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