grade difference, they now need a retaining wall which they
asked Ms. O'Dea to provide for them on her property. Ms. O'Dea declined their
request to build the retaining wall on her property, so now JMS is going to install a
piece or sheet metal to retain the 2 foot grade difference. While Ms. O'Dea
recognized that the driveway issue was not part of the Certificate of
Appropriateness changes being addressed at this time — the issue has added to
her frustrations in dealing with JMS.
When asked what remedy Ms. O'Dea would like to see, she stated that she thinks
it would be appropriate for the original Certificate of Appropriateness to be
rescinded due to the inaccurate streetscape that was provided at the time of the
initial review. She added that the foundation should be removed and the new
home set lower on the lot.
r
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
The following neighbors addressed the Board - a compilation of their comments
follows:
Dan Kraft
4607 Bruce Ave.
Karen Tully 4619 Bruce Ave.
Gordon Spartz
4603 Bruce Ave.
Bob Thompson 4523 Bruce Ave.
JoAnn Farley
4615 Bruce Ave.
Ann Wordelman 4522 Bruce Ave.
Dan Dulas
4609 Bruce Ave.
Thomas Zumwalde 4600 Casco Ave.
• Change is not the problem, however new construction must be in keeping
with the neighboring homes. The proposed home is too massive and tall.
• In the 1970's when the previous home was built, the lot was regraded to
provide for a 1 story walkout. The lot works for the 1 story walkout, not for
2 stories. For the proposed 2 story home, the lot should be regraded to
bring it back to its original grade.
• The walkout home and large foot print on the lot does not work.
• Yes, the previous home on the site was a contemporary style which
people were initially glad to see go, however the proposed home does not
appear to be designed for the subject lot.
• The architectural style is not problematic, however due to the citing and
massive scale, the new home will be out of character.
• JMS told the neighbors they would lower the foundation and they didn't do
that.
• Height is the issue — the basement should be lowered and draintile
installed.
Chairman Kojetin asked Consultant Vogel to provide insight into the design of the
proposed home. Mr. Vogel observed that it appears that the architectural style of
the proposed home is not in question, but rather the scale and proportion relative to
the adjacent homes. He pointed out that the District's guidelines don't address the
few unique properties — such as this walkout, that exist. The design for the home
meets all the criteria of the City's zoning ordinance, in fact, the home could be even
taller and larger than what has been approved. One must keep in mind that the
District's Plan of Treatment is not an alternative code to the zoning code and
flexibility is required. The Plan of Treatment indicates that the new construction
must be compatible with existing structures, however acceptable height differences
are not identified.
Mr. Vogel pointed out that the proposed home meets the broad standards of the
Plan of Treatment and guidelines which are not prescriptive. However, the
neighbors who Live near the home have concerns which should also be taken into
consideration.
Member Rofidal asked for clarification regarding the action the Board should take.
2
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Planner Repya explained that the Certificate of Appropriateness request before
them involves the changes to the original Certificate of Appropriateness approved in
March 2006.
Discussion ensued as to whether the Board had grounds to rescind the Certificate of
Appropriateness for the new home on the grounds that the information provided to
the Board was inaccurate. Planner Repya observed that while the foundation of the
new home on the streetscape did not visually appear to be taller than the adjacent
homes, the height of the structures provided and the respective grades indicated on
the plan were accurate and did demonstrate the height differences.
Member Scherer observed that there are three issues of concern:
1. The height differences of new construction is a problem all over town, but
more problematic for homes on smaller lots;
2. The new streetscape is different from what the Board viewed in March.
Visually, one gets a different feel that might have raised some questions when the
original decision was made; and
3. Acrimony is always troublesome. Has the builder met with the neighbors to
work on collaboration?
Mr. Porter observed that JMS has been attempting to do the right thing all along. As
his firm experienced with the new home they built on Drexel & Bridge, the
construction phase is an ugly time. However, once the Drexel home was complete,
the neighbors were very pleased and that is the scenario they expect for this home.
Member Rofidal asked Consultant Vogel if a Certificate of Appropriateness can be
revoked once it has been issued. Mr. Vogel explained that if the plans
accompanying the Building permit application were the same as the plans approved
by the Heritage Preservation Board, he did not believe the Certificate of
Appropriateness could be revoked.
Discussion ensued regarding the legality of revoking or suspending a Certificate of
Appropriateness once it has been issued. Board members agreed they would like
some direction from the City Council relative to the appropriate action to take.
Member Rofidal then moved to suspend the decision of the request for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for changes to the original plan for 60 days to afford the Board
the opportunity to discuss with the City Council the issuance of the original
Certificate of Appropriateness, the appropriateness of the changes proposed and
the neighborhood concerns. Member Benson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The motion carried.
Planning Director, Cary Teague clarified that Planning Staff will consult with the City
Attorney to determine if Staff and/or the Board could revoke the original certificate
7
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
based on the plans submitted with the Building Permit and the plans approved for
the Certificate of Appropriateness in March.
III. 2007 NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE:
Consultant Vogel introduced Amy Mino, Executive Director of the Landmark Center
in St. Paul who was present to discuss the 2007 National Trust Conference that will
be held in the Twin Cities on October 1 — 6, 2007. Ms. Mino explained that the
National Trust Conferences are not designed in your typical "sit in a grand ballroom
and listen to a speaker" type of format rather 30 field sessions will be offered
throughout the state to provide participants an opportunity to view first hand the
historic resources of the state.
Ms. Mino asked the Board to consider hosting a field session highlighting the
significant historic resources in Edina. She explained the field session proposal
submission system which outlined the key information to submit along with a budget
and timeline.
General discussion ensued among the Board relative to the historically significant
features Edina could highlight in a session. Chairman Kojetin noted that it might be a
good idea to partner with the Edina Historical Society on such a project. Board
members agreed with Kojetin, thanked Ms. Mino for taking the time to meet with
them and indicated that they would seriously consider participating in field session.
No formal action was taken.
IV. BROWNDALE BRIDGE & EDINA MILL SITE — Landmark Nomination
Studies
Planner Repya advised the Board that Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel has
completed the Nomination Study and Plan of Treatment for the Browndale Bridge
and the Edina Mill Site (attached to these minutes as Exhibits "A" and "B"). The
State Historic Preservation Office is currently reviewing these studies — they have
60 days to comment, thus we should be hearing from them by the end of
December. In the meantime, once the HPB approves these nomination studies,
the Planning Commission will have an opportunity for review; after which their
comments will be conveyed to the City Council, which is the last stop on the road
to landmark designation.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the significance of the Edina Mill during the
Civil War. Member Forrest then moved to recommend the City Council designate
the Browndale Bridge and Edina Mill Site Edina Heritage Landmarks. Member
Rofidal seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
V. OTHER BUSINESS: None
VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006
Chairman Kojetin suggested that the December 12th meeting be held at the Edina
Historical Society Museum as a joint holiday time with members of the Edina
Historical Society. Board members agreed that would be an excellent opportunity
to share common interests and gain a better understanding of each group's
responsibilities.
VII. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jaye Repyal
N
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
EXHIBIT "A"
EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION STUDY OF THE
BROWNDALE BRIDGE
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the historic Browndale Bridge for designation as an Edina
Heritage Landmark. It identifies and locates the heritage resource, explains how
it meets the heritage landmark eligibility criteria, and makes the case for historical
significance and integrity. In general, the Edina Heritage Landmarks program has
adopted the conventions and terminology of the National Register of Historic
Places to classify and describe heritage resources and to state their significance.
Once a property is rezoned as a heritage landmark by the City Council, the plan
of treatment contained in the nomination study becomes the official site
preservation plan.
The Browndale Bridge is owned by the City of Edina. It has been assigned
structure number 92643 in the Minnesota Department of Transportation highway
bridge inventory and property identification number HE -EDC -0628 in the
Minnesota Historical Society inventory of historic resources in Hennepin County.
DESCRIPTION
The Browndale Bridge is a concrete arch bridge that carries Browndale Road
over Minnehaha Creek a short distance north of 50th Street at the entrance to the
Edina Country Club District. The main span of the spandrel -filled arch is 24 feet 8
inches in length; including the concrete abutments, the historic structure is 31 feet
long. The bridge deck is 24 feet wide, with a bituminous roadway and 6 -inch
concrete curbs; the railings (some of which have been bent as a result of
automobile collisions) are steel plates attached to masonry bollards with stone
caps. The concrete spillway of the former Edina Mill dam is directly underneath
the bridge; the archaeological remains of the mill are preserved in Dwight
Williams Park along the north side of Minnehaha Creek, immediately downstream
from the Browndale Bridge. Flared concrete wing walls, built in two phases,
protect the bridge abutments. The bridge and abutments have been coated with
hand -troweled sand cement grout. Some cracks and spalling are visible on the
underside of the barrel vault and the wing walls.
Although it has been rated "deficient" by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation on the basis of its width and alignment (which do not meet modern
highway safety standards), the bridge is considered structurally sound and its
load-bearing members are in good condition. The City plans to rehabilitate the
10
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
bridge and wing walls with new concrete facing that matches the existing rough -
sawn board finish, a widened and resurfaced roadway with new curb, and
placement of new curb and gutter along the approaches; plans also include
embankment slope repairs and replacement of the existing bridge railing with new
historically appropriate ornamental metal railing.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The first bridge at this site may have been constructed as early as 1860; late -
nineteenth century records contain frequent references to a "stone arch bridge"
crossing Minnehaha Creek at the Edina Mills locality. The stone bridge was
destroyed by flood waters and was rebuilt under the auspices of Hennepin
County in 1902; the plans for "Bridge No. 44" survive in the archives of the
Hennepin County Engineer. This iron and timber structure was itself washed
away in 1906 and was replaced by the present concrete arch structure, which is
in many respects similar to the standardized short -span stone -arch bridge
designs developed during the early twentieth century by the Minnesota State
Highway Commission. Concrete wing walls were added in 1907 and the entire
structure was overhauled in 1909. The earliest bridge inspection records date
from 1933.
The Browndale Bridge is historically significant for the engineering heritage
embodied in its design and construction. It is a rare, early twentieth century
example of a short -span, concrete -arched highway bridge and the only surviving,
authenticated standing structure contemporaneous with the Edina Mill (1857-
1932). Contextually, it relates to the broad theme of "The Suburban Landscape
(1887 to 1974)" and the local study units "Edina Mills: Agriculture and Rural Life"
and "Minnehaha Creek: From Wilderness Stream to Urban Waterway" that were
delineated in the 1999 Historic Context Study. The bridge has well documented
associations with important events and patterns of events, including settlement
and development of the Edina Mills locality, suburban residential development in
the Browndale Park and Country Club neighborhoods, and the effects of the
automobile on rural and suburban lifeways. The masonry arch span provides
physical evidence of the evolution of bridge engineering and the high quality of
workmanship that went into its construction. The bridge is also an important part
of the Minnehaha Creek cultural landscape and serves to illustrate how the
watershed has been shaped by historical changes in land use.
PLAN OF TREATMENT
The Edina Heritage Preservation Board uses the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the authoritative guide for
its design review decisions. Within the framework of these standards, and in
consultation with the property owner, the Board has adopted the following general
and specific guidelines specially tailored to the preservation requirements of the
Browndale Bridge:
11
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
1) The Browndale Bridge will be preserved in place with stabilization of the
historic masonry and ongoing maintenance to sustain its existing form. The
preferred preservation treatment is rehabilitation, defined as the process of
maintaining the bridge in a state of utility through repairs and minor
alterations which make possible an efficient contemporary use while
preserving those features which are significant to its historical and
engineering values. Repair and replacement of deteriorated features
should be based on accurate duplications of the original, based on
historical, pictorial, or physical evidence.
2) The distinguishing historical qualities and character of the bridge (i.e., its
height, shape, and form) should not be significantly altered or destroyed.
3) Rehabilitate the surfaces of the bridge and wing walls by coating them with
concrete, duplicating the original finish as closely as possible while
preserving the existing shape of the structure.
4) Replace the existing railings with historically appropriate ornamental metal
railings based on historical and pictorial evidence.
5) Signs, lighting, fencing, and walkways should be compatible with the
character of the bridge and provide a minimum intrusion on its size, scale,
material, and color.
6) Recognize the special problems inherent in the bridge's alignment and
structural systems when complying with traffic safety and structural
engineering requirements so that the essential character of the bridge is
preserved intact.
7) Investigate alternative safety measures that preserve the historical integrity
of the bridge. The City should make every effort to retain the historic bridge
as a functional part of the modern transportation system while preserving
its distinguishing original qualities and character. If it can no longer be
used for vehicle traffic, the bridge should be adapted for use as a
pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
8) In the event that the bridge can no longer be preserved in place for
reasons of public safety, the preferred treatment to mitigate the effects of
demolition is removal to another, similar location where it could be
preserved and rehabilitated. If relocation is not viable, the effects of
demolition should be mitigated by documenting the bridge with measured
drawings, large -format negative photographs, and written information to
the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER).
12
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
EXHIBIT "B"
EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK NOMINATION STUDY OF THE
EDINA MILLS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the Edina Mills Archaeological Site for designation as an
Edina Heritage Landmark. It identifies and locates the heritage resource,
explains how it meets the heritage landmark eligibility criteria, and makes the
case for historical significance and integrity. In general, the Edina Heritage
Landmarks program has adopted the conventions and terminology of the National
Register of Historic Places to classify and describe heritage resources and to
state their significance. Once a property is rezoned as a heritage landmark by
the City Council, the plan of treatment contained in the nomination study
becomes the official site preservation plan.
The Edina Mills site is owned by the City of Edina and was added to the city's
initial heritage preservation zoning district by Ordinance No. 811-A107 in 1977. A
National Register of Historic Places nomination form was prepared by Foster
Dunwiddie in the late 1970s but was never submitted to the state review
committee. The site has been assigned site inventory number 21 HE0245 by the
Office of the State Archaeologist.
DESCRIPTION
The Edina Mills Archaeological Site is located on Minnehaha Creek in Dwight
Williams Park, a unit of the city park system. The only extant surface structure
associated with the historic mill is the mill dam, which is located underneath the
Browndale Bridge. This structure is a concrete gravity spillway with an
uncontrolled crest approximately 24 feet in length. The abutment walls blend into
the stream banks, which are high and have steep slopes. The raceway or flume
from the Mill Pond, now filled in, runs for a distance of approximately 34 feet
underneath the embankment formed by Browndale Road; the intake is buried
under several feet of alluvium, fill, and riprap. A considerable amount of silt and
debris has accumulated in front of the upstream face of the mill dam; below the
spillway, a large scatter of rocks and boulders line the stilling basin. The creek
bed and banks are mostly gravel and coarse sand, which scours easily. Several
times over its history the mill and associated structures were damaged by
floodwaters: owing to repeated fillings to prevent bank erosion, the creek bed is
largely covered with boulders and large pieces of broken stone, and both banks
have been armored with riprap.
The archaeological remains of the mill house are located on the left bank
(descending) of the creek. The mill was a large timber and masonry structure
13
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
measuring approximately 40 by 36 feet. The concrete piers and floors, as well as
some timber framing members and foundation stones, lie buried under several
feet of fill. The turbine pit was filled with mud, sand, and rubble when the site was
excavated in 1977. After the archaeological work was completed, the city
developed a small interpretation facility on the site, consisting of an information
kiosk, a preserved millstone, and an outline of the millhouse walls marked with
square wooden posts.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The importance of the Minnehaha Creek waterpower resource in early Edina
history can hardly be over-estimated. When the area was first settled in the mid -
nineteenth century, the creek was seen as an inexhaustible power source that
could be harnessed to a wide range of industrial uses. Even after steam engines
rendered waterwheels obsolete, the motive power of falling water continued to be
an important economic resource.
The site was originally part of a quarter -section tract claimed by William Hoyt in
1855. The following year, Hoyt sold his interest in the property to a group of
speculators, who included the waterpower development in their plans to develop
a townsite called Waterville. The "paper town" of Waterville did not survive the
Panic of 1857, but the Waterville Mill (built by local carpenter William Marriott)
was an active grist mill when William Rheem and Jonathan T. Grimes acquired
the property in 1859. In 1867 the mill passed into the ownership of Daniel H.
Buckwalter, who in turn sold the waterpower privilege to Andrew Craik in 1869.
Craik and his sons made many improvements to the mill, which they named the
Edina Mill, and processed wheat, corn, rye, oats, and barley for the "home" (i.e.,
local) market. Craik hired George Millam, a fellow Scotsman, to manage the mill,
and in 1875 Millam purchased the waterpower from Craik. In 1889, Millam sold
the mill to Henry F. Brown, the Minneapolis lumberman who established a large
stock farm at Edina. The Edina Mill formed part of the Browndale Farm estate
that was purchased by Thorpe Bros. Realty in 1922 for the Country Club
development.
There are numerous historical photographs and contemporary written
descriptions of the Edina Mills complex. The first mill dam appears to have been
a relatively crude timber and stone overflow structure designed to be overtopped
by the creek. The Craik mill dam was a more elegant stone spillway that
redirected part of the creek's flow into an open millrace or flume that directed the
falling water against the paddles of a large, overshot waterwheel, which created
the mechanical power that caused three run of burr stones to grind the grain.
George Millam reportedly replaced the old overshot waterwheel with three
hydraulic shaft turbines, a more efficient type of waterwheel that required the
water from the sluice to be directed downward through penstocks or nozzles to
push against the curved metal blades of the turbines. Both the overshot
14
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
waterwheel and the turbine systems required only a relatively small volume of
water to operate.
When the Edina Mill was running at its peak of performance, the mill dam
generated as much as fifteen feet of hydraulic head (about 50 horsepower) and
could grind roughly 150 bushels of wheat, oats, corn, or other small grains daily.
(In addition to grain milling, the Edina mill dam also provided power for a
blacksmith and machine shop by means of a wire rope or cable.) Craik and his
sons were merchant millers, in that they shipped part of the mill's product in
barrels to market in Minneapolis. The quality of the flour made at the Edina Mill
was probably less than satisfactory, however, because the hard spring wheat
grown in Minnesota during the nineteenth century produced a grade of flour that
was inferior to that made from winter wheat, which was softer, easier to grind, and
produced a whiter flour. For making cornmeal, oatmeal, pearl barley, and animal
feed, the old French burr stones could be set farther apart, with fewer grindings
and screenings required to produce a marketable product.
Whenever the creek's natural flow diminished below a certain level, the mill had
to shut down. This happened most often during periods of prolonged summer
drought and when late -winter ice jams blockaded Minnehaha Creek upstream
from the mill. The effect of upstream dams also reduced the available hydraulic
head at Edina; the construction of a water control structure at the mouth of
Minnehaha Creek in 1893 forced Browndale Farm to use a gasoline engine to
power the feed mill; after the new dam was built at Gray's Bay in 1897, the district
court indemnified Brown $2000 for the loss of his waterpower. In 1906 a severe
flood washed out the mill dam and the county replaced the stone structure with
the existing concrete spillway. The Edina Mill appears to have closed for good
around this time, although the millhouse and related structures were not torn
down until 1932. The site was later used as a dump.
The Edina Mills Archaeological Site is historically significant because of its
association with the Edina waterpower development and because the
archaeological data it contains has potential value in answering important
research questions. The 1977 archaeological investigation appears to have
excavated only about 5% of the mill complex: the current state of knowledge
about the site suggests that both. Dwight William Park and the areas bordering
the lower end of the Mill Pond have good potential for undisturbed cultural
deposits associated with nineteenth century settlement and development
activities. Contextually, the site relates to the broad theme of "The Agricultural
Landscape (1851 to 1959)" and to the local study units "Edina Mills: Agriculture
and Rural Life" and "Minnehaha Creek: From Wilderness Stream to Urban
Waterway," delineated in the 1999 Historic Context Study.
15
Minutes — November 14, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
PLAN OF TREATMENT
The Edina Heritage Preservation Board uses the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the authoritative guide for
its design review decisions. Within the framework of these standards, and in
consultation with the property owner, the Board has adopted the following general
and specific guidelines specially tailored to the preservation requirements of the
Edina Mill Archaeological Site:
9) The Edina Mills Archaeological Site is the heritage preservation
component of Dwight Williams Park and the Mill Pond; every reasonable
effort shall be made to provide compatible uses for these publicly owned
lands that require minimal alteration of the land surfaces above and under
water.
10)Protective measures should be developed to safeguard the physical
condition of known or suspected archaeological features from erosion or
other damage caused by natural or human forces.
11 )Archaeological features should be retained intact, whenever possible.
Future archaeological investigations should emphasize non -intrusive, non-
destructive methods of investigation such as remote sensing.
12)Stream bank stabilization should be accomplished in such a manner that
the work detracts as little as possible from the archaeological site's setting
and environment.
13)Adjacent road construction and maintenance, flood control and water
quality improvements should be conducted in such a manner that
disturbance of terrain in and around the archaeological site is minimized.
14)Whenever archaeological resources must be disturbed by public works
construction, recovery of archaeological data shall be undertaken in
conformance with current professional practices.
15) Reconstruction of all or part of the historic mill complex for public
interpretation may be appropriate, provided that sufficient historical
documentation exists to insure an accurate reproduction of the original
building(s) or structure(s). Reconstruction should include measures to
preserve important archaeological resources intact, wherever possible.
16
AGENDA
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2006 AT 5:00 P.M.
4801 W. 50" STREET
EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November14, 2006
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Country Club District
H-06-8 4608 Bruce Avenue — CONTINUED FROM 11-14-06
Request: Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the plans for
a new home originally approved on March 14, 2006.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT:
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006
V. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
THURSDAY DECEMBER 7, 2006, AT 5:00 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL - COMMUNITY ROOM
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest,
Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Nancy Scherer, Lou
Blemaster, and Ian Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
Cary Teague, Planning Director
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Andy Porter, JMS Custom Homes
Jeff Schoenwetter, JMS Custom Homes
Dan and Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Ave.
Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Ave.
Gordon Spartz, 4603 Bruce Ave.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Rofidal moved for approval of the minutes from the November 14, 2006
meeting. Member Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
II. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — Country Club District
H- 06- 8 4608 Bruce Avenue - Continued
Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the plans
for a new home originally approved on March 14, 2006
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their meeting on November 14, 2006,
the subject Certificate of Appropriateness request was suspended for a period of
60 days to afford them the opportunity to receive counsel from the City Council.
Since that time, the City Attorney, Jerome Gilligan has reviewed all the issues
relative to the original Certificate of Appropriateness as well as the request for the
changes and has provided his findings.
Minutes — December 7, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Mr. Gilligan determined that the Heritage Preservation Board has no legal basis
to rescind the approval of the original Certificate of Appropriateness.
Furthermore, he has pointed out that City staff may not revoke the City permits
because the construction of the home is proceeding in accordance with the
approved plans and applicable zoning requirements.
Mr. Gilligan advises that at this time, the Heritage Preservation Board should
address the subject Certificate of Appropriateness for the changes proposed to
the original building plan.
Planner Repya then reviewed the following requested changes to the plan
identified at the November 14th meeting:
FRONT (east)
• Second floor, left side of the south window stone was removed and
replaced by shakes.
• Front door threshold was dropped by approximately 2 feet by cutting a
small portion of the foundation at the stoop.
• Front door will be an 8 foot door instead of a 7 foot door.
SIDE (south)
• Stone replacing shakes and Hardi-board panels on the first floor and
walk -out portion.
• Windows sizes changed and placement realigned.
SIDE (north)
• Window sizes changed on east and west sides, Hardi board panel
removed below center window on west side.
REAR (west)
• Cantilever provided for direct vent gas fireplace.
• Windows added to second story and walk -out (south side)
• Window size reduced above fireplace cantilever.
• Windows on walk -out below fireplace cantilever reduced from 3 to 2.
Ms. Repya added that in addition to the aforementioned requests, the new owner
would also like to replace the 30 year asphalt shingles with shingles made of a
slate composite material.
Chairman Kojetin thanked Planner Repya for her report. He observed that the
Board has received several Letters and emails from surrounding neighbors in
which they identified their concerns regarding the height of the subject project as
well as the retaining wall required along the driveway on the south side of the lot.
He pointed out that it is the desire of the Board to work with both the builder and
the neighbors to achieve an amicable resolve to this request. Mr. Kojetin then
asked the representatives from JMS Custom Homes if they wished to comment
on the proposed changes to their plan.
2
Minutes — December 7, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Jeff Schoenwetter, Chairman of JMS Companies thanked the Board for
expeditiously addressing their project and welcomed the opportunity to share the
proposed changes to the original building plan. He then pointed out that the
original home, purchased in the fall of 2005 was a Contemporary style, single
story, walk -out with a front loading garage. When designing the new home, JMS
was confronted with several challenges. First, it was their understanding that
front loading garages in the Country Club District are frowned upon by the
Heritage Preservation Board; secondly, the topography of the lot required creative
design work because it is one of the highest points in the district from the street
elevation, while also one of the lowest points in the district in the rear yard. To
provide positive drainage and the required slope of the driveway, the home was
nested as low as possible on the lot.
Andy Porter, of JMS Custom Homes explained that there is currently a buyer for
the property — they have three young children and love the neighborhood. The
changes to the original plan addressed in this request are in response the buyer's
wishes. It is their hope that the changes would be looked upon as enhancements
to the plan.
Dan and Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue questioned the stone proposed for
the home. Mr. Porter explained that the stone that was approved with the original
Certificate of Appropriateness last March is a manufactured material which
closely replicates original stone.
Consultant Robert Vogel pointed out that the manufactured stone approved for
the home closely mimics all of the characteristics of natural products and is
commonly used for new construction in historic districts.
Gordon Spartz, 4603 Bruce Avenue expressed concern that the foundation
appears to be at least five feet above grade. Member Blemaster added that
neighbors have told her that dirt from the basement level was moved to the front
yard, raising the grade higher than the original grade.
Mr. Porter explained that fill was not moved to the front of the lot, but rather
exported from the lot. Furthermore, the trusses proposed for the home have
been lowered to provide for a reduced stature, and a 7 foot 10 inch ceiling is
provided in the basement, unlike the typical 9 foot ceiling found in most new
construction.
Following a brief discussion, Board members agreed to have a motion on the
table prior to continuing the deliberation. Member Rofidal then moved to approve
the proposed changes to the original plan subject to the plans presented.
Member Forrest seconded the motion.
Addressing the changes to the window placement on the south elevation,
Member Forrest asked if the new windows would provide a privacy issue for the
southerly neighbor. Mr. Schoenwetter pointed out that while the size and
3
Minutes — December 7, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
placement of the windows varies, he did not believe the amount of glazing on the
south elevation was increased. Consultant Vogel added that privacy issues do not
enter into the appropriateness of design from the historic integrity standpoint
which is the focus of the district's plan of treatment. He added that these are
small lots and each home has windows that look out upon their neighbors.
Member Forrest also observed that on the south elevation of the proposed plan,
in addition to stone replacing the shake siding and the revised window placement,
she also observed a railing under the windows on the far east side that was not
depicted on the original plan. Board members agreed with Ms. Forrest and
observed that the railing should be added to the proposed changes.
Continuing with comments regarding the request for changes to the original plan,
Board members made the following observations:
Member Forrest
She disagreed with the City Attorney's decision, stating that she felt the
streetscape from which the original approval was based was visually
deceiving, even though the numbers were accurate.
The issue of not providing the necessary room for the retaining wall on
the south elevation abutting the driveway, while not a Heritage
Preservation issue is troubling. Member Forrest questioned the
builder's attention to detail when designing the home.
Ms. Forrest thanked JMS for being responsive to the Board's requests
and for engaging in the process. She added that this has been a
learning experience for all involved.
Member Rofidal
He has struggled with this item because some mistakes have been
made, but on a positive note it has been a learning experience.
• In March, when the original plan was reviewed, the neighbors preferred
the plans for the new home over the previous home.
• He also disagreed with the City Attorney, stating that he too is a visual
person, and the streetscape as originally presented did not visually
depict the new home in comparison to the adjacent homes, even if the
numbers were correct.
The builder and neighborhood communications have been challenging,
and for the sake of all involved, he hoped for progress in that area.
• Moving forward, the Heritage Preservation Board has already made
changes to the requirements for plans submitted with a Certificate of
Appropriateness application thanks to what has been learned through
this request.
At this meeting, the Board is addressing the proposed changes to the
original plan for the home.
51
Minutes — December 7, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Member Ferrara
• Ms. Ferrara agreed with Member Rofidal's comments.
• She pointed out that as an owner of one of the City's landmark
properties (4402 West 44Th Street — Jonathan Grimes House), she feels
strongly that when one purchases in an historic district, a responsibility
to what is significant and appropriate for that district is important.
• Ms. Ferrara questioned if changes like this new home continue whether
the historic integrity of the neighborhood would be adversely affected.
Member Benson
Ms. Benson stated that she felt misled by the original streetscape. Like
her fellow board members, she too stated that she is a visual person
and did not feel the new home was appropriately represented in
comparison the adjacent homes.
Mr. Schoenwetter stated that there was no malfeasance intended when the
original streetscape was presented. That streetscape was an artist's
interpretation.. However, as required, the roof peak elevations were accurate on
the plan.
Member Scherer
• Ms. Scherer stated that she did not believe there was any malfeasance
on the part of JMS, however, she too agreed that the original
streetscape drawing was misleading.
• The evaluations required by the Board are subjective in nature, which is
important to take into consideration.
• The acrimony surrounding this project is unsettling for all, and she
hoped that JMS would work on their community relations.
• The need for a retaining wall along the driveway that wasn't included in
the original building plans, while not an issue for the Heritage
Preservation Board, all the same, is very concerning:
• Ms. Scherer thanked the neighbors for remaining steadfast. Moving
forward, as Member Rofidal explained, the Board is making changes to
the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness request.
• The action required of the Board at this time is to address the proposed
changes to the original building plans.
Member Blemaster
The height of the new home has been a concern of the neighbors and
continues to be a concern, however at this time, the Board is
considering the proposed changes to the original plan.
5
Minutes — December 7, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Homebuyers in the Country Club District are looking for innovation or
they will go someplace else.
The Heritage Preservation Board walks a fine line protecting the
historic integrity of the district while at the same time providing for the
innovation required of housing in an upscale neighborhood.
• She shared Member Ferrara's concern regarding the impact changes
to homes in the district will have on its future historic significance.
Chairman Kojetin thanked the Board for their input. Member Forrest then moved
to amend the motion before the Board to include the railing below the easterly
windows on the south elevation. Member Scherer seconded the motion.
Members Kojetin, Rofidal, Forrest, Benson, Ferrara, Scherer, and Yue voted aye.
Member Blemaster voted nay. The motion carried to approve the proposed
changes to the original building plan as amended to include the railing on the
south elevation, subject to the plans presented.
Chairman Kojetin thanked the neighbors present for engaging in the process,
pointing out that the Board intends on working with the Country Club
neighborhood. Board members concurred with Kojetin stating that they looked
forward to future dialogue with residents to ensure that the historic integrity of the
district is maintained.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
- League of Women Voters °A Study: City of Edina Boards and
Commissions"
Planner Repya explained that a copy of the LWV study was sent to Board
members for their review. Member Forrest added that as President of the
League, she wanted to thank the Board for participating in the study, and
encouraged them to share any insights they may have. No formal action was
taken.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 12, 2006
VI. ADJOURNMENT: 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jdyc&Repyal
N
AGENDA
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM
4711 WEST 70TH STREET
L THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
AND THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY — Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
II. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE —OCTOBER 1-6,2006
PLANNING A FIELD SESSION HIGHLIGHTING EDINA
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 9, 2007
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.
EDINA HISTORICAL SOCIETY AT ARNESON ACRES
4711 W. 70T" STREET
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob Kojetin, Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest,
Laura Benson, Karen Ferrara, Nancy Scherer, Lou
Blemaster, and Ian Yue
MEMBERS ABSENT: Marie Thorpe
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant
Edina Historical Society Members
I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS:
Chairman Kojetin thanked the Historical Society for hosting the December
meeting of the Heritage Preservation Board. All present introduced themselves,
after which Kojetin explained how Arneson Acres came to be the home of the
Historical Society.
II. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND THE
HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD — HPB Consultant Robert Vogel•
Consultant Vogel explained that the Heritage Preservation Boards and Historical
Societies are commonly confused. However, the Heritage Preservation Board is
actually part of the city government, whereas a Historical Society is usually a non-
profit corporation, operating independent of city government.
The Heritage Preservation Board is advisory to the City Council and its members
are appointed by the Mayor and Council. The HPB is guided by City Ordinances
#801 and 850.20 and oversees designated properties by means of a plan of
treatment. The plan of treatment is established to address the unique
characteristics of each designation. In the case of Edina's Country Club District,
there is one landmark designation for the district with 550 pieces.
One of the hardest tasks for the Heritage Preservation Board is to determine
which properties warrant designation. The goal is to select those places which
Minutes — December 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
identify the local history and can be preserved. Once properties have been
designated, the Heritage Preservation is responsible for overseeing changes as
set out in the individual plan of treatment designed for the designated property.
Annually, the Heritage Preservation Board evaluates the activities of the previous
year and establishes their goals for the coming year. The beauty of the Heritage
Preservation Board's way of doing business is that if they see something is not
working, or in need to be reevaluation, they do so — they are flexible and focused
on getting it right.
Mr. Vogel further explained that the Historical Society is in the memory business,
but due to the concentration with the past, the activities of both groups sometime
overlap. The mission of educating the public regarding the history of the city is
probably the most significant common goal
Chairman Kojetin thanked Mr. Vogel for enlightening both groups about their
similarities and differences. He added that the common goal of education is a
perfect segway to the next item of business.
II. NATIONAL TRUST CONFERENCE —OCTOBER 1-6,2006
PLANNING A FIELD SESSION HIGHLIGHTING EDINA:
Consultant Vogel reminded the Board that at their November 14`h meeting, Amy
Mino, Director of the Landmark Center explained the activities being planned
surrounding the upcoming National Trust Conference in the Twin Cities next
October. Ms. Mino invited Edina to host one of the 30 field sessions that will be
offered to conference attendees.
Mr. Vogel explained that the field sessions usually precede the conference and
provide an all day tour experience, highlighting the areas historic significance.
The deadline for submitting proposals to the planning board is the first week of
January, so timing is of the essence. Mr. Vogel shared that he is a member of
the planning board and thought between the efforts of the Heritage Preservation
Board and the Historical Society a very interesting session could be presented
highlighting historic preservation in the suburbs which is a hot topic these days,
but a novel idea for the Trust.
Discussion ensued regarding how the day long session would proceed. Some
suggestions included starting at City Hall for an overview of the city, moving on to
the Cahill School and Grange Hall to provide a one room school house
experience with the assistance of the Cahill teacher. A tour of the Country Club
District was suggested as a must do experience, with lunch at the Historical
Society at Arneson Acres.
2
Minutes — December 12, 2006
Edina Heritage Preservation Board
Members of both the Historical Society and the Heritage Preservation Board
shared their enthusiasm for the proposed project. Mr. Vogel pointed out that if a
proposed session is accepted, once the Conference was over, the City would
have an excellent tour/presentation that could be offered to groups within the
community. Chairman Kojetin added that there is currently an historic tour of the
City in the works which could be used as a starting point.
No formal action was taken. However, it was agreed that after the first of the year
a planning session would take place.
III. OTHER BUSINESS: None
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 9, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
,Joyce Repya
3