Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET During "Public Comment" the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 9, 2008 December 15, 2008 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: A. Certificates of Appropriateness H-09-1 4634 Casco Avenue — Convert attached garage to living space and construct a detached garage in the rear yard H-09-2 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and construction of a new home III. PUBLIC COMMENT: IV. CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: 2009 HERITAGE AWARD V. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION: VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Heritage Preservation Resource Library B. COA Procedure Committee Report VII. CORRESPONDENCE: VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 10, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL —COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Laura Benson, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Karen Ferrara, Lou Blemaster, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Kojetin STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya and Jackie Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 9, 2008, December 15, 2008 Member Blemaster moved approval of the minutes from the December 9, 2008, meeting. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Member Benson moved approval of the minutes of the special meeting from the December 15, 2008, meeting. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: A. Certificate of Appropriateness 1. H-09-1 4634 Casco Avenue - New Detached Garage PLANNER PRESENTATION: Planner Repya explained that the subject request involves building a new, 440 square foot detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard, and converting the existing 2 -stall attached garage into living space. The plan illustrates the new structure will maintain 3 foot setback from the rear (west) and HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 2 of 11 south lot line. A new curb cut will not be required since the proposed garage will be accessed by the existing driveway. The new 2 -stall detached garage is proposed to measure 22'x 20' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the Tudor Revival architectural style of the home with stucco clad walls, a designer overhead door and an asphalt shingled roof. Attention to detail with windows and doors is demonstrated on all four elevations. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 16' 3 7/8" at the highest peak. The new height requirement set out in the revised Plan of Treatment (no taller than 10% of the average height of existing detached garages on adjacent lots) was considered in the design of the garage, which meets the maximum height allowed when the heights of the adjacent detached garages were taken into consideration. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 11' 2 3/8", and a height of 8' 4 3/8" is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 20' in length. The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 30%. The proposed conversion of the attached garage to living space has been scaled back to ensure that with the addition of the 440 square foot detached garage does not push the property's lot coverage over the maximum allowed. Planner Repya informed Members that Consultant Vogel reviewed the plans indicating that the proposed garage replaces a non -historic outbuilding. From the plans, it appears to be compatible in size, scale, and texture with the historic Tudor Revival style house at 4634 Casco and with other historic homes in the district. From the narrative that accompanies the plans Consultant Vogel said he believes that the exterior finish of the garage will be stucco; the pattern is not specified but probably does not need to match that of the house. The decorative gable -end treatment and upper window on the west elevation appears to adequately mitigate any adverse visual effects arising from the undecorated lower wall surface (which also appears to be partly screened by the fence that runs along the rear property -line). The clipped or "jerkin -head" gable proposed for the garage nicely matches the shape of the roof on the house and the garage door, window boxes and lanterns are appropriate for the property. Planner Repya noted Consultant Vogel recommended approval of the COA subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque to be displayed on the structure. Findinc Planner Repya offered the following findings supporting the subject COA request: 9 The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale'and HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 3 of 11 scope of the project. The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Staff Recommendation: Planner Repya concluded that staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new garage subject to: • The plans presented. • The condition that a year built (2008) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage as well as the addition to the home. APPEARING FOR THE APPLICANT: Jeri Zuber, Horty Elving & Associates BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Member Rehkamp Larson suggested that the windows, door(s) and rake of the proposed detached garage be trimmed with materials that match the existing house. Mr. Zuber agreed with those suggestions. MOTION AND VOTE: Member Ferrara moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to staff conditions noting the revised setbacks with the further recommendation that trim be placed on the door, rake board and windows. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 2. H-09-2 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and construction of a new home PLANNER PRESENTATION Planner Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing 1 -story Ranch style home was constructed in 1972, and has an attached front loading 2 -car garage. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 4 of 11 The COA request involves demolishing existing home and garage with the intention of building a new home/garage that meets the district's plan of treatment criteria. The home is not considered an historic resource since it was constructed in 1972, thus the demolition of the existing home is not part of the COA review. The construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPB review and approval. The proposed replacement home is a two-story, Neo -Tudor style with an attached 2 -car, 484 square foot garage in the rear of the home. The garage is accessed by a new driveway on the north side of the property. The proposed driveway is nine feet in width, with an 11 foot setback from the side property line (providing for a one foot green space on either side.) Edina's Zoning Ordinance requires a 12 foot wide driveway for residential properties, thus a variance is required. The variance process has begun with the decision pending input from the HPB. The proposed height of the home at the peak is 29 feet, meeting the Plan of Treatment recommendation of no taller than 10% higher than the average heights of the adjacent homes to the north and south. The proposed average grade of the lot will be reduced to 894.2, providing for the original slope of the lot relative to the adjacent properties. The side yard setback to the south is five feet with an inset to 7 feet allowing for window wells. An 11 foot setback is provided on the north side. The materials proposed for the home include Hardi-Board stucco panels, Miratec trim board, fascia and soffit, cedar brackets, natural stone for the entry stoop and asphalt shingles. Planner Repya asked the Board to note Consultant Vogel's observations that the existing house at 4602 Bruce was constructed in 1972; therefore, it is not considered a heritage preservation resource. Architecturally, it represents an example of the Ranch style that became popular throughout the country during the post -World War II era. It was not present during the period when the Country Club District attained historical significance (1924-1944) and is, therefore, considered a noncontributing resource within the Heritage Landmark district. When the Country Club District was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980, this house was classified as "intrusive" due to its age (less than 50 years old) and Modern design characteristics. It does not independently meet the city's heritage landmark eligibility criteria and would not be considered an historic property under the current National Register program regulations. The proposed new home designed by Refined, LLC is perhaps best described as an example of the Neo -Tudor style (sometimes referred to as "neo -eclectic") and in a sense it represents a 21st Century continuation of the Tudor style that was popular between roughly 1900 and 1940. Like the historic Tudor style homes HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 5 of 11 built in the Country Club District before 1940, it is loosely based on late medieval English folk architecture prototypes; this particular design emulates many of the traditional period revival style features, including the steeply -pitched, front -facing gable, ornamental half-timbering, paired and "ribbon" windows, stucco wall finish, and patterned stonework. The simple hip roof (with its axis oriented parallel to the street) that covers the body of the house is similar in shape to those seen on many two-story homes in the district that are architecturally categorized as examples of the Tudor, French Eclectic, or "Mediterranean" styles. It also incorporates an attached rear garage, a design feature common to Country Club homes built during the district's period of historical significance. The preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the Country Club District is rehabilitation, which the city code (echoing the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation) defines as the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features which are significant to its historical and architectural values. Because the Country Club District derives its primary significance from being a planned development, it is treated as a single heritage resource with over 500 contributing components (i.e., the houses built between 1924 and 1944). The goal of design review in cases involving teardowns of non -historic homes is to ensure that the replacement houses are compatible in size, scale, color, materials, and character with adjacent historic properties and the neighborhood as a whole. In other words, new construction should be permitted whenever it is appropriately designed and will not disturb, alter, or destroy any significant heritage preservation resource. 4602 Bruce Avenue occupies an original Thorpe Bros. platted lot but was unbuilt during the district's period of historical significance; therefore, it would be unreasonable to expect the owner to "restore" the property to a vacant lot. Likewise, it would not be reasonable for the city to require the developer to reproduce the exact form and details of an historic house, when demolition does not result in any loss of historic fabric or character. While the National Register program guidelines allow for new construction in historic districts based on contemporary designs and materials (as opposed to imitation historic buildings), the City of Edina has adopted a different approach with respect to design parameters for new buildings in the Country Club District. The district plan of treatment states that new homes "will be compatible with the original (1924-1944) Country Club District deed restrictions relating to architecture" -- notwithstanding the fact that the Thorpe deed restrictions deal with form, shape, massing, and setback issues rather than architectural style -- and requires their facades to be "architecturally similar to existing historic homes" in the immediate vicinity. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 6 of 11 Planner Repya stated Consultant Vogel believes the design is compatible in size, scale, massing, orientation, setback, and texture with historic homes on Bruce Avenue and elsewhere in the district. The developer has demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning and building code requirements in such a manner that the essential character of the district is respected. Although it is in all respects a modern suburban house, the proposed new construction uses traditional forms, detailing, and finishes achieving harmony with the streetscape. Ample precedent exists for allowing the use of contemporary materials in new construction in the district and the proposed new home will not compromise the integrity or harm to the appearance of adjacent historic homes. The developer also proposes to restore the lot to something that more closely resembles its original grade (or at least modifying it to a grade that is more compatible with those of nearby historic properties). Planner Repya reported Consultant Vogel recommends approval of the COA subject to the plans presented and a year build plaque is displayed on the home. Continuing, Planner Repya explained the proposed structure is in compliance with the requirements set out in the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding setbacks, height and lot coverage, the plan calls for a driveway less then the 12 foot width required for residential properties. The applicant, Mr. Porter requested a three foot driveway width variance to provide for a nine foot driveway on the north side of the property from the Zoning Board of appeals at their December 18, 2008 meeting. At that time, a design for the home had not been created because the applicant was waiting for a decision on his variance request prior to designing the home. The Zoning Board advised the applicant that they were not comfortable ruling on the variance request without the inclusion of the house plans demonstrating the necessity for a narrower driveway, and the opinion of the HPB on said plans. The decision was made to table the variance request to enable the applicant to design the home and receive an opinion from the HPB which could then be presented to the Zoning Board for their review. After consulting with the surrounding neighbors, Mr. Porter revised his variance request to allow for an 11 foot setback for the driveway from the property line which would accommodate a one foot green space on either side of the proposed nine foot wide driveway. Mr. Porter is proposing to revisit the Zoning Board on February 5, 2009 when the original Board who heard his request will readdress the proposal with the proposed house plans and comments from the HPB. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 7 of 11 APPLICANT COMMENTS: Andy Porter, 6125 Westridge Boulevard, addressed the Board and explained he approached the COA by looking at the project three ways: 1) Process: • With regard to process he needs to know the parameters, pointing out that driveway width is " fuzzy" between zoning code requirements and HPB guidelines, thereby requiring public hearings before two bodies. 2) Design: • The proposed house complies with all setback, height and hardcover requirements as stipulated by code and HPB guidelines. • A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is needed for the proposed driveway. The new driveway is proposed at 9 feet with a 2 foot buffer between the proposed house and driveway. The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to rehear the driveway width variance request on February 5, 2009. • An attached garage is proposed providing more rear yard area. • The grade of the site will be lowered. 3) Materials • Natural stone on front fagade • Asphalt shingles • Hardi Board • Stucco panels • Cedar brackets • Meritic trim board PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vicki Slomiany, 4604 Bruce Avenue, informed the Board that in her opinion the size of the proposed house is not in keeping with the size of the houses found on the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. Continuing, Ms. Slomiany said she prefers a detached garage, not attached as proposed. Concluding,. Ms. Slomiany stated she believes the subject house would fit better on Moorland Avenue. Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue pointed out to the Board the proposed house is actually larger than the home that was recently constructed at 4608 Bruce Avenue. Ms. O'Dea presented photos of some of the Tudor homes found in the district. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 8 of 11 David Anderson, 4603 Casco Avenue, addressed the Board and explained he lives directly behind the subject site, adding in his opinion what is proposed is best. He pointed out a detached garage "eats up" much of the rear yard and the neighbor that lives to the rear is left to view the back of a garage and "dead space." Bill McLean, 4604 Edina Boulevard and 4602 Bruce Avenue, told the Board he loves living in the district and purchased 4602 Bruce in 2006 and found after working with an architect to renovate the house that it would be best to demolish it and rebuild. Mr. McLean said he believes what is proposed fits the neighborhood, pointing out the present home is contemporary in style and not compatible with the historic nature of the district. Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue, stated he believes the proposed home would tower over the house to the north, adding he also supports a detached garage, not attached as proposed. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Member Blemaster asked Mr. Porter if he considered a detached garage. Mr. Porter responded that a detached garage wouldn't work with his design. Mr. Porter said clients prefer bedrooms on the upper level. Member Forrest stated the Board shouldn't be concerned whether a project is profitable or not. Economics is not considered in the Board's decision making process. Member Rehkamp Larson stated in her opinion the massing and overall shape of the proposed house is good. Ms. Rehkamp Larson said she doesn't really like the tall double windows on the front facade. Continuing, Member Rehkamp Larson added that she likes the attention paid to the details; especially the half timber cut outs in the stucco. With regard to attached vs. detached garage. Member Rehkamp Larson said she would prefer detached; however, believes the Board shouldn't dictate that. Concluding, Member Rehkamp Larson suggested that the applicant address on the west; the shed roof, on the north; step in the wall west of the gable end and reduce the height of the ridge on the attached garage. Member Fukuda stated that she feels the garage should be detached. Member Ferrara stated she likes the proposed house, scale and mass are fine and pointed out if the garage were detached as suggested the 4th bedroom would be lost. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Member Blemaster said it is difficult considering two standpoints one marketability and the other neighborhood property rights. Member Blemaster stated in her opinion the proposed house is too large. Member Blemaster asked what the goal of the Board is this evening. Chair Rofidal said the Board is to look at each application on a case by case basis and act. Chair Rofidal pointed out the present house is non -historic in nature and it isn't unrealistic to expect that redevelopment would occur on this lot. Chair Rofidal pointed out the proposed building height meets the stipulations of the both the Plan of Treatment and City Code. Chair Rofidal also noted the increased setback on the north side and the lower grade is a plus. Concluding Chair Rofidal said there are good things about this proposal, adding he likes the large two story front window(s), but is concerned that the other windows/door appear larger than those on neighboring houses. Member Forrest stated she doesn't like the 2 story window, adding she would like a break between the 1St and 2nd story, adding she likes the proportions and use of materials. Continuing, Member Forrest said a concern she has is with the proposed driveway. Member Forrest explained she would like to see greenspace added on both sides of the driveway, not just the one. Member Forrest said providing additional greenspace on the neighbors' side should prevent any damage to that property. Planner Repya reported that at this time the City is considering amending the codes 12 foot driveway width requirement. Planner Repya pointed out in Edina's smaller lot neighborhoods a 12 foot wide driveway can be a hardship. A discussion ensued between HPB Members and neighbors focusing on the size and scale of the proposed house and if the garage should be attached or detached. A number of neighbors indicated they felt the proposed house didn't belong in the Fairway section of the district, it's too large. They also stressed that constructing a detached garage would reduce the mass and scale of the house and be more in keeping with the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue; however, there was support from one neighbor for the plans as presented with the attached garage. MOTION AND VOTE: Member Benson moved preliminary approval of the COA based on staff findings, subject to staff conditions and the following additional conditions that reduce the scale and massing for the proposed new house: • Reduce the height of the ridge line of the attached garage, and • Step-in the north wall (west) of the gable end roof Member Ferrara seconded the motion. Ayes; Benson, Ferrara, Fukuda, Rehkamp Larson, Bemaster, Rofidal. Nay, Forrest. Motion carried. HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Porter asked that the HPB specifically address the driveway width. He explained the Zoning Board of Appeals requested at their meeting that the HPB comment on the reduced driveway width before the Board meets again on the driveway width variance request. Member Rehkamp Larson moved to recognize that a 12 -foot wide driveway width is inappropriate for this property. Member Ferrara seconded the recognition. Members unanimously agreed that a driveway width of 12 feet is not appropriate in the District. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: 2009 HERITAGE PRESERVATION AWARD: Planner Repya informed the Board that nominations will be taken for the 2009 Heritage Preservation Award, which will be awarded in May. Planner Repya added the award process will be advertised in the Sun Current. V. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS: Chair Rofidal acknowledged receipt of the Secretary's of Interior's Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Heritage Preservation Resource Library Member Forrest told the Board funding has been received from the Edina Foundation to move forward on purchasing 2 sets of resources from the list complied by Consultant Vogel. These sets will establish a heritage preservation resource library. Chair Rofidal thanked Member Forrest for her work on this project. Planner Repya reported that although the Hennepin County Library declined to shelve the items from the resource list at the Edina Libraries, upon a request from Board Member Lou Blemaster, the librarians researched the all resources on the list and reported that some of them would be purchased as part of their inventories for the Southdale and Ridgedale libraries. They also reported on the items available on line as well as those which are out of print. Ms. Repya and all HPB Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 11 of 11 the members of the HPB commended Member Blemaster for her perseverance with the library staff. B. COA Procedure Committee Report No committee report. More time is needed to discuss procedures. It was suggested that the committee meet soon. Planner Repya would work with committee members to schedule a date and time. VII. CORRESPONDENCE: Chair Rofidal told the Board he believes a "work session" with the City Council will be scheduled for sometime in May, VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 10, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm Jculue� �{ do�P.v�.cackev Submitted by AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET During "Public Comment" the Chair will ask to hear from those.in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 13, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: A. Certificates of Appropriateness H-09-2 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and construction of a new home III. PUBLIC COMMENT: IV. COA PROCEDURE COMMITTEE REPORT: V. OTHER BUSINESS: VI. CORRESPONDENCE: VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 10, 2009 VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Recess the north wall west of the game eno roor w ayau 1 1 cuuty massing. The applicant has provided a revised plan, demonstrating the following changes to address the concerns expressed by the HPB and audience members: 1. The ridge of the garage was lowered by 1 % feet and the end gable was changed to a hipped roof to reduce the massing of the structure from the north, west and south elevations. 2. The north wall was recessed 4 inches; about 15 feet back from the front of the home providing definition to the north segment of the home that has a hipped roofline, and some depth to the overall north wall 3. The double hung windows on the front elevation were reduced in size, yet still meet the egress requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Addressing the subject of massing, the applicant also provided an overlay demonstration of the size the home could have been if District's Plan of Treatment were not in place, and only the provisions of the zoning ordinance were considered. PRESERVATION CONSULTLANT ROBERT VOGEL'S RECOMMENDATION: Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel provided a detailed analysis of the most recent plans provided for the subject COA. Recognizing the concerns raised relative to the massing effect of the proposed home, Mr. Vogel pointed out that the core volume or external massing of the proposed project represents a large house, but it would not be the largest house in the Fairway section of the Country Club District. The home's proportions do not appear to be out of scale with other homes in the district, historic or non - historic in terms of ground plan dimensions, number of stories, roof shape, and garage configuration. Furthermore, the home's facade would be geometrically similar to nearby historic homes and its greater core volume should not adversely effect on the historic integrity of nearby homes or detract from the historic character of the streetscape. Mr. Vogel added that the proposed home is without a doubt, an improvement over the existing house, which is incompatible with the historic character of the district in form, plan and style; and he recommended that because the proposed home complies with the plan of treatment criteria for new homes in the Country Club District, the HPB should grant final approval of the COA for the new construction subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be displayed on the home. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Planner Repya stated that staff finds that the proposed plan meets the criteria set out in the design review guidelines of the Country Club District Plan of 014 Treatment. Furthermore, the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed by the HPB and neighbors with revisions to the plan, thus approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended. The following findings support the recommendation: 1. The proposed new home meets the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District. 2. The proposed home is within 10% of the average height of the homes to the north and south as required in the District's Plan of Treatment. Without the District's 10% guideline, the proposed home could be built 6- 8 feet higher to the ridge -line of the home. 3. The changes from the original proposal, including lowering the roof over the garage and the gable -end reshaped as a hip roof has reduced the mass of the new home. 4. The proposed home is an improvement over the existing home, which is not a historic resource, and incompatible with the historic character of the district. 5. Survey data of the Country Club has shown that many properties in the district have been substantially enlarged since their initial construction through the addition of new rooms, additional structures or tear down and rebuilt homes. 6. The facade would be geometrically similar to nearby historic homes and the volume or mass would not adversely affect the historic integrity of nearby homes or detract from the historic character of the streetscape. 7. Construction of an attached garage is in character and appropriate in the Country Club District. Planner Repya recommended that the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness be subject to the plans presented and that a year built plaque is displayed on the home. BOARD COMMENTS: Chair Rofidal asked Planner Repya if the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the driveway width variance. Planner Repya responded in the affirmative. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION: Mr. Porter thanked the Board for their consideration and preliminary COA approval at the January 13th meeting. Continuing, Mr. Porter noted demolition of the existing home is not an issue before the Board. He acknowledged that in the past there had been discussions at the Council level on establishing a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to control "massing"; however, the decision was made not to establish a FAR and address the massing issue through amending the Code on building height, elevation, and side setback. 3 Mr. Porter addressed the following changes to the plan: • The ridge of the garage was lowered by 1 '/2 feet. • The end gable was changed to a hipped roof reducing the mass • The north wall was recessed 4 inches; about 15 feet from the front of the home. • The double hung windows on the front elevation of the home were reduced in size. Mr. Porter presented a slide show depicting side elevations of over 80 homes in the Fairway Section of the Country Club District, pointing out many homes in the district have undergone major renovations that did not have to be reviewed by the HPB. Continuing, Mr. Porter added that of those homes which have had additions to the rear, the front facades appear to be unchanged. Concluding, Mr. Porter stated he listened to comments from city staff and neighbors and labored to provide what he believes is a thoughtful revised design. He pointed out he reduced the grade of the lot, lowered the ride of the garage, surpassed the COA criteria, and city staff and the HPB consultant have indicated their support. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS; Member Forrest: • Artist rendition does not include the house to the north. The new house should be viewed in context with the entire block. • Placement of the AC condenser (south side) doesn't appear to meet the PUBLIC COMMENT: Vicki Slomiany, 4604 Bruce Avenue, presented a signed petition representing nearly all neighbors on the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue indicating their opposition to the proposal as submitted. Ms. Slomiany stated that the proposed house is not appropriate in size, scale and mass when compared to other homes on the block. Ms. Slomiany also referred to a graph she compiled that represented the square footage of homes on the block. The average square footage was 2,231 square feet. Continuing, Ms. Slomiany stated that in her opinion the size, scale and mass of a new home must be compatible with the size, scale and mass of the homes around it. Ms. Slomiany reported that she found there are a number of cities in the metro area that measure "compatibility" using FAR. This is the ratio of building size to lot size. Ms. Slomiany presented a graph depicting the FAR of all homes on the block. El In conclusion, Ms. Slomiany acknowledged that no one wants the present house to stay; however, the neighborhood does want to see a house built that fits into the neighborhood. Ms. Slomiany also suggested that the city and developer make sure the placement of the AC condenser is correct, adding she understands that the developer may not know exactly where the condenser will go. Ms. Slomiany urged denial of the COA. Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue, stated that in his opinion the design of the new home is incompatible with the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Dulas said the stone proposed for the front entry is too heavy, the two story windows in the stairwell are out of character, and living space above the attached garage is not compatible. Mr. Dulas also stated that in his opinion the roof plan is too complex, adding roof lines along Bruce Avenue are simple. Concluding, Mr. Dulas pointed out the data supplied by Ms. Slomiany concludes that the house as proposed is out of character in size, scale and mass. Mr. Dulas asked the Board to reverse their previous decision approving a preliminary COA for 4602 Bruce Avenue and deny the request as submitted. Mike Balay, 4625 Bruce Avenue, explained that he signed the petition opposing the proposed home and urged the Board to use their best judgment and deny the request as submitted. Mr. Balay concluded that in his opinion the new house is not compatible with the neighborhood; it's too large, adding we are moving toward a time of more modest living and smaller homes. Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue, submitted photo's of homes on the west side of Bruce Avenue. Ms. O'Dea also stated that in her opinion the "'porch" area on the front of the new home isn't in keeping with the character of the homes in the neighborhood, and doesn't respect the established front yard setback. Continuing, Ms. O'Dea gave a presentation highlighting "front doors" found in the neighborhood, pointing out the proposed "porch" violates the rhythm of the streetscape. Concluding, Ms. O'Dea stated that the proposed two story windows are not typical Tudor elements, the mass of the home is too large and the building height should be reduced to better match the property to the south. Ms. O'Dea also suggested that all elements (including the proposed "front porch") of the new home meet the required setbacks, and that the Board protect the Plan of Treatment by denying this request. Member Kojetin moved to close public comment. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. BOARD COMMENTS/QUESTIONS Chair Rofidal noted that a number of questions and concerns were raised by neighbors that should be addressed. Continuing, Chair Rofidal asked Planner Repya to explain the front yard setback concern raised by neighbors on the proposed "front porch". Planner Repya responded that recently the code was 91 amended to address the current trend to "dress up" front entryways. Planner Repya said city code now stipulates that unenclosed porches supported by posts or columns not exceeding 80 square feet in area, can have a front yard setback no closer than 20 feet to a front property line. Planner Repya stated that Mr. Porter's design meets those requirements. Member Benson referred to Member Forrest's earlier comment on the location of the AC condenser and asked Mr. Porter if he was confident that the condenser could be placed in a conforming location. Mr. Porter responded in the affirmative. Member Blemaster asked Mr. Porter if he ever considered constructing a smaller home. Mr. Porter responded that he focused on meeting the criteria found in the Plan of Treatment and City Code. Continuing, Mr. Porter said he also relied on what he learned in the past from attending Massing Task Force and City Council meetings. Expanding on his comments Mr. Porter stated that an important point to consider when evaluating his proposal is that the elevation of the lot will be lowered, reiterating the new home was designed to meet all requirements, both HPB and zoning. Member Forrest stated her concern is with the size, scale and mass of the proposed house. Member Forrest said in her opinion the plan doesn't appear to be sensitive to the surrounding properties, especially as it relates to the home to the south. Member Forrest added she also doesn't feel the proposed stone front entryway or the 2nd -story windows are appropriate for a home located in an historic district, adding those elements are more contemporary in nature. Mr. Porter responded that in his opinion massing is very subjective, adding he believes he meets the criteria established in the Plan of Treatment. Concluding, Mr. Porter stated that in his opinion the process to achieve a COA is very challenging. Member Kojetin observed that in his opinion the bottom line comes down to massing. "Discussing" the architectural elements of a new home can be discussed and re -discussed at length. Concluding, Member Kojetin pointed out Mr. Porter has followed the City's established guidelines, adding now the Board must either decide if they believe the proposed home at 3,200 square feet is too large and therefore not compatible with homes in the immediate area. Chair Rofidal stated the challenge that the Board faces is how to determine what the appropriate square footage of a new home should be. He pointed out the Council made it clear that they were not interested in establishing FAR to reduce mass. Chair Rofidal observed that establishing a 10% square footage guideline, similar to the guideline used in the Plan of Treatment to determine building height could be a tool used to reduce mass. Chair Rofidal stated he believes the plan submitted is appropriate. He pointed out the present home is not an historic resource, the new home meets the POT 10% height requirement, C the architectural design of the new home is appropriate, the new home meets all setbacks, the grade of the lot is lowered; which is a plus, the windows on the first and second floors have been reduced, and the foot print of the proposed home is less than the footprint of the existing home. Member Rehkamp Larson stated this proposal is challenging. She pointed out there are many good things about the project, adding she believes the front facade works well, and the revisions made to the plan by Mr. Porter are good. Member Rehkamp Larson acknowledged that it must be frustrating for Mr. Porter that the direction found in the Plan of Treatment is so vague. Continuing, Member Rehkamp Larson said the one thing that concerns her about the project is that the square footage of the new home is just too much. Member Rehkamp Larson commented that what the Plan of Treatment may need is clearer direction on "mass". Member Rehkamp Larson suggested that the Board consider providing a size limit either through a percentage or another form. Concluding, Member Rehkamp Larson also noted that the Board doesn't "weigh in" on additions to a home, so it may appear that new homes are treated unfairly. Member Blemaster informed the Board Ms. Slomiany is a friend and client. Continuing, Member Blemaster stated she understands that every person should have the right to improve their property; however exercising property rights should not have an adverse affect on neighboring properties. Member Benson said she is concerned with massing; however, she has no problem with the front fagade of the home. A discussion ensued on the struggle the Board has with the square footage of the proposed home and how the new home relates in size to its immediate neighbors. The Board acknowledged a disconnect between limiting the square footage of a new home when the square footage of an existing home can be increased considerably without review by the Board. Discussion continued focusing on if the living space over the proposed garage should be reduced or eliminated. The consensus of the majority of Board Members was that the mass, size, and scale of the proposed home is not compatible with homes in the immediate area. Mr. Porter addressed the Board and reiterated the Plan of Treatment is too vague. He pointed out at the direction of the Board he revised his plan. Mr. Porter added it is very difficult to continue making changes to a plan without the assurance that the plan would be approved. Concluding, Mr. Porter said he has a hard time understanding that according to some members of the Board that he didn't meet the criteria established in the Plan of Treatment or Zoning Ordinance, adding in his opinion it isn't fair that the Plan of Treatment treats remodels differently than new construction. 7 The discussion continued with the Board agreeing that applicants should be provided with clearer direction. Chair Rofidal suggested that in the future the Board study these issues; however, discussing changes to the Plan of Treatment at this time wouldn't be appropriate. Member Forrest said she commends Mr. Porter for his patience; however, reminded him that at this time a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for new construction, not remodels. BOARD ACTION Member Kojetin moved to table the final vote on H-09-02 allowing the Board time to further study massing. No second offered to the motion. Member Blemaster moved to deny H-09-02, based on the inappropriate size, scale and mass of the new home when compared to the size, scale and mass of homes on the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. Member Blemaster encouraged the applicant to revise his plan and return to the Board with a revised plan that further reduces the size, scale and mass of the new home. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. Ayes; Montgomery, Blemaster, Rehkamp Larson, Fukuda, Forrest, Kojetin. Nays; Benson and Rofidal. Motion carried. Chair Rofidal thanked the neighbors for their feedback and Mr. Porter for his time and energy in working with staff and neighbors. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. COA PROCEDURE COMMITTEE REPORT: It was reported that the COA Procedure Committee met on February 4, 2009. HPB Members Present: Blemaster, Rofidal, Forrest Staff Present: Joyce Repya Public: Dan Dulas and Andy Porter Member Forrest summarized that the Plan of Treatment recognizes the importance of allowing adequate time for public comment, adding the Committee came to the conclusion that obtaining a COA would require a minimum of two meetings with public notice for both. - The first meeting would entail a formal presentation with well developed plans. It would also be more of a listening session — a give and take 1.1 between the HPB, neighbors and the applicant. No formal action is required at the first meeting. The second meeting would require final plans. The Board would vote to either grant or deny the COA. Member Forrest said the Committee also discussed the option of an informal meeting (before a COA is applied for) requiring no action and no notice. This meeting could be considered as "information gathering". Member Blemaster said the Committee recognized that the use of the term "Preliminary COX can be misleading for the applicant. Chair Rofidal explained that more meetings would occur if the house in question is a Heritage Resource, adding the Committee believes that if the house was a Heritage Resource there could be up to five meetings before a final decision is made. Chair Rofidal said in all instances when a COA is granted or denied there is the option of appealing the decision of the HPB to the City Council. Member Forrest said the Committee will work with Planner Repya on drafting language, adding after the final draft is completed the draft will be sent to all HPB members for their review and comment. V. OTHER BUSINESS: - Attendance Policy for Boards and Commissions Planner Repya provided the board with Section 180 of the City Code which addresses the attendance policy for members of boards and commissions. Chair Rofidal pointed out that there are two attendance criteria that the board should be aware of: 1. Board members must attend at least 75% of scheduled meetings in a calendar year, whether regular or special, and 2. Board members may miss no more than two consecutive meetings. Chair Rofidal added that members who are in violation of either of those criteria will be removed from the board or commission. Unfortunately, the HPB has lost a long standing member due to the policy, and two other members were in jeopardy of removal had there not been a special meeting in December. Following a brief discussion, the board expressed their disappointment of losing a member and agreed that they appreciated receiving a copy of the code for future reference. 9 VI. CORRESPONDENCE: - Planner Repya noted that the Spring About Town will include a notice of Heritage Award nominations. - Planner Repya reported that election of a new HPB chair will occur at the March meeting. - Planner Repya acknowledged that Member Benson will be leaving the HPB. Planner Repya and HPB Members sincerely thanked Member Benson for her service. VII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM Submitted by im AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET During "Public Comment" the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 10, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: A. Certificates of Appropriateness H-09-2 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and construction of a new home B. 4615 Wooddale Avenue — Demolition Update III. PUBLIC COMMENT: IV. 2009 HERITAGE AWARD: Nomination Deadline Friday, April 10, 2009 V. OTHER BUSINESS: VI. CORRESPONDENCE: VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 14, 2009 VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009, AT 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Laura Benson, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Lou Blemaster. Bob Kojetin MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Montgomery STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya and Jackie Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the February 10, 2009, Heritage Preservation Board Meeting were filed as submitted. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: A. Certificate of Appropriateness 1. H-09-02 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and Construction of a new home Planner Presentation Planner Repya explained the Heritage Preservation Board considered a COA request for a new home at the subject property at the January 13, and February 10t meetings. Approval of the plan as proposed was denied. Since that time, a work session was held with the developer, Andy Porter, interested neighbors and members of the Heritage Preservation Board. The house plan was evaluated with respect to the aspects that complemented the house on the lot relative to the surrounding properties, as well as those elements that appeared out of place. HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Porter has revised the house plan to reflect the input he received at the work session. Changes to the previous plan are found in the following areas: 1. The front covered entry stoop was removed and the face of the stone was pulled back toward the door. Now, the front entry no longer protrudes past the fagade plane of other homes on the block. 2. The oriel window on the front fagade was reduced in size providing for a design element that is consistent with similarly styled homes in the District. 3. The mass of the room above the attached garage was reduced by removing 11 feet of living space and replacing it with an open air deck. Additionally, the roof pitch of the remaining room was changed to further reduce the mass. At the work session, the idea of angling the attached garage away from the south property line thus reducing the length of the south wall was suggested. Mr. Porter entertained that concept, however after conferring with Consultant Vogel, determined that such an asymmetrical garage plan would represent a radical contrast to the traditional rhythm of design elements present in the District, and would not meet the plan of treatment design review guidelines for new home construction, which state that new homes should be compatible in orientation, as well as size, scale, massing, setback, color and texture with historic homes. Mr. Vogel observed that the proposed changes to the plans reduces the mass of the home, but does not fundamentally alter its Tudor Revival style. He added that the plans meet the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District, and recommended that the HPB grant final approval of the COA for new construction subject to the plans presented subject to Staff's recommended conditions. Staff finds that the proposed plan reflects the input the developer received at the February 17th work session, is sensitive to the surrounding properties, and meets the criteria set out in the design review guidelines of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment, thus approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended. Findings supporting the recommendation include: 1. The proposed new home meets the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District. 2. The proposed home is within 10% of the average height of the homes to the north and south as required in the District's Plan of Treatment. 3. The changes to the plan reflect the content of the collaborative work session on February 17tH 4. The proposed home demonstrates sensitivity to the surrounding homes and a creative solution to the challenge of infill construction. 5. The fagade would be geometrically similar to nearby historic homes and the volume or mass would not adversely affect the historic integrity of HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 3 of 7 nearby homes or detract from the historic character of the streetscape. 6. Construction of an attached garage is in character and appropriate in the Country Club District. Planner Repya concluded staff further recommends that the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness be subject to: The plans presented , An additional meeting to afford interested parties an opportunity to review the proposed plan, A year built plaque displayed on the home. Appearing_ for the Applicant Andy Porter and Bill MacLean Questions and Comments from the Board Member Forrest asked Planner Repya if neighbors were notified of this meeting. Planner Repya responded in the affirmative. Member Forrest questioned how denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness is handled. Planner Repya responded language in the Plan of Treatment doesn't specify a procedure, or time frame; however, Mr. Porter has submitted new plans with the recommendation from staff that the "new plans" require at minimum two meetings before the HPB with notification required for each meeting. Applicant Presentation Mr. Porter thanked the Board for their input at the February 17, 2009 work session. Mr. Porter outlined for the Board the revisions he made to the plans and with the aid of graphics presented the changes as follows: • The size of the Oriel window on the front elevation was reduced. • Removed the covered entry stoop and pulled the face of the stone back toward the door. Door is recessed. • Improved grade. • Driveway will be constructed at 11 feet • Consideration was given to pulling the garage forward toward the street and attaching it to the house at an angle; however, that approach was abandoned. • 11 feet of area above the garage was removed and replaced with an open air deck, thereby reducing mass. The pitch of the roof over that element was also changed. HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Questions and Comments from the Board Member Rehkamp Larson applauded Mr. Porter's effort to reduce mass; however, stated that in her opinion the reduction in the ridge line has produced a less attractive house. Member Rehkamp Larson said that historically this type of house is simple and symmetrical, adding the only negative comment she has is with the new form. Public Comment Planner Repya told the Board Mr. Anderson, 4603 Casco Avenue was unable to attend this evenings meeting. Planner Repya relayed his comments as follows: • Preserve the stand of trees along the rear property boundary • Supports the attached garage as depicted on the plans • Not in favor of detaching the garage Vicky Slomiany, 4604 Bruce Avenue, acknowledged that Mr. Porter has performed on everything he was asked to do. Ms. Slomiany referred to graphs she complied indicating square footage and FAR of homes on the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. Ms. Slomiany said she found that the subject home is the second largest on the block (4608 Bruce is the largest) and the new house has a .50 FAR which is the highest, but not off the charts. Continuing, Ms. Slomiany requested that the row of pine trees be preserved, adding she would like to see "more teeth" put in that condition. Concluding, Ms. Slomiany reiterated the proposed house isn't off the charts, adding the house isn't perfect, but she can live with it. Mr. Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue, stated his concern is with the length of the building wall, adding in his opinion it's just too long. Mr. Dulas told the Board his house is 55 feet long, pointing out this house is 70+ feet long. Mr. Dulas stated he also believes this project would be better served if a detached garage were constructed. Ms. Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue, said her concern is also with the length of the proposed house, adding she was distressed to learn that no one took the possibility of angling the garage seriously. Member Forrest moved to close the public comment. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Board Comments Member Blemaster commented that one of her primary concerns when reviewing projects for COA approval is how it impacts the neighbors. Member Blemaster said in her opinion the charge of the HPB is to protect the neighborhood. HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Chair Rofidal asked Consultant Vogel to explain his stance on an angled garage. Vogel responded he was asked if an angled garage is consistent with historic houses, adding his response was no. Member Forrest commented that in her opinion if the garage were angled it would be seen from the front street, adding she likes the fact that the garage will not be seen from the front street. Member Rehkamp Larson reiterated that her issue is with the form of the house. She pointed out that the shed roof on the garage stops abruptly and suggested that the shed roof be extended over the double doors. Member Rehkamp Larson also suggested that another way to reduce mass would be to adjust the pitch of the ridge (west end north elevation). This would balance the roof. Mr. Porter stated he agrees with those suggestions. Member Forrest mentioned the importance of keeping the trees safe during the construction phase of the project and asked Mr. Porter to implement measures to protect these trees during construction. Member Kojetin stated that he believes a final vote needs to be taken at some point. He added he understands that this is considered a "new application"; however, the Board has heard this request numerous times and each time has added conditions which Mr. Porter has performed on. Concluding, Member Kojetin said there comes a time when the Board needs to grant final COA approval. Member Fukuda told Mr. Porter she commends his response to the Board's suggested design changes. Member Blemaster commented that in her opinion she wouldn't want to live next to a house 70 feet long, adding for safety reasons she wouldn't want a detached garage either. Member Blemaster said she agrees with the changes suggested by Member Rehkamp Larson. A brief discussion ensued with the Board acknowledging that Mr. Porter has appeared before them a number of times; however, since the application presented this evening is considered a "new" application one more meeting is required. Mailed notice would also be required for the next meeting allowing neighbors ample time to review the house plans. Board Action Member Kojetin moved to forward H-09-02, 4602 Bruce Avenue to the regular April meeting for final Certificate of Appropriateness approval noting the following suggestions: • Retain the stand of trees along the west property line and implement procedures to protect them during the construction phase. HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 6 of 7 • The shed roof will be extended over the double doors of the garage; and • Adjust the pitch of the ridge on the west end of the north elevation to balance with the roof on the east end. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. 4615 Wooddale Avenue — Demolition Update Planner Repya told the Board she was present when the house at 4615 Wooddale was demolished, adding Mr. Busyn documented the demolition and took photos of the process. Planner Repya reported during demolition the one story sun porch just "popped off", adding the porch was only anchored by one bolt. Another interesting find was that the house was insulated with horse hair. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. IV. 2009 HERITAGE AWARD: Planner Repya reminded the Board nominations are still be taken for the 2009 Heritage Award. A press release will be issued and the nomination process will also appear in the Spring About Town. Member Rehkamp Larson told the Board a building that could be considered for an award is at the corner of 50th & France Avenue V. OTHER BUSINESS: COA Process: Member Forrest said one obstacle that occurs during the COA process is the discrepancy between the HPB guidelines and the Zoning Code, adding this is something the committee is looking into. Continuing, Member Forrest also noted that the committee is looking at adding language in the Procedures that address "informal meetings" (meeting were no action is taken). New Memberfs) News: Chair Rofidal reported that Board replacement interviews are being conducted, adding he sat in on the interviews and found there are some good candidates out there. Chair Rofidal said that he believes a decision will be made in the next few weeks. HPB Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 7 of 7 VI. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 14, 2009 VII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM JackY aagena kkeX Submitted by AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Joel Stegner and Bob Schwartzbauer I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairman and Vice Chairman II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 10, 2009 III. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-09-2 4602 Bruce Avenue — Demolish existing home and construction of a new home B. H-09-3 4528 Arden Avenue — Construction of a new detached garage C. H-09-4 4609 Bruce Avenue — Construction of a front entry portico IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: During "Public Comment" the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previousl- discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. V. 2009 HERITAGE AWARD: Proposed Nominations 1. 300 Blake Road — Elmer Coddington Home, constructed in 1911 2. Browndale Bridge Renovation — W. 50`h Street at Browndale Avenue 3. St. Stephen's Episcopal Church — 4439 W. 50`h Street VI. 2009 GOALS & OBJECTIVES: VII. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL — MAY 5TH VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE:. May 12, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 3 of 12 the design review guidelines of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is recommended. The following findings support the recommendation: 1. The proposed new home meets the design review standards and guidelines for construction of new homes in the Country Club District. 2. The proposed home is within 10% of the average height of the homes to the north and south as required in the District's Plan of Treatment. Without the District's 10% guideline, the proposed home could be built 6- 8 feet higher to the ridge -line of the home. 3. The changes from the original proposal, including lowering the roof over the garage and the gable -end reshaped as a hip roof have reduced the mass of the new home. 4. The proposed home is compatible with the neighboring historic homes, unlike the existing home, which is not a historic resource, and is incompatible with the historic character of the district. 5. The street facing fagade of the home will be geometrically similar to nearby historic homes and the volume or mass will not adversely affect the historic integrity of nearby homes or detract from the historic character of the streetscape. 6. Construction of an attached garage is in character and appropriate in the Country Club District. Staff further recommends that the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness be subject to: The plans presented Measures are taken to protect the stand of trees along the rear property line during construction. A year built plaque displayed on the home Appearing for the Applicant Andy Porter, Refined.LLC Application Presentation Mr. Porter addressed the Board and thanked them for all their time and effort spent on this project. Mr. Porter presented to the Board an evolution of the project since the first meeting in January. In conclusion, Mr. Porter pointed out that the majority of the changes have occurred on the rear of the home, reducing the mass. Public Comment Ms. Vicki Slomiany, 4602 Bruce Avenue, addressed the Board and stated at this HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 4 of 12 time she isn't requesting any changes to the plan, adding in her opinion the "plan is good enough." However, Ms. Slominary expressed frustration that if she hadn't done research on the homes on the 4600 block of Bruce, Mr. Porter's original house plan would have been built. Concluding, Ms. Slomiany stated she felt her efforts helped the Board gain a better understanding of the size and scale of the houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue, asked Mr. Porter the length of the proposed home on the "final" plan. Mr. Porter responded that the first floor is 70 feet long and the second floor is 57 feet long. Ms. O'Dea stated that in her opinion the Board needs to get control of the size, scale and mass of the homes in the District. Ms. O'Dea presented several photos of homes in the District that have long sidewalls, reiterating a 70 foot building wall is just too long. Continuing, Ms. O'Dea said she was also very disappointed that the earlier suggestion of angling the garage was not considered. Concluding, Ms. O'Dea stated in her opinion the Heritage Preservation Board is not as receptive to the neighbors as they are to the developer. Mr. Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue told the Board he agrees completely with Ms. O'Dea; a 70 foot building wall is just too long. Mr. Dulas said he also has a concern that in the future the rear of the new home could be added on to. Concluding, Mr. Dulas stated he hopes the Board has the opportunity to evaluate the interior of the new home. Member Forrest moved to close public comment. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public comment carried. Board Discussion Chair Rofidal asked Planner Repya if there is potential for an addition to be constructed to the rear of the new home. Planner Repya responded that once the new home is constructed, it will be treated the same as all houses in the district, thus an addition to the rear of the home would not require a Certificate of Appropriateness and would be possible if it met current zoning ordinance requirements. Member Forrest commented there is the possibility that sometime in the future the Board would consider evaluating the Plan of Treatment as it pertains to additions. Member Rehkamp Larson thanked the neighbors for working with the developer and the HPB on this project. HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 5 of 12 Member Rofidal agreed with Ms. Rehkamp Larson, pointing out that the neighborhood input was taken very seriously. Board Action Member Kojetin moved approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions including the condition that a sign with a rendering of the approved house be installed on the property. The sign is not to exceed 6 square feet in area. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Member Blemaster complimented both the neighbors and the developer for working together. Member Kojetin echoed Member Blemasters sentiment, adding this plan had a good resolution because of the cooperation between the neighbors and developer. H-09-3 Certificate of Appropriateness Joel Freberg 4528 Arden Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of the 4500 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home is a 1936 American Colonial Revival. A 2 stall garage is attached to the rear of the house accessed by a driveway running along the south property line. The subject lot is 50'x 135' in area, or a total of 6,776 square feet. The maximum lot coverage allowed by the foot print of all structures is 30% or 2,032.8 square feet. Planner Repya explained the subject request involves removing the 400 square foot attached garage and replacing it with a single story family room measuring 467 square feet. The plans also reflect an addition to the second story of the home. The new detached garage proposed for the southwest corner of the rear yard measures 22' x 24', or 528 square feet in area, and is set 3.5 feet from the side and rear lot line. The garage has been designed to compliment the American Colonial architectural style of the home, with shingles, siding, soffit, fascia and trim detail to match. The north, south and west elevations display attention to detail with double hung windows and service door on the north elevation. The east/front elevation has a double overhead door with lite windows across the top and a gable vent at the peak. HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 6 of 12 The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 16 feet 10 inches at the highest peak, 13 feet 2 inches at the mid -point of the gable, and 9 feet 2 inches at the eave line. The proposed roof pitch is 7/12, with a ridge length of 24 feet 6 inches. The lot coverage for the property with the proposed garage will be 2,028 square feet in area or 29.9%. Planner Repya pointed out the applicant provided photographs and the heights of adjacent structures. The home to the north (4526 Arden Ave.) has a 400 square foot, 12 foot high detached garage along their shared property line. The property to the west (4529 Bruce Ave.) has a detached, 2 car garage, and approximately 16 feet in height abutting the shared, rear property line. The Country Club District plan of treatment recommends that the maximum height of new detached garage should take into consideration the heights of adjacent detached structures and be no taller than 10% higher than the average height of those identified. Considering the heights demonstrated for the adjacent structures, the recommended height would be 15 feet 3 inches. Planner Repya stated that although the proposed height at the peak, 16 feet 10 inches exceeds the formula for adjacent detached garages (average height of adjacent detached structures plus 10%) by 19 inches; the average height of detached garages having received COA's thus far has been exactly the height proposed for this project, 16.83 feet. The twelve foot height of the garage to the north is much shorter than most garages in the district, yet has a direct impact on the reduced height called out in the formula. Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans for the detached garage and determined that the new detached garage as proposed meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the plan compliments the architectural style of the home. Both Consultant Vogel and staff recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage. Planner Repya noted the following findings support the recommendation for approval: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The proposed structure will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The additional 19 inches in building height will provide for storage space, thus reducing potential clutter in the rear yard. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 7 of 12 Appearing for the Applicant Joel Freberg - Contractor Comments and Questions from the HPB Chair Rofidal asked Mr. Freberg if the amount of hard cover changes with this proposal. Mr. Freberg responded that lot coverage remains about the same, pointing out the current garage has a turn around. Chair Rofidal suggested if there is an opportunity to reduce hard cover, the board would like to see it. Member Rehkamp Larson questioned if the coved rake and fascia will match. Mr. Freeberg responded they will match as close as possible. Member Rehkamp Larson asked Mr. Freberg the number of panels proposed for the garage door. Mr. Freberg indicated the door would be 5 panel. Public Comment Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue encouraged the Board not to make an exception to garage height. Mr. Freberg responded that the house has a 7/12 pitch and if the garage is to match that pitch the garage is taller, however the garage wall itself is only 8 feet high. Jon Pauley, 4530 Arden Avenue (south neighbor) addressed the HPB and expressed the concern that careful attention must be paid to the grading during the construction phase of the project. Mr. Pauley added he doesn't want to incur water run-off if the site isn't graded properly. Concluding, Mr. Pauley stated he also wants the HPB to consider garage height, adding height has a visual impact on the neighborhood. Member Kojetin moved to close the public comment. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried Comments and Questions from the Board Chair Rofidal in response to Mr. Pauleys concern over water run-off suggested that the proponent install gutters to divert run-off down the driveway. Member Forrest acknowledged with regard to garage height that the average height of garages for Arden Avenue is 18 feet, adding the one garage at 12 feet could be considered an anomaly. Member Rehkamp Larson said in her opinion there is value to the garage pitch matching the house. Consultant Vogel interjected that from a preservation perspective matching the HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 8 of 12 pitch of the home is more important than matching heights of garages. The discussion continued with Board Members in agreement that the proposed garage should compliment the house. Board Members also reiterated they would like to see the impervious surface kept to a minimum. Board Action Member Forrest moved approval subject to the plans presented including a year built plaque and the additional condition that gutters and downspouts be added to the garage. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. H-09-4 Certificate of Appropriateness Dan and Cheryl Dulas 4609 Bruce Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Repya reported the subject property is located on the east side of the 4600 block of Bruce Avenue. The existing home is a 1932 American Colonial Revival. An addition with attached garage was built on the rear of the home in 1992; however the front fagade of the home is true to the original 1932 design. Planner Repya explained that the subject request involves replacing the existing deteriorated front entry portico or porch with a similar, but larger portico. The existing front stoop measures 3 feet by 6.25 feet for a total of 18.75 square feet which provides very little room to maneuver when entering the home. The proposal includes enlarging the stoop to 4 feet by 8 feet, providing a 32 square foot landing. The plans also demonstrate an open wooden porch supported by round wooden posts, projecting 9 feet from the front building wall, with a width of 8 feet 9 inches. The new gable end treatment on the porch substitutes curved bargeboards for the classical triangular pediment and the shafts of the two round support columns are somewhat wider. Consultant Robert Vogel commented that the proposed new front porch is consistent with the property's Colonial Revival architectural style and appears to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in size, scale, mass, color, and materials and will not have an adverse effect on the historic integrity of the district. Planner Repya concluded that staff finds that the information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the plan compliments the architectural style of the home. HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 9 of 12 Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the enlarged front entry portico is recommended subject to the plans presented. The following findings support the recommendation for approval: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The proposed changes to the front entry portico will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Appearinq for the Applicant Dan & Cheryl Dulas Applicant Presentation Mr. Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue addressed the Board and explained the current portico is blocky with a very small entrance area, adding their goal is to make it functional and more inviting. He further explained that changing the front entryway would coincide with residing the house with new cedar siding. Consultant Vogel commented that a front portico is a common characteristic found on homes in the area, agreeing with Mr. Dulas that many of the porticos are not very functional. Member Rehkamp Larson said the size and scale appear good; however, the components aren't defined. She also asked of the board was flat or coved, and noted that the peak appears to bump into the window. Member Rehkamp Larson further commented that in her opinion the pilasters are a bit chunky and more thought needs to be given to the trim and millwork. Concluding, Member Rehkamp Larson said in her opinion the plan provided is more of a diagram and it does not provide enough detail. Member Forrest said she agrees with Member Rehkamp Larson's comments and noted the plan presented isn't really a final plan. Mr. Dulas responded that he understands the issues raised by the Board, adding he will return at a later date with a more detailed plan. Board Action Member Kojetin moved to continued H-09-4 to the May meeting of the HPB. Member Forrest seconded the motion, noting the applicant agreed. All HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 10 of 12 voted aye; motion carried. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: No additional public comment. V. HERITAGE AWARD: Chair Rofidal said the Board should be very thrilled to have three nominations for the Heritage Award; 300 Blake Road, the Browndale Bridge and St. Stephens Church. Consultant Vogel explained with an award program like the Heritage there is no reason the award can't be given to more than one property. Chair Rofidal commented that is good to know; however, if the award were given to all applicants it's possible the award in itself would be diminished. Vogel added that is something to consider; however, in this case all three "sites" are uniquely different. Chair Rofidal said 300 Blake Road (Coddington House) is a very interesting home. It was purchased by the current owners in 1989 and at that time other potential buyers were considering tearing the house down. Chair Rofidal said it's great the homeowners renovated the house and didn't tear it down. Member Rehkamp Larson commented in viewing the Browndale Bridge that she is of the opinion that the railing and wooden bollards aren't coordinated: Planner Repya responded that it is her understanding the wooden bollards were necessary for safety reasons. Member Kojetin stated he would have preferred to see lannon stone pillars to match the bridge at West 50th Street. Member Forrest commented that in her opinion the new concrete looks stark; pointing out the landscaping hasn't been completely replaced. Consultant Vogel commented that St. Stephen's Church is in a wonderful state of preservation largely due to the efforts of Foster Dunwiddie in the 1970's. A discussion ensued with Members pointing out the merits of each application: Coddington House 300 Blake Road: Recognition of a house outside the Country Club District Recognition of a property in the NW corner of Edina. This area contains some of Edina's oldest homes. Recognition of efforts by individuals to preserve their homes Browndale Bridge: Recognition of the bridge also recognizes the people who built the bridge 10 HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 11 of 12 in the past and who are working on preserving the bridge in the present. St. Stephen's Church: • Beautiful old church • Continued thoughtful preservation of the church • This church is very noticeable and is a landmark in the 50th and France area neighborhood. Many people, not only residents, identify this church with Edina. The discussion continued with the majority of Board Members in agreement that the Coddington House, 300 Blake Road, should receive the award. It was also stressed that both the bridge and church are worthy of the award, but at a different time. Planner Repya stated she will ready the award plaque so it can be presented at the May 5, 2009, meeting of the City Council. VI. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: Planner Repya reminded the Board on May 5, 2009, at 5:30 PM the HPB will have their joint meeting with the City Council. Planner Repya highlighted possible topics of discussion and asked Members to weigh in if they have further comments or topics: • Driveway width — does/should it supersede the zoning ordinance • How "massing" should be addressed in the Plan of Treatment. Should a FAR be established - • Should all additions need a Certificate of Appropriateness? New home vs. additions. • Should a side street fagade be considered like a front street? • Acknowledge that Zoning Ordinance restrictions prohibit the construction of certain historic home types; and again can the Plan of Treatment supersede the Zoning Ordinance • Thorpe guidelines • Senate tax credit. Members expressed their agreement with Planner Repya's topics for discussion. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: Planner Repya reminded the Board the HPB received a grant to survey the bungalows in the Morningside neighborhood. 11 HPB Minutes April 14, 2009 Page 12 of 12 Member Forrest distributed a proposed check list and COA guidelines for new homes and asked that Board Members review the handout and e-mail Planner Repya their concerns, ideas, etc. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM Submitted by 12 � OF AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 14, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-09-5 4600 Wooddale Avenue — Construction of a new detached garage B. H-09-6 4615 Wooddale Avenue — Change of siding materials from cedar lap to artisan lap (by James Hardie) III. PUBLIC COMMENT: During "Public Comment" the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. IV. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: Feedback V. 2009 GOALS & OBJECTIVES: VI. COA PROCEDURE COMMITTEE REPORT: Review draft VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Community Room 4801 West 50,hStreet MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Lou Blemaster, Connie Fukuda, Bob Kojetin, Robert Schwartzbauer and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Jean Rehkamp Larson and Joel Stegner STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya and Jackie Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Member Kojetin moved approval of the meeting minutes from the April 14, 2009, meeting. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificate of Appropriateness A. H-09-5 4600 Wooddale Avenue — Construction of a new detached garage Planner Presentation Planner Repya informed the Board the subject property is located on the west side of the 4600 block of Wooddale Avenue. The existing home, and American Colonial, Revival style was constructed on the north side ly has a 2 -car of the property off of attached garage accessed by a driveway Bridge Street. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Planner Repya explained that the subject request involves building a new, 624 square foot detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard, and converting the existing 2 -stall attached garage into living space. The plan illustrates the new structure will maintain 4.5 foot setback from the side (south) lot line; and 5 foot and 4.5 foot setbacks from the rear lot line at the north and south corners. The existing driveway is19 feet in width. A new curb cut will be required from the Engineering Department for the new 24 foot wide proposed driveway off of Bridge Street. The new 2 -stall detached garage is proposed to measure 24'x 26' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the American Colonial Revival architectural style of the home with 9 inch clear cedar lap siding, dentil molding and corbels, and an asphalt shingled roof. Attention to detail with shuttered windows and doors is demonstrated on all four elevations. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 18' 11" at the highest peak. The maximum height requirement set out in the revised Plan of Treatment was considered in the design of the garage, which could have been as tall as 20.35 feet when the heights of the adjacent detached garages were taken into consideration. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 13'9", and a height of 9' 3" is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 28' in length, and the roof is designed with an 8/12 pitch. Planner Repya noted while not subject to Certificate of Appropriateness review, plans for the addition to the rear of the home have been included for the Board's information. Consultant Vogel reviewed the plans and opined that the new detached garage appears to meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment with respect to new construction. Furthermore, it is compatible in scale, materials, size and texture with the historic house and adjacent properties. Elaborating on the term "compatible", it means that a new structure is capable of existing alongside historic structures; and will not cause direct harm or damage to a heritage preservation resource. In the Country Club neighborhood, compatible infill construction results in buildings that do not change the scale and character of the district. At the same time, compatible new construction does not have to match or imitate historic construction, nor should new buildings be required to be hidden from public view in order to be considered appropriate. Planner Repya concluded staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed new garage at the subject property. The following findings support the recommendation for approval: Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 3 of 10 • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The proposed structure will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Plan of Treatment and Zoning Ordinance Conditions associated with the approval recommendation include: • Subject to the plans presented. • The condition that a year built (2009) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage as well as the addition to the home. Appearing for the Applicant Keith and Barbara Wolf Applicant Presentation Mrs. Wolf submitted to the Board photos of current garages in the neighborhood, adding the proposed garage is comparable to new garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Wolf explained that during the design process he went back and forth between a detached vs. attached garage and after careful consideration decided that a detached garage would work best. Mr. Wolf said the existing driveway has a grade change and the driveway can get very slippery during the winter months. Mr. Wolf added the proposal will address that issue along with maintaining the character of the house and optimal use of the yard. Questions and Comments from the Board Chair Rofidal questioned if the dentil moldings and corbels will carry over from the new garage to the addition. Mr. Wolf responded in the affirmative. Chair Rofidal asked why the garage at 4602 Wooddale wasn't included. Mr. Wolf responded that garage wasn't included because of its contemporary style and that it didn't "fit" with the house. A discussion ensued with regard to the plans presented. It was observed that the corbels were not included on the plans, pointing out the plans presented should be submitted in their final form. The discussion continued on whether these types of architectural details should be a concern of the HPB. After further Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 4 of 10 discussion it was agreed if the applicant is going to use architectural details they should be noted on the final plans. Mrs. Wolf told the board they are also considering adding a cupola in the future and questioned if they add more architectural details (cupola, window boxes) would they need to appear before the HPB again. Planner Repya responded that would not be required. Chair Rofidal said if the intent is to add a cupola in the future that intent could be noted in the motion. Chair Rofidal pointed out the importance of the streetscape, adding any efforts to enhance the new garage/addition should be noted on the plans. Member Forrest said she also questions if the HPB should review the addition, pointing out the lot in question is a corner lot and the addition/remodel of the attached garage is "viewed" from the street. Board Action Member Forrest moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions and the following additional conditions: • A single overhead door instead of the double door on the plan • Corbels added to eave to match the house • 8" vs. 9" cedar siding • The homeowners have the option of adding a cupola if they choose Member Fukuda seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Member Schwartzbauer said he finds it interesting that detached garages are reviewed by the HPB but not additions. Member Schwartzbauer added he also thinks the HPB should review additions that impact the side street. Side street and front street should be viewed the same. Consultant Vogel pointed out the intent of the Plan of Treatment is to allow the property owner some leeway. Consultant Vogel pointed out the District is what is significant not each house. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 5 of 10 B. H-09-6 4615 Wooddale Avenue — Change in siding materials from cedar lap to artisan lap (by James Hardie) Planner Presentation Planner Repya informed the board the subject request involves a change in the siding for the new home building built at 4615 Wooddale Avenue. A final Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new home was approved on December 15, 2008 and was subject to the plans presented. Currently, the proponent is requesting to change the exterior siding of the home from six inch exposure cedar siding to Artisan Lap which is a new flat fiber cement siding product by James Hardie. Mr. Busyn has indicated that at the time the Heritage Preservation Board was considering the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new home, the Artisan Lap product was not available, thus six inch exposure cedar siding was proposed. However, the Artisan Lap siding which is now available is a superior product, and has the look of historic beveled lap siding while at the same time provides lower maintenance, better durability and enhanced fire safety. Mr. Busyn reported the following key features of the Artisan Lap product: • 5/8" thick lap for distinctively deep shadow lines • A smooth clear surface like cedar lap • Beveled on the back to lie flat • 6" exposure • Corners can be mitered, thus eliminating the need for corner caps • Unique tongue and groove feature allows end joints to fit together Tightly for precise fit and finish • Exceptional strength for superior handling and advanced dimensional stability Resistant to fire, water damage, insects, harsh weather, and • Low maintenance for lasting beauty Consultant Vogel has observed that the Artisan Lap product meets the minimum requirements for new construction in historic districts as well as the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. The subject property is not an historic home; therefore the use of historic materials is not required. Furthermore, recent data shows that a majority of the historic district review commissions nation-wide allow such products to be used on infill construction in historic districts. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Vogel did express his disappointment that the "experiment" with the reconstruction of an historic house in the Country Club District appears to have been unsuccessful since the developer is unable to produce an authentic replica of a circa 1930's dwelling. He pointed out that the subject new house should be considered appropriate, but does not believe the Board should give further consideration to the idea that historic homes can be replicated, i.e., held to the Secretary of the Interior's standards for reconstruction (as opposed to rehabilitation, which allows more contemporary versions of house forms as infill construction in historic districts.) Planner Repya said staff concurs with Consultant's assertion that the Artisan Lap siding material would be deemed appropriate for this project considering that this home is in -fill construction and not an historic resource. Planner Repya concluded that staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the cedar lap siding with the James Hardie Artisan Lap dependent upon receipt of the. historical and architectural documentation original required in the initial Certificate of Appropriateness for this project. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: 1. The subject home is considered in -fill construction, and no longer deemed an historic resource. 2. Artisan Lap siding meets the minimum standard for new construction in the District's Plan of Treatment. 3. Artisan Lap siding has the attributes of cedar siding with less maintenance and increased durability. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Busyn Applicant Presentation Mr. Busyn addressed the board and explained the product before them this evening is from James Hardie. Mr. Busyn displayed the product reporting that the product is now being commonly used instead of wood. Mr. Busyn said the thickness is 5/8" providing a beveled edge nail line that casts a distinctive shadow. Continuing, Mr. Busyn said the ends can be mitered so a clean corner can be achieved with no corner caps. Mr. Busyn said in his opinion this product will make the house appear more distinctive and in certain markets it's considered a step up from wood. Concluding, Mr. Busyn said supporters of sustainable housing advocate the use of this product. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 7 of 10 Comments and Questions from the Board Member Blemaster told board members she spoke with a contractor and he indicated to her that the product is very durable and a much thicker product than wood. The contractor also shared that cedar wood today isn't as good as it was years ago because it isn't allowed to age. Member Blemaster concluded that the contractor also told her this type of product prevents insect infestation. Member Kojetin asked Mr. Busyn if the Hardie board is more expensive. Mr. Busyn responded in the affirmative. Continuing, Mr. Busyn said this product won't shift, requires less maintenance and is a sustainable product. Consultant Vogel explained what Mr. Busyn is proposing meets in -fill standards but does not meet reconstruction standards. Consultant Vogel said this type of product is fine when used on non -historic structures, but for historic structures, replace in kind means replace in kind. Consultant Vogel acknowledged the product is very durable and is considered a "green" material. Board Action Member Kojetin moved approval of the change in exterior building materials from cedar siding to James Hardie Artisan Lap. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. Member Forrest expressed disappointment that natural wood isn't being used on this house, but acknowledged this type of material is something the industry is moving toward. Chair Rofidal called for the vote. All voted aye; motion carried. Consultant Vogel acknowledged receipt of Mr. Busyn's historical record for 4615 Wooddale adding the documentation of the architectural elements of the home is excellent. Ill. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment. IV. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL: Feedback Chair Rofidal apologized for not being able to attend the joint meeting and asked Members if they would share their comments/thoughts on the meeting. Member comments are as follows: Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 8 of 10 • Felt the City Council is greatly supportive of the board and believes the HPB are the "experts" on preservation. • City Council would like the board to begin the review process for the Morningside area. • Council Members expressed that they believe the board has a "back bone" and isn't afraid of saying "No" to achieve better results. • The City Council asked how they could help the HPB. • There was the mention that it appears the board spends much of their time dealing with the Country Club District. • Board members were impressed that the City Council freely gives the HPB the authority to make changes, or suggestions to plans. • Council Members reiterated the HPB is the expert, the authority on preservation. Consultant Vogel stated it appeared to him the City Council was well prepared for the joint meeting. Consultant Vogel added some Council Members expressed surprise that some of the City's resources are being lost. Further Discussion: Member Kojetin said to him one of the biggest threats to the Country Club District is the razing of existing homes. Member Kojetin suggested that more teeth be put into the reasons to support the razing of a home in the district. Planner Repya pointed out there are two more comptempory homes in the district with the real possibility that one day those two homes will be razed. Members agreed. Member Forrest commented that she thinks another look should be given to corner lots —front street/side street. Member Forrest pointed out the districts east/west streets aren't alleys so maybe additions with facades facing the side streets should be reviewed and a COA issued if appropriate. V. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: Planner Repya told the board the purpose of adopting annual goals and objectives is to establish priorities for dealing with special projects and other discretionary activities; they also provide handy benchmarks for use as performance measures. Generally, goals and objectives refer to activities for outcomes that are not mandated by city code section which deals with the responsibilities of the HPB. Ideally, the Board's stated goals and objectives should also dovetail with the work plan of the city staff liaison and consultant. Planner Repya proposed that the Board start working on 2010 goals in January. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 9 of 10 Planner Repya pointed out the following 2009 goals: 1) Begin work on multiple property study for Morningside bungalows. 2) Review the findings of the Minnehaha Creek and 44'h & France historic resources surveys and issue findings of significance for preservation resources eligible for landmark designation. 3) Provide the Board with basic training in heritage preservation policies, practices, and procedures on a monthly basis. 4) Nominate at least one Morningside property for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. 5) One or more members attend the Minnesota Preservation Conference — September 17 —18 in Chaska, MN. 6) Sponsor a public education/outreach event for the general public. Chair Rofidal asked Consultant Vogel if people are still interested in the Mill Pond. Consultant Vogel responded there is an intense interest in the Mill Pond and the pond itself. Chair Rofidal asked if there has been any discussion on rebuilding the mill itself. Consultant Vogel responded in the affirmative. Board Members suggested that # 6 of the 2009 Goals & Objectives (Sponsor a public education/outreach event for the general public) be discussed at the June meeting if time permits. Board Members also suggested adding a seventh point to the 2009 Goals & Objectives. #7 would read: Work with the Planning Commission as the Zoning Ordinance is updated relative to heritage preservation. The following were suggested for future goals and objectives: • Compile a list or create a brochure of historic places (to bring pride to the community). • Develop a continuing education course on the history of Edina (this would not only help realtors but others) • Preservation Planning • History Day — have a display or commemoration for exposure Member Forrest moved to incorporate #7 into the Goals & Objectives for 2009. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VI. COA PROCEDURE COMMITTEE REPORT: Member Forrest said the COA procedures are scheduled to be available for final vote at the June 9'h meeting. Heritage Preservation Board Minutes May 12, 2009 Page 10 of 10 VII. OTHER BUSINESS: Member Repya reported that th&Preservation Conference will be held on September 22, 2009. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: Member Repya referenced a letter from Vicky Solimany regarding the project at 4602 Bruce Avenue. IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 9, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM Submitted by, AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. MINNEHAHA GRANGE HALL #398 4928 EDEN AVENUE I. TOUR — CAHILL SCHOOL & GRANGE HALL II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 12, 2009 III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: During "Community Comment the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. IV. TRAINING: Role of Planning in Preservation V. 2005 — 2006 Minnehaha Creek Survey Results VI. COA Procedures for New Homes VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: Request - Year built plaques for Country Club District homes IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 14, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. 1 MINUITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009, AT 7:00 PM CAHILL SCHOWGRANGE HALL 4924 EDEN AVENUE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Lou Blemaster. Bob Kojetin, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Bob Schwartzbauer MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Montgomery and Joel Stegner STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya , Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. TOUR — CAHILL SCHOOL & GRANGE HALL: Member Kojetin led a tour of the Cahill School and Grange Hall buildings. Board members expressed their thanks pointing out that the history of both buildings is fascinating. They added that having a better understanding of the buildings will be helpful as they oversee the maintenance of the structures through the respective plans of treatment. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: May 12, 2009 Board members pointed out several spelling errors and points of clarification. Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. IV. TRAINING: Role of Planninci in Preservation In preparation for the training session Consultant Vogel asked the Board to review the following information: • Ordinance #801 — Heritage Preservation Ordinance #850.20 — Edina Heritage Landmarks Chapter 6: Heritage Preservation — 2009 Comprehensive Plan 10 Principles of Preservation HPB Meeting Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Vogel made reference to the background information provided to the Board as he explained that preservation in Edina is a planning function which focuses on resource management. He elaborated on Edina's governmental structure as a Plan B city where the HPB is advisory to the City Council. Board members discussed the direction provided in the Heritage Preservation section of the Comprehensive Plan; as well as the process for identifying historic resources. Members Rehkamp Larson and Blemaster expressed their appreciation for the training, particularly the explanation of the responsibilities of the HPB within the governmental structure. They pointed out that the training would be an excellent introduction to new board members. Discussion ensued regarding the technical language often used in staff reports. A suggestion was made for staff to include a clarification of terms. Planner Repya offered to reference sections in the book "A Field Guide to American Houses" that was provided for each HPB member. Board members agreed that would be helpful. Regarding the Country Club District's Plan of Treatment, Board members asked to receive a copy of Thorpe's original deed restrictions for future reference. Planner Repya agreed to provide a copy of the deed restrictions to the Board. In closing, Consultant Vogel explained that the Role of Planning in Preservation is the first of about 10 training sessions planned for the Board. The next training session will focus on the importance of the Historic Context Study. Board members thanked Mr. Vogel for the training and expressed their interest in future sessions. V. 2005 — 2006 MINNEHAHA CREEK SURVEY RESULTS: Consultant Vogel explained that in 2005 the Heritage Preservation Board directed him to carry out a reconnaissance -level survey of Minnehaha Creek to identify and gather information about potential heritage preservation sites. The survey was intended to be a "once over lightly" inspection of the creek and the lands adjacent to it with the goal of characterizing the heritage landmark potential of various structures and areas. To be considered eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark, a property must meet at least one of the criteria for eligibility by being associated with an important historic context and retaining integrity of those physical features needed to convey its significance. The eligibility criteria recognize four general categories of preservation value: association with significant events (criterion A), important persons (criterion B), design or construction (criterion C), or information value (criterion D). The relevant historic context, delineated in 1999 and referenced in the city's comprehensive plan, is "Minnehaha Creek: HPB Meeting Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 3 of 6 From Wilderness Stream to Urban Waterway, 10,000 BC to AD 1974." Resources covered by this historic context include buildings, transportation and engineering structures, archaeological sites, natural features and landscape architecture. The relevant aspects of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Mr. Vogel provided the following inventory which lists the heritage resources of the creek and his preliminary evaluation of each property's potential landmark eligibility. Resources are listed in geographical order, proceeding from the Edina -St. Louis Park boundary downstream. 1) West 44th Street Bridge. Concrete slab bridge built in 1985. Not considered a heritage preservation resource. 2) State Highway 100. Originally designated State Trunk Highway 5, the beltline highway was constructed in 1935-1936 as a New Deal work relief project and was originally known as the Lilac Highway. The six -lane bridge, which spans the upper end of the mill pond, dates from 1970 and is not considered a heritage resource. 3) Mill Pond. The pond was formed when the creek was dammed in 1857 for the Waterville Mill; after the closure of the Edina Mill it became a wetland or slough. In 1933 the Village of Edina used federal funds under the Civil Works Administration to line the banks and bed of the mill pond with a clay sealer to help maintain a constant pool of water. The project included a water feature (see below) which pumped well water into the mill pond. 4) Cascade. The reinforced concrete "cascade" was built as a Village of Edina -sponsored Civil Works Administration/Works Progress Administration project in 1933-1934. Its purpose was to pump water from a public well into the Mill Pond, to make it more attractive. The structure has not been functional for many years but appears to be in fairly good condition. More intensive survey is needed to assess its rehabilitation potential. 5) Brown Farm. Minneapolis lumberman Henry Francis Brown 1841-1912) established a country estate in Edina in 1872; Brown Farm became famous for its Shorthorn cattle. The Brown farm yard and barns are believed to have been located between the creek and what is now Edgebrook Place. This area would seem to have little potential for the preservation of intact archaeological remains. 6) Edina Mill Dam. The original 1857 mill dam was replaced several times. The present concrete weir dates from around 1900 and its sole function is to maintain a minimum water depth in the Mill pond. More research is needed to fully evaluate its heritage preservation value. 3 HPB Meeting Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 4 of 6 7) Browndale Bridge. Concrete arch bridge built in 1902 to carry a local road over the creek at the Edina Mills community. The bridge was designated an Edina Heritage Landmark in 2006. 8) Edina Mill Archaeological Site. The first water -powered grist mill was built on this site in 1857 and the mill was not demolished until 1934. The site was listed in the National Register in 1976 and was partially excavated in 1977. It was designated an Edina Heritage Landmark in 2006. 9) West 50th Street Bridge. This 4 -lane, single -span concrete girder type bridge was built in 1926 and later extensively remodeled. Its historic integrity has been compromised by the remodeling. 10)Wooddale Avenue Bridge. Single -span stone and steel culvert built in 1936 as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) federal relief project. The HPB determined the bridge eligible for landmark designation in 2008 because of its design characteristics and association with the WPA. 11)St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. The Gothic Revival style stone church was built in 1938 on land donated by Thorpe Realty as part of its master plan for the Country Club District. A heritage landmark determination of eligibility is recommended on the basis of its architectural significance. 12)Minnehaha Grange Hall Site. The original site of the grange hall (built in 1879, moved to Tupa Park in 1970) is preserved in the form of some foundation ruins alongside the creek on the grounds of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. More research is needed to fully assess the site's potential to yield important archaeological data. 13)West 54th Street Bridge. Single -span, steel stringer type bridge built in 1935. More information is necessary to fully evaluate the historical significance of this structure. 14)Arden Park. The village acquired this property around 1935 as part of its first municipal park plan; it may have been partially developed as a WPA project. It may be significant within the historic context "Country Clubs and Parks: The Heritage of Recreation, Leisure and Sport (1910-1974)." 15)West 56th Street Bridge. Built in 1954, this two-lane, single -span bridge is typical of modern bridge construction. 16)France Avenue Culvert. A foot long corrugated steel culvert built in 1958. Not a heritage preservation resource. 17)Adath Jeshuran Cemetery. The city does not have an historic context for burial grounds. This site has potential for preservation as a designed historic landscape; more research is needed to document its history. HPB Meeting Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Vogel reported that no Native American artifacts have been reported from along Minnehaha Creek, which is somewhat surprising. The shores of Lake Minnetonka and the Mississippi River gorge in the Twin Cities are filled with prehistoric archaeological sites. The Dakota Sioux regarded Lake Minnetonka as one of their most sacred places --in fact, they kept its location a secret from Euro Americans until 1850, despite the fact that Minnehaha Creek had been "discovered" by two teenagers from Fort Snelling in 1822. The physical context for well preserved archaeological sites is not particularly good anywhere along the creek in Edina because of stream bank erosion and channelization work. Board member found the Minnehaha Creek study to be very interesting and shared their appreciation for having an evaluation of the creek's significance in Edina. Discussion ensued regarding the process for designating historic resources in the city. Board members agreed that there are several churches that they felt would qualify for designation, namely the Morningside Congregational Church as well as St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. Consultant Vogel suggested evaluating all the churches in the city to determine significance, and perhaps adding a section in the Historic Context Study focusing on the churches in the city. Member Kojetin moved that the Board authorize Consultant Vogel to prepare findings of significance for St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Planner Repya clarified for the Board that there is currently a listing of approximately 10 properties determined eligible for designation, the most recent addition being the Wooddale Bridge. Preparing findings of significance is the first step in determining whether, and if so, why a property is deemed to qualify to be put on the determined to be eligible" list. For the property to move forward in the historic landmark designation process, the property owner would need to agree with the nomination, and be an active participant in creating the plan of treatment, not to mention participating in the required Planning Commission and City Council meetings. VI. COA PROCEDURES FOR NEW HOMES: Member Forrest provided the Board with the most recent changes to the COA Procedures for New Homes in the Country Club District. Planner Repya explained that she shared the form with Andy Porter, a developer who has most recently gone through the COA process for a new home. Mr. Porter raised some very constructive questions that the Board responded to by making changes for clarity. The Board asked Planner Repya to send the proposed form to Scott Busyn, another developer who has experienced the COA process for a new home, pointing out that they would appreciate also Mr. Busyn's input. HPB Meeting Minutes June 9, 2009 Page 6 of 6 VII. OTHER BUSINESS: Member Forrest reported that she has read two of the new books purchased for the HPB's historic resource library. She provided a synopsis of both books and added that they are resources that will benefit community members interested in heritage preservation and the maintenance of older homes. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: Request — Year built plaques for Country Club District homes Planner Repya reported that a suggestion was received from Carolyn Schroeder and Barbara Laederbach, residents of the Country Club District to implement a program that would provide an opportunity for residents of the historic Country Club District to purchase year built plaques to place on their homes. It was suggested that the Historical Society design and produce plaques too place on houses or in yards or gardens giving the date of the construction of the houses. The signs would be designed professionally and be coordinated with the signage currently being used on the new street signs in the district. They proposed that the signs be promoted and sold to CCD homeowners as a fund raising project for the Edina Historical Society. The rationale for the proposal is that the signs would be of historical interest to residents, and would enhance walking treks through the neighborhood. They would build awareness and pride in the historic significance of the homes, and the district. Furthermore, they would be an educational resource and focal point for residents and children. Board members discussed the proposal. It was agreed that it appeared to be a project for the Edina Historical Society. However, the HPB would cooperate by providing year built information and the template for the CCD logo. IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 14, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM Respectfully submitted Joyce Re_pya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 9, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-09-4 4609 Bruce Avenue — Construction of a new front entry portico B. H-09-7 4611 Arden Avenue — Construction of a new detached garage and a front entry portico III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who During "Community Comment would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. IV. COA PROCEDURES FOR NEW HOMES: Finalize V. TRAINING: Historic Contexts VI. HPB SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: Planning Commission Review July 29th VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. 1 MINUITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2009, AT 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50T" STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Connie Fukuda, Lou Blemaster, Bob Kojetin, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Joel Stegner, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Schwartzbauer STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 9, 2009 Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes from the June 9, 2009 HPB meeting. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT A. H-09-4 Dulas — 4609 Bruce Avenue Construction of a new front entry portico Planner Repya explained that the subject request for a redesigned front entry was first heard by the HPB on April 14, 2009. At that time, the homeowner requested a continuance so they could address concerns expressed by the HPB with a revised design. When reviewing the initial plan for the front entry portico in April, members of the HPB expressed the following concerns: The plan appeared to be more of a diagram and lacked detail. The roof peak was too high and bumped into the base of the window on the 2nd story. The pilasters on either side of the door were too chunky. The trim and millwork needed more thought. Ms. Repya observed that the revised plan proposed at this time provides a HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 2 of 8 detailed depiction of the new front entry portico, and addresses all of the concerns called out in the previous plan. The homeowner has identified the following improvements to the plan: 1. The height of the roof peak has been lowered and no longer touches the base of the 2"d story window. 2. Pilasters have been added on house wall behind columns. 3. A paneled wall around the door has been provided versus the previous fluted frame around the door. 4. A flat arch has been provided versus the previous inset arch. 5. A fanned panel has been provided versus the previous inset panel. Recommendation & Findings: Concluding, Ms. Repya stated that staff finds the revised plan submitted for the subject Certificate of Appropriateness application addresses the concerns expressed by the HPB at the April 14, 2009. Furthermore, the plan compliments the architectural style of the home. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the enlarged front entry portico is recommended subject to the plans presented dated June 22, 2009. Ms. Repya added the following findings supporting the recommendation for approval: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project and address the concerns. expressed by the HPB at the April 14, 2009 meeting. • The proposed changes to the front entry portico will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Board Member Comments: Member Rehkamp Larson announced that she would decline from participating in the discussion and vote since her firm designed the subject portico. Member Blemaster commented that she felt the plan was excellent. Member Fukuda agreed, adding that the revised plan was a huge improvement over the initial plan reviewed at the April meeting. Applicant Comments: Dan Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue Property owner, Dan Dulas observed that he appreciated and understood the concerns expressed by the HPB over the initial plan reviewed in April, and feels that the new plan addresses those concerns. He added that the new design of HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 3 of 8 the portico is a vast improvement over the previous plan, and he was quite pleased with the outcome. Motion & Vote: Member Forrest moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new front entry portico subject to the plans presented dated June 22, 2009. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. H-09-7 Cochrane — 4611 Arden Avenue Construction of a new detached garage and front portico Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4600 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home, an American Colonial Revival, was constructed in 1938 and currently has a 2 -car attached garage accessed by a driveway on the south side of the property. The subject request involves the construction of a new detached garage and the addition of a front entry portico. Regarding the proposed detached garage, Ms. Repya explained that the new 624 square foot detached garage is planned for the south side of the rear yard, approximately 31 feet from the rear lot line and 4 feet from the south side lot line. Access to the garage will be obtained from the existing driveway which will not increase in size to accommodate the new structure. The plan proposes to remove the existing one story 440 square foot attached garage in the southeast corner of the home and replace it with an expansion to the patio and 14'x 10' mud room. The proposed 2 -stall detached garage, measuring 24'x 26' feet in area has been designed to compliment the American Colonial Revival architectural style of the home with 5.25 inch James Hardie Artisan lap siding, Azek (or similar) built up fascia molding, and an asphalt shingled roof to match the house. An 11 foot wide dormer is proposed on the west, street facing elevation. Attention to detail with windows and/or doors is demonstrated on all four elevations. Ms. Repya pointed out that the height of the proposed garage is shown to be 18.8 feet at the highest peak, which is the maximum height allowed considering the heights of the surrounding detached garages. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 13.5', and a height of 8.16' is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 24.75' in length, and the roof is designed with a 9/12 pitch (3/12 for the dormer). The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 25%. The proposed plan will maximize the allowed lot coverage on the property to 24.7% Addressing the front entry portico, Ms. Repya explained that the plans demonstrate a simple gable design with three columnar groupings paired with a HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 4 of 8 decorative lattice. The roof will project 30" from the wall of the home, and the entry stoop will project a total of 5 feet into the front yard. The materials proposed for the landing and stoop include a new clay brick stoop with NY bluestone landing/treads. The overall size and proportion are in keeping with similar front entries found in the neighborhood. Upon review of the proposed plans, Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel observed that the design and materials of the proposed garage meet the applicable standards for rehabilitation, and satisfy the requirements of the district plan of treatment as they relate to new detached garages. Construction of new detached garages is appropriate in the Country Club District when the new work makes possible an efficient contemporary use of the property while preserving those features which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Mr. Vogel observed that the new garage will be compatible with the size, scale, mass, color and materials of the house, neighboring homes, and the district as a whole. It will not harm any historic feature that contributes to the heritage preservation value of the Country Club District. While there is no historical precedent for a Colonial Revival style two -car garage, the design of the new garage "matches" the architectural character of the house by incorporating details (lap siding, cornice returns, dormer and panel doors) ordinarily found on older homes. Overall, the project minimizes demolition of existing structural elements to a small portion on the rear elevation of the house; no historic character -defining features visible from the public right-of-way will be lost, obscured or damaged. Addressing the proposed new front entry portico, Mr. Vogel observed that he would interpret the design as new construction because it will not result in the removal or destruction of any historic structural element. (The plan of treatment explicitly exempts alteration of doors and windows from the COA requirement.) The proposed new front entry porch is consistent with period revival style architecture in general and porches are characteristic of homes built in the Country Club District between 1924 and 1944. Vogel pointed out that there is a long tradition of adding these kinds of entry porches to vernacular gable -front - and -wing plan houses in order to give them a more refined, "suburban" look -- architectural historians have traced the origins of the movement as far back as the 1840s and the trend actually persisted in the Midwest until the 1930s. (Historically, porches began to disappear from new home construction in the late 1930s because of the newly created FHA and its policies that discouraged porches.) Mr. Vogel recommended approval of both the detached garage and front entry portico, as presented. Recommendation & Findings: Planner Repya concluded that she concurred with Consultant Vogel and would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed new - 4 HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 5 of 8 garage and front entry portico. The following findings support the recommendation for approval: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed projects. • The proposed detached garage and front entry portico will compliment the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Plan of Treatment and Zoning Ordinance Ms. Repya added the following conditions associated with the approval recommendation: Subject to the plans presented. • The condition that a year built (2009) plaque or sign is placed on the new detached garage. Board Member Comments: Member Rehkamp Larson commented that she disagreed with Consultant Vogel's contention that the proposed portico would not destroy any historic structural elements of the home; pointing out that the portico will change character defining elements to the front entry of the home. That being said, she added that the proposed portico is not inconsistent with new construction seen in the District. Member Rehkamp Larson observed that she would like to have seen the full front elevation of the home with the proposed portico, rather than the partial front elevation that was provided. Board members agreed with Ms. Rehkamp Larson. Planner Repya stated that in the future, she would require a full elevation when applications for changes to street facing facades are presented. Ms. Rehkamp Larson also questioned whether there was room for the trellis on the sides of the portico with only a 30" projection. Member Rofidal commented that the proposed portico appears more ornate when compared to the design of the home. Member Forrest asked if the pitch of the portico would match the house, and was told it would not. Ms. Forrest commented that the trellis work looked rather Victorian in nature. She concluded by adding that she was impressed that the portico would only be 30' deep. Board members agreed that while a age weredetailed arlyplans what for the portico, the plans provided for the new detached g they require. HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Member Kojetin asked if the upstairs of the garage would be used for any living space. It was explained that the upstairs would have a wood floor and be used for storage. Member Rehkamp Larson asked to clarify that while the subject portico plans may have been lacking by not providing a full front elevation, the plans did provide more detail than what was provided for the portico expansion at 4609 Bruce Avenue which had been held over from a previous meeting. Applicant Comments: Steve Kuhl, Kuhl Design Build Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build Steve Kuhl explained that his firm provided the plans required by the Planning staff. He then showed the Board a copy of the full front elevation that included the proposed portico. Addressing the question about the trellis work, Mr. Kuhl explained that it is detail work that would not make or break the project. He added that the design of the portico at 30" deep met the desire of not wanting to add a large element to the front of the house that would look out of place. Addressing the proposed garage, Mr. Kuhl explained that the north/south orientation of the roof was more beneficial to its design and better tied into the design of the home. Neighborhood Comments: John & Sharon Andresen, 4804 Maple Road Mr. Andresen explained that he lived directly behind the subject property and was glad to see that the new garage is not proposed to be built in the far corner of the rear yard because drainage has been a problem on that lot for years. Mr. Andresen asked if gutters and downspouts were proposed for the garage, and he was assured that they would be included. It was pointed out that since the garage setback is 31 feet from the rear lot line, some water may be deposited in that area, however it would be unlikely that any water runoff from the structure would compromise Mr. Andresen's property. Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build further explained that the south side of the driveway will have a 4" built-up curb and water run-off from the garage will be forced west to the street. Motion & Vote: Member Kojetin moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the new detached garage, however continue the request for the front entry portico to the next meeting when a full front elevation of the home is provided. The motion died due to lack of a second. HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 7 of 8 Member Stegner commented that he did when they t he resented what Staff required responsible for a deficiency in the plans y p of them. Member Forrest agreed pointing out that although the plan was not provided in their packet information, the applicant did show the Board a front elevation of the home with the front entry portico. She added that she would be reluctant to delay the project that appears to have met the Plan of Treatment criteria. Member Forrest moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new detached garage and front entry portico based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Member Forrest added an additional condition that the final plan review of the front entry portico is left to the discretion of the planner. If the Planner finds that the final plans deviate from the original plans and board discussion, the plans are to be brought back to the Board for further review. Member Bleumaster seconded the motion. Members Fuduka, Rehkamp Larson, Stenger, Bleumaster, Montgomery, Forrest, and Rofidal voted aye. Member Kojetin voted nay citing that the full front elevation was not provided for the Board to review before the meeting. Motion carried. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None IV. COA PROCEDURES FOR NEW HOMES: Finalize A brief discussion ensued regarding the most current version of the COA procedures for new homes. Board members agreed that Member Forrest had done a stellar job in providing comprehensive associated withacinformation quacquiring a COA for a new requirements, but also the process home in the Country Club District. It was suggested that Planner Repya take the information and format it much like she did for the Plan of Treatment document. Ms. Repya agreed. Member Stegner also suggested that when the wwith sharerospectivBoard e applicant, that a complete sample application ou d be helpful to members agreed. V. TRAINING: Historic Contexts Continued until the August 11, 2009 meeting. VI. HPB SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: Planning Commmission Review July 29th Chairman Rofidal reported that he received a request from the Planning Commission to attend their July 29th meeting to discuss the HPB section of the 7 HPB Meeting Minutes July 14, 2009 Page 8 of 8 Zoning Ordinance that is currently undergoing review by the Commission. In preparation for that meeting, Chair Rofidai asked the HPB for issues with the HPB section of the Zoning Ordinance that they would like him to discuss on the 29th. The following items were suggested for Chair Rofidal to share with the Planning Commission: 1. The 12 foot minimum driveway width in the Zoning Ordinance exceeds the widths of all the driveways in the Country Club District which average from 7 to 9 feet. 2. The side yard setback requirements preclude the construction of a Colonial style home in the Country Club District. 3. 850.20, Subd. 10. D. of the Zoning Ordinance sets out a 45 day time frame for the HPB to complete review of Certificate of Appropriateness applications. That time frame should be extended to 120 days. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 11, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m. Respectfuly submitted Joyce Repya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: July 14, 2009 II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness A. H-09-8 4625 Casco Avenue — Construction of a new detached garage III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who During "Community Comment would like to speak about something not on the agenda. * Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue previously discussed. * Individuals should not expect the Commission to respond to their comments. Instead, the Commission might direct the matter to staff or consideration at a future meeting. s IV. TRAINING: Historic Contexts V. PLANNING COMMISSION — HPB ZONING ORDINANCE: Update VI. HPB SURVEY RESULTS: VII. MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — Sept. 17 & 18 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. CORRESPONDENCE: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 8, 2009 XI. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Applicant Comments: Darren Senn, — Project Designer Mr. Senn explained that the proposed garage will be a vast improvement over the existing dilapidated garage. The design which is rather straight forward will compliment the house and be only somewhat larger due to the limited additional lot coverage available on the lot. The design guidelines for the Country Club District have been adhered to with the exception of the blank wall on the back of the structure that borders the southerly side yard. A window has not been included because a fence currently abuts that elevation, and the homeowner believes the garage would be more secure without a window. Board Member Comments: Member Forrest noted that in the letter to the Board the comment was made that the concrete driveway would be drastically reduced in area, however upon reviewing the survey it appears that the amount of hardcover will be about the same. Mr. Senn admitted that while the existing turn around space will be removed, there will be additional concrete to accommodate the garage being set back further to the east on the lot; so perhaps the amount of concrete will be about the same. Member Rehkamp Larson asked who owned the fence abutting the rear of the proposed garage and if real stucco was proposed for the garage. Mr. Senn stated that it is his understanding that the fence belongs to the abutting neighbor. He added that the garage will be clad with real stucco. Motion & Vote: Member Kojetin moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new detached garage at 4625 Casco Avenue subject to the plans presented and a year built sign or plaque is installed on the exterior of the structure. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. 111. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None IV. TRAINING: Historic Contexts Consultant Robert Vogel explained that in 1999 the City of Edina contracted his firm to complete an Historic Context Study which is a planning document used for identifying and evaluating historic properties in the city. The document includes information on the city's significant historical events and patterns of events organized around ten important themes, and delineates a range of historic property types that connect the themes to actual buildings, sites, structures, and districts within the city limits. The document also highlights information needs, k HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 4 of 8 preservation planning goals, and the linkages between statewide and local historic contexts. Mr. Vogel pointed that Edina's Historic Contexts are unique because they are two-tiered. The first tier represents three broad, general themes in Edina's history: • The Native American Landscape (10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1851) • The Agricultural Landscape (1851 to 1959) • The Suburban Landscape (1887 to 1974) These themes are city-wide in geographic scope and are linked with the statewide historic contexts developed by the MN SHPO. The second tier are more narrowly defined both in terms of their thematic and geographic focus, and include the following seven study units: • Edina Mills: Agriculture & Rural Life (18857 to 1923) • The Cahill Settlement: Edina's Irish Heritage (1850's to 1930's) • Morningside: Edina's Streetcar Suburb (1905 to 1935) • Country Club District: Edina's First Planned Community (1921 to 1950) • Southdale: Shopping Mall Culture (1955 to 1974) • Country Clubs and Parks: The Heritage of Recreation, Leisure and Sport (1910 to 1974) • Minnehaha Creek: From Wilderness Stream to Urban Waterway (10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1974) Each of the seven study unit includes a brief description and information relative to the following sub -headings: • Significant Events/Patterns of Events • Major Bibliographic References • Historic Property Types • Representative Properties • Information Needs • Preservation Planning Goals/Priorities Mr. Vogel pointed out that the Historic Context Study is a document that should not sit on a shelf gathering dust, rather one that should be added to as the city recognizes areas of interest. An example he cited was the recent interest in the churches of Edina. It would make sense to add a study unit to identify and research the churches in the city, particularly with the most recent interest in potentially designating several of the churches Edina heritage landmarks. Another area pointed out as a potential for area study was the West Minneapolis Heights neighborhood in the northwest quadrant of the city. This area that borders the city of Hopkins dates back to the 1850's when housing was created to support a tractor factory and the railroad in Hopkins. This is also the area of the city where the Coddington House (2009 Heritage Award recipient) is located at 300 Blake Road. HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 5 of 8 Board members found it interesting that the context study includes a study unit for Minnehaha Creek, but not one for the Nine Mile Creek. Chairman Rofidal stated that with the most recent interest in Nine Mile Creek spurred on by the Three Rivers District's trailway plan, he has received inquiries from residents asking if the HPB has addressed the historic significance of the creek. Consultant Vogel explained that Minnehaha Creek has been identified as an historic resource because it feeds into the Mississippi River, and historically supported the Edina Mill; whereas the Nine Mile Creek has not been identified as an historic resource. Mr. Vogel added that to the best of his knowledge, an archaeological survey of Nine Mile Creek in Edina has not taken place. Member Kojetin, who serves on the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board of Directors pointed out that it is his understanding that Edina's City Council has requested the Three Rivers Park District to undertake an environmental study of the creek in Edina before they make a decision on the trailway request. Mr. Vogel was pleased to hear that, pointing out that an historical evaluation should be a part of the EAW report. He also offered to provide Planner Repya with historical criteria that she could pass on the City's Park Director. Concluding the training on historic context, Consultant Vogel pointed out that the HPB will periodically add to the study units in the context study. Currently, there is a lot of public interest in post-war resources from the 1950's and 1960's which makes up a great deal of Edina's infrastructure. Edina has experienced a large influx of tear -down and rebuilding of structures built in that era; and while these buildings may not be saved, it is important for the city that their existence be identified and recorded. Board members thanked Mr. Vogel for explaining the significance of historic context to the work they do; and agreed that they looked forward to the September training on Identification & Surveys. V. PLANNING COMMISSION HPB SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: Chairman Rofidal reported that he attended a meeting with the Planning Commission on July 29th along with representatives from the Transportation Commission and Park Board. Each board/commission had an opportunity to explain areas of interest and/or concern with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rofidal shared that following issues important to the HPB: The 12 foot minimum driveway width in the Zoning Ordinance exceeds the widths of all the driveways in the Country Club District which average from 7 to 9 feet. 2. The side yard setback requirements preclude the construction of historic architectural styles such as American Colonial homes in the Country Club District. HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 6 of 8 3. 850.20, Subd. 10. D. of the Zoning Ordinance sets out a 45 day time frame for the HPB to complete review of Certificate of Appropriateness applications. That time frame should be extended to 120 days. 4. The preservation of trees is an important component in protecting Edina's historic resources. 5. The importance of identifying, recording and when applicable preserving the historic of Edina's commercial properties. Board members briefly discussed the items addressed. Member Stegner asked if minutes from the work session with the Planning Commission could be made available to the HPB. Planner Repya stated that she would make sure that Board members received the minutes when they are made available. Board members thanked Chair Rofidal for representing them at the work session, and looked forward to see the implementation of some or all of their suggestions. VI. HPB SURVEY RESULTS: Chairman Rofidal explained that over the course of the past few years, the HPB has dealt with many issues and COA's on a monthly basis. Sometimes the process has worked smooth and other times the Board has been caught up in time management issues which might be avoided with better planning and leadership. Addressing "planning", Chair Rofidal asked, "What can we do as a Board to ensure that our time is managed so that everyone who wants to speak (including the Public) has a fair chance to do that? What steps can we take going into a meeting to move our business along so that we are not there any later than necessary?" Rofidal pointed out that the second part is "leadership". Somebody has to lead and lead effectively so that we accomplish what we want to get done. This has to be done tactfully and with regard to accomplishing objectives. Mr. Rofidal added that some members of the Board have voiced concerns on the time management issue. To address those concerns and keep qualified people on the Board, since the July meeting, each Board member received a brief CONFIDENTIAL survey; a majority of the surveys were completed and the results tabulated. Chair Rofidal summarized the following responses to the survey: • To maintain order, Board members should raise their hands to be recognized toward the goal of only one conversation going on at a time. • Discussions should be focused to pertinent information, with limited reiteration. HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 7 of 8 • Subcommittees to work on policy changes is a good idea. • Mixed responses to starting the meeting earlier. Some members have challenges wrapping up their work day. Perhaps starting'/2 hour earlier, at 6:30 p.m. and striving to end by 9:00 p.m. would work. • Some members suggested having a time frame for items on the agenda. Board members briefly discussed Chair Rofidal's summary. The following comments were made: Member Forrest suggested that at the beginning of each meeting the Chair explain the meeting procedures. Member Montgomery expressed a desire to keep the start time at 7:00 p.m. due to Board members work and school schedules and commitments. Consultant Vogel pointed out that in some cities the meetings start at 6:30 p.m. with non -action items handled between 6:30 and 7:00 with the action items (COA's, etc.) addressed at 7:00 p.m.. In these cases, the meeting is advertised as starting at 6:30. The board discussed this Idea with the general consensus being that it would be too confusing, and Board members probably would not come until 7:00 anyway. Mr. Vogel also pointed out that the COA's for detached garages in the Country Club District have taken up a lot of the meeting time with the Board ultimately approving the garage plan that the applicant has worked on with Staff. Starting in 2010, Mr. Vogel said he will propose that Staff review the COA's for detached garages and report to the Board each month. The Board briefly discussed Mr. Vogel's suggestion and agreed to discuss his idea further at the September meeting. VII. MN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — SEPT. 17 & 18,2009: Planner Repya reported that the upcoming MN Preservation Conference on September 17th and 18th will be held at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum in Chaska. Because Edina is a Certified Local Government city, we are required to send at least one board member to the conference each year. As in years past, there is scholarship money available to cover the cost of the conference, but only for those attending both days. Board members Bob Kojetin and Arlene Forrest offered to attend the conference on both days. Planner Repya stated that she would submit their reservations as well as the grant application for their scholarships. HPB Meeting Minutes August 11, 2009 Page 8 of 8 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. COA Procedures Chairman Rofidal reported that the new COA procedures have been formatted and are now in use. He thanked Member Forrest for her hard work on completing that task. B. Nine Mile Creek Chairman Rofidal explained that he received an inquiry from a resident regarding whether or not the HPB had any jurisdiction over the Nine Mile Creek, particularly in light of the proposed trailway being considered by the Park Board and City Council. A general discussion ensued. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the question to be answered is whether or not the trail will have an impact on any heritage resources; and as pointed out previously, until an environmental study is conducted, one doesn't know if heritage resources exist. Planner Repya agreed to check into the process for the environmental study and report back to the Board at the September meeting. IX. CORRESPONDENCE: None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 8, 2009 XI. ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted ,Joyce R.epya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: August 11, 2009 II. TRAINING: Identification & Surveys III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. 2010 BUDGET: V. MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — Sept. 17 & 18 VI. OTHER BUSINESS: Tour — 4615 Wooddale Avenue — Sept 10th — Oct 4th (choose a morning) VII. CORRESPONDENCE: * Letter from Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design & Build, Inc. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. HPB Meeting Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Board members thanked Consultant Vogel for the training session on surveys and identifying historic resources. All agreed that the training sessions have provided good background information. No formal action was taken. III. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None IV. 2010 Budget: Planner Repya reported that as the City plans for the 2010 budget, the Planning Department needs to reduce the funds spent on contractual services. It appears that the funds available to pay for Robert Vogel's consulting services will be reduced from $12,000 in 2009 to $10,000 in 2010. The Planning staff has determined that in light of the 2010 work projected for the Heritage Preservation Board, which includes the continual review of Certificate of Appropriateness applications and the upcoming multiple property study for the Morningside neighborhood, Mr. Vogel's time should be spent in a research and advisory capacity. Mr. Vogel agrees that a way to reduce his costs would be for him not to attend the monthly meetings of the HPB (unless warranted by the Morningside study), or periodic meetings of the Planning commission and City Council. A brief discussion ensued regarding Mr. Vogel's services to the HPB. Mr. Vogel agreed to provide an amended proposal for 2010 services that would reflect the reduced funds available. No formal action was taken. V. MN HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE — SEPT. 17 & 18,2009: Planner Repya was pleased to announce that the Minnesota Historical Society has awarded Edina a CLG scholarship grant to cover the costs for two HPB members (Kojetin and Forrest) to attend the State Preservation Workshop at the Minnesota Arboretum. The total costs of admission ($90 per person) and travel will be covered by the grant. Board members agreed that was good news and thanked Members Kojetin and Forrest for representing them at the conference. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Tour — 4615 Wooddale Avenue Planner Repya reported that Scott Busyn of Great Neighborhood Homes has invited the HPB to tour the new home at 4615 Wooddale Avenue which will be a part of the Parade of Homes open house from September 10 to October 4th. Mr. HPB Meeting Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Busyn asked that the Board choose a time/day, preferably in the morning when the home is not open to the public. Following a brief discussion, the Board agreed that Friday, October 2nd at 10:00 a.m. would work best for the majority. All agreed that it was generous of Mr. Busyn to offer the tour, pointing out that they were anxious to see the results of their COA review last December. Planner Repya agreed to report back to Mr. Busyn. No formal action was taken. B. HPB Meeting Procedures Chairman Rofidal thanked the Board for their input on the survey he conducted regarding the meeting procedures, and provided a breakdown of suggested policies which address their responses. Rofidal's policies included procedures during the meeting; adherence to the agenda; and guidelines to help with time management. The Board thanked Chair Rofidal for his work on the procedures and agreed that they will assist in the professional manner in which they conduct their business. C. Nine Mile Creek — Follow up Chairman Rofidal explained that at the August meeting he reported that several neighbors along Nine Mile Creek had approached him regarding the historic significance of the creek in light of the Three Rivers Park District's bike path proposal. Since that time, he has learned that currently, this is not an issue for the HPB. The Three Rivers Park District is undertaking an environmental assessment of the creek (an EAW) at the request of the City Council. Part of the EAW includes an evaluation of the historic significance of the area for which the Park District is responsible. Vll. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build Chairman Rofidal explained that he received a letter from Dan Murphy, CFO of Kuhl Design & Build, LLC. In his letter, Mr. Murphy relayed his frustration with the COA process he experienced at the August HPB meeting when he represented his client at 4611 Arden Avenue (new detached garage and front entry portico). Summarizing the letter, Chair Rofidal stated that Mr. Murphy sensed a lack of clarity among the board members as to their essential mission; citing that questions were asked of him that, as he saw it, were irrelevant to the COA purview of the project. Chair Rofidal and Planner Repya met with Mr. Murphy to discuss his concerns and explain the mission on the HPB with the COA process. After the meeting, HPB Meeting Minutes September 8, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Murphy stated that he better understood the mission of the Board and expressed his appreciation for the work of the HPB. Board members discussed Mr. Murphy's letter. Member Stegner observed that the HPB represents a wide variety of expertise, and it is important to have a clear sense of the parameters of their responsibilities. It was agreed that when the Board detours to discussions that are not relevant to the issue at hand, the meetings become unnecessarily prolonged. Board members observed that keeping to task - not being sidetracked by irrelevant discussion would be an important addition to the meeting procedures discussed earlier in the meeting. No formal action was taken. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted Joyce R.epya AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 8, 2009 II. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: CLG Grant Update III. 4505 ARDEN AVENUE: Prospective Owner Requesting HPB Opinion IV. TRAINING: Evaluation V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Boa might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. OTHER BUSINESS: • MN Preservation Conference - September 18 & 19 — Report from Members Forrest & Koj etin • Tour — 4615 Wooddale Avenue - - Reflections • Legacy Grant Progrdin VII. CORRESPONDENCE: • To Three Rivers Park District Re: Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 8, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009, AT 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Bob Kojetin, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Joel Stegner, Bob Schwartzbauer, Connie Fukuda, and Lou Blemaster MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Montgomery STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 8, 2009 Member Forrest moved approval of the minutes from the September 8, 2009 HPB meeting. Member Schwartzbauer seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. II. 4505 ARDEN AVENUE: Prospective Owner Requesting HPB Opinion Planner Repya explained that the home at 4505 Arden Avenue is for sale and a prospective buyer is interested in the property if the home can be torn down and rebuilt. The buyer would like to discuss the status of the property to determine whether the project is worth pursuing. Scott Busyn with Great Neighborhood homes rc-rccn^*ing the buyer has researched the Coro"+'.or of the prcporty and will present the results of his research. As background, Ms. Repya explained that the home, a Tudor style, was constructed in 1926, thus is considered an historic resource as defined by the District's Plan of Treatment. In 1938 a flat -roofed addition was built above the existing attached garage. Then in 1948, the attached garage was converted to living space and a new attached garage with a flat -roof was built abutting the original garage. Ms. Repya reminded the Board that the Country Club District's Plan of Treatment stipulates that no historic resource (built between 1924 — 1944) will be approved for demolition unless it is shown that the subject property no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage or by inappropriate additions or alterations. HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Ms. Repya pointed out that an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the historic resource status of the home has not been submitted. As established in the new Certificate of Appropriateness procedures, the prospective buyer and Mr. Busyn are requesting the opinion of board members. Scott Busyn, Great Neighborhood Homes, 5018 Arden Avenue Mr. Busyn explained that he was representing Tim and Michele Pronley, 4515 Arden Avenue who have entered into a purchase agreement for the subject home. The Pronleys have done a wonderful renovation of their current home — they love the neighborhood, yet find the need for a larger home for their family. Regarding- the subject home, Mr. Busyn explained that while the home was built in 1926 making it an historic resource, and at first glance has a Tudor fagade that is representative of a Country Club home; in his opinion, everything behind the fagade would warrant declassifying the home as an historic resource. Supporting this contention, Mr. Busyn explained that he has looked at the home with a professional builder and documented the numerous deficiencies they identified. In addition to the two inappropriate, flat -roofed additions to the rear of the home which appear as two cubes (visible from the front street), Mr. Busyn provided photographic evidence and explained the deficiencies in the following areas: 1. Structural damage and deterioration 2. Safety Issues/Non-compliance with City Building Code 3. Inappropriate Alterations and Additions 4. Inappropriate Landscaping/Lack of Impervious Surface and Drainage 5. Unsafe Living Conditions/Indoor Air Quality Issues 6. Energy Inefficiency In closing, Mr. Busyn stated that as demonstrated by the evaluation of the home he provided, the home at 4505 Arden Avenue no longer contributes to the historic significance of the Country Club District because its historic integrity has been compromised, her rleterioratinn r1amarvn and inappropriate additions and alterations. Michele Pronley, 4515 Arden Avenue (prospective buyer) Ms. Pronley explained that her family loves living on Arden Avenue, and while they find they need a larger home, they don't want to move away from the block. She pointed out that the state of the subject home has deteriorated to the point that they feel it is necessary to tear it down and start over. That being said, preserving the streetscape and neighborhood is very important. Ms. Pronley pointed out that their goal is to build a home that would fit into the neighborhood and would not stand out as a new home. She acknowledged that there is some neighborhood opposition, but wanted the Board to know that they approached Mr. Busyn with the best of intentions. Addressing those opposed to the proposal, Ms. Pronley explained that it is not her HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 3 of 9 intention to upset the historic nature of the neighborhood; however she and her husband believe that the deterioration of 4505 Arden Avenue has reached a point that renovation is too expensive. Chair Rofidal announced that the Board received an amicus brief opinion from Joyce Mellom, 4506 Arden Avenue that addressed this issue. He then provided an opportunity for public comment. Neiahborhood Comments: Joyce Mellom, 4506 Arden Avenue - Ms. Mellom stated that she is opposed to a tear down of 4505 Arden Avenue which she believes to be a beautiful home, representative of the historic Country Club District. She added that just because the home is in need of extensive repairs, that isn't unusual for an 80 year old home — which she knows first-hand, having made extensive repairs to her own home. Ms. Mellom stressed that the Country Club District was zoned historic to protect the homes from exactly what Mr. Busyn is proposing. She then asked the Board to protect the historic integrity of 4505 Arden Avenue by not allowing it to be torn down. Ed Hancock, 4503 Arden Avenue - Mr. Hancock explained that he has lived next door to the subject home for 20 years and has been distressed with living next door for 20 years due to the condition of the property. He opined that the home does not have potential to contribute to the historic neighborhood and added that he endorsed the construction of a new home on the site. Lisa Fittipaldi, 4502 Arden Avenue - Ms. Fittipaldi observed that there is no doubt that 4505 Arden Avenue needs work. When she moved into her home, it too needed a lot of work, as do most 80 year old home. She pointed out that there is nothing historic about the back of the house due to the additions that were made, however, she asked the HPB to preserve the original home by not allowing it to be torn down. Carol Hancock, 4503 Arden Avenue - Ms. Hancock voiced concern that a tear down and construction of a new home at 4505 Arden Avenue would cause"wear and tear on her home that is directly to the north. She also inquired as to what would be considered a tear down — pointing out that the two additions to the rear of the home don't appear appropriate and it would seem reasonable to remove them since they aren't part of the historic home. Steve Lundberg, 4517 Arden Avenue - Mr. Lundberg opined that he is not philosophically opposed to removing the home at 4505 Arden Avenue. He is opposed to being slavish to preserving homes just because they are old if they prove to be sub -standard. He added that Mr. Busyn has proven that he can build quality homes; and added that he has come to enjoy the new homes recently built in the District. HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Consultant Vopel's Opinion: Consultant Vogel observed that the home at 4505 Arden Avenue is an historic resource in the Country Club District because it was built during the period of significance (1924 - 1944). Having toured the home with Chair Rofidal and Planner Repya, Vogel pointed out that the major problems with the home appear to be caused by the extensive additions to the rear. Mr. Vogel pointed out that even with a plan to only remove the additions, because they may make up more than 50% of the exterior wall surfaces, a Certificate of Appropriateness could be required. Addressing the impact of economic feasibility on decisions of the Board, Mr. Vogel explained that while decisions are not based on the economics of a project, common sense should prevail in evaluating whether such an impact is creating an unnecessary or undue hardship. Mr. Vogel continued by suggesting that the Board require Mr. Busyn has a registered architect or structural engineer certify his assertion that the whole house is uninhabitable and suffers from diminished historic integrity. Board Member Opinions: Member Rehkamp Larson - Ms. Rehkamp Larson explained that in her experience as an architect, code deficiencies found in historic homes are not required to be brought into compliance. She added that the Plan of Treatment would allow for a significant transformation of the interior of the home, while maintaining the historic exterior. Ms. Rehkamp Larson then advised Mr. Busyn that in her opinion, if he chose to pursue a tear down of 4505 Arden Avenue, the burden of proof that the home should no longer be classified an historic resource must be very high. Member Forrest - Ms. Forrest agreed with Member Rehkamp Larson stating that the District's Plan of Treatment cAt-, n„t an arduous process and requires that an incredibly heavy burden of proof must be provided to declassify a heritage resource. She pointed out that the District's plan does provide for a shell of a home to remain without tearing the house down - adding that the greenest building is an existing building. Ms. Forrest stated that she lives in a home that was built in 1886, and knows that the maintenance entailed is a matter of priorities, and simply the reality of owning an older home. Ms Forrest added that economics should not enter into the decision as to whether a historic resource in the District should be declassified. Member Stegner - Mr. Stegner observed that he would like to see an evaluation of the deterioration of the home with respect to its health and safety - pointing out that in his mind, health and safety should supersede preservation. HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 5 of 9 Member Fukuda - Ms. Fukuda stated that she agreed with Members Rehkamp Larson and Forrest that the burden of proof supporting the necessity to declassify the historic resource status of the home at 4505 Arden Avenue remains very high. Member Kojetin - Mr. Kojetin stated that he believes 4505 Arden Avenue fits well into the neighborhood, and that neglect is not a reason to justify the tear down of the home. He pointed out that the exterior facade of the home is very important, and if the owner wants to gut the house, remove the additions on the rear and totally renovate the interior of the home, there is a process in place to allow that. Member Schwartzbauer - Mr. Schwartzbauer stated that he believes that the economic feasibility of a project should enter into the decision making process, stressing that economic realities are part of the balancing act of heritage preservation. He added that it appears that the additions to the rear of the home are inappropriate and should be removed and rebuilt, yet it is not fair to have a different standard for the front of the house. Member Blemaster - Ms. Blemaster explained that she can see both sides of the issue, however believes that restoration would be preferable. She added that it is the responsibility of the Heritage Preservation Board to preserve the historic neighborhood. Furthermore, it is simply a fact that historic homes cost more money. Chairman Rofidal - Mr. Rofidal thanked the Board for offering their opinions on Mr. Busyn's proposal to tear down the home. He explained that the Board has worked diligently to establish the processes one must go through when proposing to tear down a home that is classified an historic resource, and the presentation this evening was the first step. He added that if the owner wishes to proceed with the project, a fair and public forum is in place. Mr. Rofidal added that he toured the home with Consultant Vogel and Planner Repya and found seeing the home first hand to be very helpful. He added that if an application #or,a Certificate of Appropriateness is submitted, it might be beneficial for #h@,BQard to tour the home to get a first„bend view. Planner Repya interjected that if such a tour by the Board was scheduled, the procedures for calling a special meeting of the Board would need to be followed. In closing, Chair Rofidal thanked Mr. Busyn, Ms. Pronley and the neighbors for explaining the project and expressing their opinions. He explained that if an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is submitted, as is policy, a notice will be sent to neighboring property owners. No formal action was taken. III. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: CLG Grant Update Consultant Vogel explained that October 1 st was the starting date for the Morningside Bungalow Study that is being funded by a matching CLG grant from HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 6 of 9 the Minnesota Historical Society. Currently, the study is in the "gathering information mode where previous reports and studies that included Morningside are evaluated. The information unearthed thus far has been very interesting. Unlike the Country Club District that is comprised of two plats; the Morningside neighborhood is made up of many plats created over a thirty year period by developers who were also builders, often husband and wife teams. The homes were more often than not, built on speculation for the working class. Mr. Vogel explained that the Twin Cities Bungalow Club became aware of the Morningside Bungalow Study and has offered their assistance which will be very helpful, since its members are people who own bungalow style homes. Mr. Vogel added that he has been asked to speak to their club, and will report back to the HPB about that experience. Mr. Vogel explained the time line for the study pointing out that a meeting with the neighborhood will take place in January or February to convey the information gathered thus far, explain the study in more detail, gather information residents may have on their homes, as well as to answer questions they may have. Planner Repya added that she spoke at the Morningside Women's Club October luncheon giving a brief overview of the study. At that time, the January/February neighborhood meeting was mentioned. Ms. Repya added that she was invited to be the guest speaker at the May luncheon of the club, which would be great timing, because by then there should be plenty of information to share. HPB members thanked Consultant Vogel and Planner Repya for the update. All agreed that they were pleased that the study was underway and looked forward to becoming more involved in the project. No formal action was taken. IV. TRAINING: Evaluation Consultant Vogel explained that evaluation is the process of determining whether identified properties meet defined criteria of historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural significance. Edina's heritage preservation section of the Zoning Ordinance clearly establishes the process for evaluation which follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for historic properties. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the evaluation of historic resources should be made with reference to the historic contexts established for the subject area. Fortunately, Edina's Historic Context Study is a handy reference for the Board when making evaluation decisions. Mr. Vogel added that it is important to identify and control resources that are rare and cannot be replaced. Interestingly, Mr. Vogel added that the Edina HPB probably deals with evaluation more than most preservation commissions in the state due to the large number of HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 7 of 9 Certificates of Appropriateness applications evaluated every year. Mr. Vogel announced that the next training topic would be "Designation". V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. MN Preservation Conference Report — Members Kojetin & Forrest Member Kojetin explained that he and Member Forrest attended the 2009 Minnesota Preservation Conference at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, September 17th and 18th. The topic of the conference was "Preserving History, Conserving Energy" and it featured lectures and working sessions on sustainability and preservation. Member Forrest noted that she found the keynote speaker, Carl Elefante's presentation to be very interesting. Mr. Elefante, an architect practicing in Washington D.C., is the Director of Sustainable Design for his firm with over 30 years experience in the field of heritage preservation, urban design and sustainable development. The most memorable quote Ms. Forrest recalled from the session was, "The greenest building is one that is already built." She added that she found that sentiment to be particularly poignant to the earlier tear down discussion. Mr. Elefante also noted that the carbon cost of tearing down a building, disposing of it, and rebuilding a new structure is substantially more than that of rehabilitation. Ms. Forrest pointed out that the importance of sustainability for preservationists is very important. Taking into account the current economy, preservation requires craftsmen to do the work which provides for more jobs, which is a good thing. Members Kojetin and Forrest agreed that attending the annual conference is very worthwhile, providing attendees an opportunity to share ideas and better understand aspects of heritage preservation that can be applied in their board activities. -Mr. Koietin then encouraged all members of the HPB to attend future conferences. No formal action was taken. B. Tour — 4615 Wooddale Avenue - Reflections Board members briefly shared their opinions of the new home approved through the COA process at 4615 Wooddale Avenue. All agreed that the home is beautiful and more in scale with the surrounding homes. Member Rehkamp Larson stated that although she thinks the home is nice, it definitely appears as a new home. Member Rofidal observed that he did not think a novice would be able to differentiate the new home from its historic neighbors. Discussion ensued regarding the necessity for change for some historic properties. Member Stegner cautioned that if it is exceedingly difficult to make improvements in the historic district, it could have a detrimental effect. HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 8 of 9 C. Legacy Grant Program Consultant Vogel explained that there is a new source of grant money available through the Minnesota Historical and Cultural Grants Program. The purpose of the grant is to preserve and enhance access to Minnesota's cultural and historical resources and to support projects of enduring value for the cause of history and historic preservation throughout Minnesota. Primary recipients are nonprofit organizations, units of government, tribes and educational organizations. Private property owners and for-profit organizations may not apply directly, but may receive funds by collaborating with a sponsoring, eligible applicant on an eligible project. Projects that would qualify for the grant fall within the category of "history" and/or "heritage preservation"; and funds are awarded through a competitive process using an established set of criteria. Mr. Vogel explained that there are several funding levels for applicants to consider, each with a different time frame. If requesting a grant of $7,000 or less the deadline is the final Friday of each month with a decision made shortly thereafter. This loan is referred to as a "Fast Track" For a "Mid -Size" ($7,001 - $49,999) and "Large" ($50,000+) loan, final applications are due November 23, 2009 with the review committee meeting January 11, 2010. Mr. Vogel pointed out that for Winter 2010, $4,500,000 will be available with pre - applications due March 8, 2010, final applications due April 12, 2010, and the review committee meeting scheduled for May 24, 2010. He further explained that the type of projects that would qualify should be sustainable in nature and impossible to complete without the grant. Mr. Vogel added that the beauty of this program is that it does not rPrn,ire a match. Mr. Vogel then suggested some projects the Board could consider, such as: • A reconstruction of the Edina Mill Site in collaboration with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; • A correction of the handicapped accessible ramp way at the Cahill School and Grange Hall buildings; or • Continuing education courses for key players in construction and rehab of historic properties. Board members appreciated Mr. Vogel's suggestions and agreed they would bring their ideas for grant projects to the December meeting fora brainstorming session. No formal action was taken. HPB Meeting Minutes November 11, 2009 Page 9 of 9 VII. CORRESPONDENCE: • Three Rivers Park District — Response to their request for historic resource information VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 8, 2009 IX. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted Joyce Aepya Pj AGENDA THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 501H STREET, EDINA MN I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 10, 2009 II. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: CLG Grant Update III. TRAINING: Designation IV. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 5101 EDEN AVENUE: Small Area Plan V. LEGACY GRANT IDEAS: Brainstorming Session A. Edina 2010 — Neighborhood Photographic Record B. Edina Mill Reconstruction with Minnehaha Watershed District VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT: * During "Community Comment" the Heritage Preservation Board will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Board or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. *The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. *Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 12, 2009 X. ADJOURNMENT: The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, December 8, 2009, AT 7:00 PM EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Rofidal, Arlene Forrest, Bob Kojetin, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Connie Fukuda, Lou Blemaster, and Elizabeth Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Schwartzbauer and Joel Stegner STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, HPB Consultant APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 10, 2009 Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes from the November 10, 2009 HPB meeting. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. 11. MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW STUDY: CLG Grant Update Consultant Vogel explained that the research phase of the bungalow study has continued with the City's Assessing Department providing information on each property in the Morningside neighborhood. By the first of the year there will be an outline of property types that will define what is and isn't a bungalow style home. A brief discussion ensued regarding the history of Morningside. All agreed that they looked forward to learning more about the neighborhood through this intensive study. No formal action was taken. III. TRAINING: Designation Consultant Vogel explained that the designation of heritage landmark properties in the City of Edina is provided for in the Zoning Ordinance 850.20. The designation is an overlay zone that is added to the primary zoning designation for the property. It is this local designation that provides protection for the properties through guidelines established in a plan of treatment. Mr. Vogel pointed out that a National Register of Historic Places designation through the National Park HPB Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Service provides historic recognition for a property on the national level, however the program does not provide measures for protection — the Park Service depends on the local jurisdiction to provide the protections. Chair Rofidal observed that Edina's landmark designation program is voluntary, and initiated at the request of the property owner. He then asked if the voluntary nature of the program was common. Consultant Vogel explained that Edina's voluntary program is unique, however since cooperation from the property owner is imperative for the success of a preservation program; it only makes sense that the designation not be forced on an unwilling party. Mr. Vogel pointed out that Edina's preservation program has been designed to include from 20 to 50 designated properties; currently, eight individual sites and the Country Club District (including 550 homes), have received the overlay historic landmark designation. He added that the process to add the historic landmark designation to a property takes about five months from start to finish. Responding to a question regarding the ongoing Morningside Bungalow Study, Mr. Vogel explained that the study will establish a template for designating Morningside's bungalow style homes in the future Once the study has been completed (in mid -summer 2010), owners of Morningside bungalow style homes will potentially have the ability to request protection of their homes through the designation process. A brief discussion ensued. No formal action was taken. IV. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, 5101 EDEN AVENUE: Small Area Plan Chairman Rofidal explained that he attended the Planning Commission on November 24th, at which time the Small Area Plan for the Eden Avenue Public Works Site was discussed. Rofidal reported to the Planning Commission that it might be a good idea to make sure the HPB has some representation in that process. Adding that when and if the building gets torn down adequate documentation of the site is undertaken from a preservation standpoint. Member Forrest, who serves on the Planning Commission pointed out that the concept of a Small Area Plan was established to provide an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the significance and important elements of a potential project. It is a relatively new concept for Edina, and one that will provide more transparency and input from the public. Rofidal agreed adding that the process is proactive to ensure that the community is in the loop. Consultant Vogel pointed out that it would be a good idea for the HPB to evaluate all public buildings to determine the significance of their sites before projects are HPB Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 3 of 6 proposed. He added that the process which would not take that much time would provide sound baseline information in the event a project is proposed. Chair Rofidal reported that the Planning Commission also discussed the following issues of interest to the HPB: • Variance Process — Rofidal commented that there needs to be some clarification as to which comes first when a property needs both a COA • and a variance. Currently, both boards are uncomfortable making a decision without information regarding the opinion of the other board. • Driveway Width — It appears the Planning Commission is in favor of removing the driveway width minimum. They could not come up with any good reason why a minimum width would be imposed. They theorized that the "width" issue might have been written to address commercial properties, not residential. Sly Farm (6128 Brookview Avenue) — The owners of the "Sly Home" asked Rofidal if the HPB was only responsible for the country Club. He responded that the HPB oversaw all properties with the Heritage Landmark overlay designations. Rofidal added that while the Sly House was awarded the Heritage Award in 2008 for a basement that was sensitively added under the historic home; the owners have not requested Edina Heritage Landmark designation of the property. V. LEGACAY GRANT IDEAS: Consultant Vogel explained that the Minnesota Historical and Cultural Grants Program has earmarked approximately $7 million in state "Art and Cultural Heritage" funding for history and historic preservation projects in 2010. The grants are available as "fast track" grants of $7000 or less; "mid-size" grants of $7001 to $49,999; and large grants of over $50,000. The fast track grants are awarded monthly, beginning in January; the cycle for mid-size and large grants has a pre -application deadline of March 8, with final applications due on April 12, 2010. The following list of potential Legacy grant projects is based on previous Heritage Preservation Board discussions. No attempt has been made to prioritize the projects. Replace ramps and upgrade handicap accessibility at Frank Tupa Park (Minnehaha Grange Hall and Cahill School): fast track grant for development of plans & specifications, mid-size grant for construction HPB Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Reconstruct the Edina Mill on Minnehaha Creek: fast track grants for development of concept plan, construction plans and specifications; large grant(s) for construction (project to be carried out in partnership with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) Thematic studies and surveys to delineate new historic contexts and document heritage preservation resources that are under -represented in existing inventories: fast track grants for Thematic Study of Heritage Resources Associated with Edina Women, Reconnaissance Survey of Postwar Architecture (1945-1975), Thematic Study of Residential Landscape Architecture and Gardening, Survey of Historic Properties in the West Minneapolis Heights, Sunny Slope, and White Oaks Neighborhoods, Intensive Survey of the Mill Pond and Cascade • Edina Heritage Landmark designations: fast track grants for preparation of landmark designation documentation and plans of treatment for properties determined eligible by the HPB • Local history research and publications: fast track and/or mid-size grants for neighborhood histories (Country Club, Morningside) • Public education activities: fast track grants for heritage preservation workshops, community education classes, and training. Mr. Vogel added that Legacy grant funds will be awarded through a competitive process. Mid-size and large grants will require some match (in-kind and/or cash). In addition to the projects suggested by Mr. Vogel, the Board pointed out that Member Stegner's suggestion for a photographic snapshot of neighborhoods whereby residents are asked to provide a photograph of their family in front of their home would be a great project that would not require a lot of funding. Chair Rofidal added that it would make sense fu UI,t; 1 :1" to partner --with the Historical Society for this project. Member Kojetin agreed to approach the Historical Society with the photographic project idea. Member Kojetin advised the Board that he has been in conversation with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) about rebuilding the Mill at the original mill site next to the Browndale Bridge. Kojetin pointed out that the MCWD is interested in having a building that they could use for educational purposes, and they have funds to put toward the project. The City Manager has been approached with the concept, and stated that he did not know how the City Council or the abutting neighbors would accept the project. Consultant Vogel pointed out that the mill reconstruction project is very intriguing and would likely qualify for Legacy Grant funds; however there would be many issues to sort out. HPB Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Member Forrest stated that a project supporting public education through perhaps the Edina Community Education program would be a worthwhile use of funds and would meet the mission of the HPB. Board members agreed with Ms. Forrest. A brief discussion ensued regarding the first project the Board would pursue with the Legacy Grant funds. All agreed that replacing the handicap accessibility ramp at the Cahill School and Grange Hall would be an excellent service to the community and an enhancement to the historic buildings. Consultant Vogel stated that he would begin work on the grant application, targeting January 2010 for submittal. VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT: • Jane Lonnquist-4510 Drexel Avenue Came to listen to the Board discussion. She explained that she submitted a petition signed by Country Club District neighbors asking the Board not to approve a potential removal of 4505 Arden Avenue from the listing of historic resources in the district, which could potentially lead to a demolition of the home. Chair Rofidal clarified that in her petition letter, Lonnquist stated that the Board voted on the 4505 Arden Avenue property at the November meeting; however actually, Board members only provided their opinions. • Joyce Mellom — 4506 Arden Avenue Ms. Mellom stated that she faxed a petition to the Board late in the afternoon that addressed the threat of a tear down to the property at 4505 Arden Avenue. Planner Repya stated that she had not received the petition,.btA would check the fax in box, and provide a copy tQ the 48oad at their next meeting. VII. OTHER BUSINESS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE: Petition from Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue regarding 4505 Arden Avenue. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE: January12, 2010 HPB Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 6 of 6 IX. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted ,Joyce R.epya