Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 12-09 HPB Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING EDINA CITY HALL, 4801 W. 50TH STREET TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2014, 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 10, 2014 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 Board might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. 4505 Arden Avenue - Demolition Decision & Procedure B. Determination of Eligibility - Adding Properties to the List V11. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Vill. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENTS X. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 13, 2015 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 952-927-8861, 72 hours in advance of the meeting. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina City Hall — Council Chambers Tuesday, December 9, 2014 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was Chair Weber and Members, Moore, Sussman, McLellan, Mellom, Christiaansen, O'Brien, and Student Members Druckman and Otness. Staff present was Senior Planner, Joyce Repya. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel was also present. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member O'Brien moved to approve the meeting agenda. Member McLellan seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES November 10, 2014 Member Sussman asked for a clarification of his comments on page 8 during the 4505 Arden Avenue COA discussion. Member Moore moved approval of the minutes from the November 10, 2014 meeting to include the clarification requested from Member Sussman. Member O'Brien seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT - None VI. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. 4505 Arden Avenue - Demolition decision & procedures Planner Repya recalled that at the November HPB meeting, the board discussed the total demolition of the home at 4505 Arden Avenue which occurred unbeknownst to them or the surrounding neighbors. Staff had provided an explanation of the decision, pointing out that the plan for the home that received a Certificate of Appropriateness had not changed, and the demolition decision made by the chief building official was predicated upon a structural engineer's report that the foundation and footings were unsafe and needed to be replaced, as well as a visual inspection of the home. Furthermore, the chief building official's decisions relative to life safety matters may not be overturned by the HPB. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 The board had asked staff to evaluate the steps that led up to the decision to allow the complete demolition of the home and provide some suggestions for providing notification to the HPB and neighbors prior to action being taken when a change to a COA is required. Responding to the board's request for providing notification procedures, Planner Repya provided the board with the following statement: Moving forward, for future construction situations where the chief building official's decision overrides the authority of the HPB, and where there are no changes to the building plans approved through the COA process, when possible, it is proposed that the board and surrounding neighbors who had been included on the COA mailing list be notified prior to the commencement of the construction/demolition activity authorized by the chief building official. However, if the building plans approved through the COA process change, the COA must be brought back to the HPB to address the proposed changes. Member O'Brien appreciated the intent of the proposed statement, however explained that he believed a 13`h policy statement should be added to the "HPB Roles & Responsibilities". Mr. O'Brien then presented the following policy he had crafted which outlined notification requirements for changes to issued COA's: Policy 13: Change in Certificate of Appropriateness (COA): City Code The Edina City Code provides, among other things, that: • a. The HPB shall advise the city on all matters relating to heritage resource preservation; b. The HPB shall review applications for city permits in relation to city heritage preservation landmarks; c. The HPB will make recommendations to the city planner with respect to issuance of a COA. Certificate of Appropriateness The COA is an official document of the city required before any permit can be issued for demolition or new construction in relation to a city heritage landmark. The COA affirms firms that, in the opinion of the HPB, the proposed activity is consistent with heritage preservation standards and will not have a negative impact on any significant heritage resource. Any change in the scope of the work after a COA is issued requires a new COA. Actions 1. Except in extraordinary circumstances involving threats to public health or safety, no partial or complete demolition of any home in the Edina Country Club District built between 1924 and 1944 shall proceed except as specifically authorized in a COA. 2. In those extraordinary circumstances involving threats to public health or safety where partial or complete demolition of any such home is mandated by the city, the HPB staff liaison/planner shall immediately notify the HPB and surrounding property owners. 3. Except in extraordinary circumstances involving threats to public health or safety, any change in work scope/demolition from that specifically authorized in a COA shall require submittal of an application for a new COA with due notice to surrounding neighbors. 4. Neither the HPB staff liaison/planner nor the preservation planning consultant for the city is authorized to deviate from this policy. 2 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes is December 9, 2014 Upon concluding the presentation of his proposed Policy #13, Member O'Brien moved for its adoption. Chair Weber seconded the motion to open the topic for discussion. Continuing his explanation, Member O'Brien opined that the HPB serve as spokespersons for heritage preservation in the community, and should have been informed of the decision that allowed the total demolition of the home at 4505 Arden Avenue. He pointed out that the membership of the HPB will continue to change over time and it is important to crystalize and put in writing the notification procedures to ensure that what recently happened on Arden Avenue unbeknownst to the board doesn't happen again. Mr. O'Brien added that he included background information for the "City Code" and "Certificate of Appropriateness" as a preamble to the "Actions" recommended for the notification of changes to an issued COA. Furthermore, the format proposed for Policy #13 reflects that of the previous 12 policies, and much of the language was taken directly from the Country Club District's Plan of Treatment. Mr. O'Brien concluded that he encouraged the board to adopt the policy. Member Sussman observed that the preamble reiterates what is in the district's plan of treatment and wondered if it was necessary. Member O'Brien explained that the reason for including the plan of treatment language is to provide context for the actions identified. The following observations were made regarding the proposed language of the policy: Member Sussman stated that referencing any demolition made him nervous; wondering where one would draw the line regarding the extent of demolition - a window, roof, trim or fascia. He pointed out that he believed revising the wording to better define partial or complete demolition is necessary. Mr. Sussman wondered what would happen if a similar situation were to occur where an existing condition is uncovered, the chief building official makes the determination that a historic property should be torn down, however the property owner feels strongly that they would like to rebuild the foundation, while maintaining the historic structure. Sussman pointed out that he believed the owner's wishes should be taken into consideration, and some criteria established and understood in advance without restricting the authority of the chief building official. Mr. Sussman concluded that he believed a good policy will identify the process to provide for the HPB's involvement in future situations; and questioned the rationale for a policy going beyond ensuring a notification process which currently does not exist. He added if the board wishes to adopt a policy that addresses more than notification, he would like to see it adopted as a draft requiring a future conversation with the chief building official to clarify definitions ultimately create a final product that will provide guidance to the HPB and the public. 3 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 Member Moore observed that he would like to better understand how the chief building official would interpret the term "extraordinary circumstances" that is found in the plan of treatment. Adding that coordination between the HPB and the chief building official is very important. Member Christiaansen observed that the 4505 Arden project moved from being a restoration project to being one of reconstruction, and in that case the HPB should have at least been advised of the decisions, even though the outcome may not have been any different. Regarding the proposed Policy #13, she stated that she would be comfortable approving it as a draft with the intention of meeting with the chief building official prior to creating a final policy. Member Weber questioned whether there were sources available that could provide some best practices recommendations that could provide assistance from a preservationist's standpoint when an "extraordinary" situation such as a failing foundation occurred. He also wondered if the policy should not reference the occurrence of "unforeseen conditions" which would then flag notification of the HPB; and wondered if the policies established for disaster preparedness could also apply in these situations. Member McLellan cautioned that whatever is decided upon, the board cannot legislate or reduce the chief building official's authority regarding decisions involving life and safety. Consultant Vogel explained that the chief building official has a lot of discretion regarding the treatment of historic structures, and it is imperative that the HPB provide the official with the important information relative to historic properties. Adding that such knowledge will provide assistance for decisions that will first and foremost uphold the life and safety standards required, but also take into consideration the historic sensitivity of the structure. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the city does not do a thorough inspection of a property when considering a COA application, thus would not know in advance that an extraordinary situation relative to the structure existed. Mr. Vogel stated that it is unusual for the chief building official to get involved in COA cases, and in fact, that has only happened two or three times in Edina. However, the building inspectors are involved with each project receiving a COA when they and Planner Repya inspect to insure that the work has been completed per city code and the plans approved by the HPB. Member Mellom pointed out that she liked that the policy reiterated the definition of a Certificate of Appropriateness, was in favor of adopting the policy, and thanked Member O'Brien for crafting the policy for the board's discussion. 4 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 Member O'Brien responded that many of the points made by his fellow board members were well taken, however he believed that the HPB needs to set out a process to prevent other developers determined to tear down historic resources in the Country Club District. It is important to give appropriate notice that it is exceedingly difficult to tear down an historic resource property in the Country Club District. Mr. O'Brien added that he did not sense much enthusiasm for adopting the policy as proposed, thus he suggested some reasonable modifications to the actions. He proposed to delete the term "extraordinary" to define circumstances involving threats to public safety in the actions throughout the document, understanding that the term extraordinary is difficult to define and narrows the scope; and in action item #2 replace reference to the "city" with the "city's chief building official". Mr. O'Brien concluded that he agreed a dialogue between the HPB and the chief building official would be helpful to address some points and provide for clarification. However he was unsure that such clarification should precede adoption of the proposed policy, and feared that a similar situation may occur before the board has established a process. He added that the proposed actions are not meant in any way to diminish the responsibilities of the chief building official. Member Christiaansen asked what type of notification the HPB would receive in the event a similar situation was to occur in the future. Planner Repya responded that the information the board received at the November meeting relative to 4505 Arden Avenue which included the structural engineer's report with documenting evidence, and chief building official's letter including his opinion and authorization for replacement of the foundation and footings would be provided to the HPB before any action were to occur on the home. Mr. Vogel recommended the board adopt the proposed Policy #13 noting that it provides a good summation of the conceptual framework of the city's ordinance. He pointed out that the reasons the HPB policies were included in the city's Comprehensive Plan is to clarify what the ordinance says in a practical way. He concluded that this is a good policy, but probably won't be applied very often due to the rarity of the circumstances defined; however the process is clearly spelled out. Member Christiaansen moved for adoption of the proposed Policy #13 in draft form with the modifications provided by Member O'Brien; and with the understanding that a final form will be adopted at the January or February, 2015 HPB meetings once the board has had an opportunity to discuss the issues with the chief building official. Member McLellan seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Determination of Eligibility Inventory -_Properties to add to the list Planner Repya explained that at the September 9, 2014 HPB meeting the board considered adding the following properties to the Determined Eligible for Heritage Landmark Designation list: 5 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 I. Schaefer House and Stable, 5117 Schaefer Road 2. Paul and Mary Carson House ("Maryhill'), 6001 Pine Grove Road 3. Claude D. Kimball House, 4520 W. 44`h Street 4. Bruce A. Abrahamson House, 7205 Shannon Drive 5. Sara W. Moore House, 6909 Hillcrest Lane 6. Marri Oskam House, 6901 Dakota Trail 7. Arthur Erickson House, 5501 Londonderry Road 8. House, 4247 Grimes Avenue 9. Johnson House, 4300 France Avenue S. 10. Mill Pond Cascade, Minnehaha Creek At that time, Ms. Repya pointed out that identifying properties to the "designated eligible" is the first step toward a potential heritage landmark designation; and expanding the list of determined eligible properties was identified in the 2014 work plan as a way to identify significant properties and promote the preservation program in the community without imposing restrictions or regulations on the property owners. The board had agreed that the list was encouraging and they appreciated the variety of properties. However they wondered whether the property owners were aware that their homes were being considered for the determined eligible list. Planner Repya pointed out that historically, property owners have not been notified when their properties have been added to the determined eligible list since it entails no responsibilities or regulations. However, property owners on the list have received letters explaining the historic significance of their properties and how they may qualify for further designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark property. Some board members pointed out that they would want to know if their property was being included on the "determined eligible" list. Furthermore, since the determined eligible list is meant to be a first step toward heritage landmark designation, notifying property owners of their property's significance would be a natural first step to promoting the city's heritage landmark program. Ultimately, in September, two properties were added to the determined eligible list: • Marri Oskam House, 6901 Dakota Trail • Sara W. Moore House, 6909 Hillcrest Lane Planner Repya then agreed to send out a notification to owners of the other properties on the proposed list, explaining the significance of their properties, asking for input on the being added to the determined eligible list, and potential consideration for Edina Heritage Landmark designation. I. • • Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 After the September meeting, upon reviewing the eight remaining properties proposed to be added to the "Determined Eligible" list, the following information was discovered: I. Arthur Erickson House, 5501 Londonderry Road - When awarded the 2014 Edina Heritage Award property owner's indicated that they had no problem with being determined eligible, however had no desire to be designated an Edina Heritage Landmark 2. House, 4247 Grimes Avenue - Property owner approached the City 3. Johnson House, 4300 France Avenue - Property owner approached the City 4. Millpond Cascade, Minnehaha Creek - Owned by the City of Edina Planner Repya pointed out that since those property owners have weighed in on the determined eligible designation she recommended that they be added to the list of "Determined Eligible properties. She added that letters identifying the property's significance and inviting the owners to consider the benefits of an Edina Heritage Landmark designation were sent to the following property owners from the original list who had not been previously contacted by the HPB: 5. Schaefer House and Stable, 5117 Schaefer Road 6. Paul and Mary Carson House ("Maryhill"), 6001 Pine Grove Road 7. Claude D. Kimball House, 4520 W. 44`h Street 8. Bruce A. Abrahamson House, 7205 Shannon Drive Ms. Repya explained she had received no responses from those property owners regarding the significance of their properties significance or potential landmark designation status. She then recommended that 51 17 Schaefer Road, 6001 Pine Grove Road, 4520 W. 44`h Street and 7205 Shannon Drive also be added to the inventory of properties Determined Eligible for Edina Heritage Landmark Designation. Member Weber asked why the city code did not provide for the designation of the interior of homes. Consultant Vogel explained that since the city's landmark designations have been predominantly private homes that are not open to the public, and the interiors are most likely to change to keep up with the modern needs of the inhabitants, the interiors have not been subject to the landmark designation. However, if an interior element is determined to be important, that can be addressed in the individual plan of treatment crafted for the landmark property. Member O'Brien suggested that information on how properties are added to the determined eligible list and ultimately designated Edina Heritage Landmarks be added to the FAQ information on the HPB web page. The board agreed that would be a good idea. 7 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 Following a brief discussion, Member Moore moved that the following properties be added to the inventory of Edina properties designated eligible for heritage landmark status: 1. Arthur Erickson House, 5501 Londonderry Road - 2. House, 4247 Grimes Avenue 3. Johnson House, 4300 France Avenue - 4. Millpond Cascade, Minnehaha Creek 5. Schaefer House and Stable, 5117 Schaefer Road 6. Paul and Mary Carson House ("Maryhill"), 6001 Pine Grove Road 7. Claude D. Kimball House, 4520 W. 44`" Street 8. Bruce A. Abrahamson House, 7205 Shannon Drive Member Sussman seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS Planner Repya provided the board with correspondence HPB member Joyce Mellom submitted to the City Council as a resident at 4506 Arden Avenue regarding the complete demolition of 4505 Arden Avenue. The information included Ms. Mellom's interpretation of the events and suggested actions she requested the Council take. Member Mellom explained that she submitted that information to the City Council to memorialize the topic. Since then she has had a conversation with city manager, Scott Neal; and is hopeful to tighten up city policies. IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Member Moore explained that the Edina Historical Society and the City of Edina have been asked to host the 2015 State Grange Convention at our own Grange Hall in October 2015. The event which is planned to take place over several days will be sponsored by the Oliver Hudson Kelley Grange who has an agreement to use our Minnehaha Grange Hall for their meetings in trade for providing Edina with interpretative services. Mr. Moore pointed out that hosting this event would provide opportunities during the convention to open the building for some events to the community at large, thus educating the public regarding the importance of the Grange to the city's history. The board agreed that hosting the convention would be an honor, however added that it will be important that the welfare of the historic buildings and logistics such as parking be prime considerations. Mr. Moore stated that the Edina Historical Society shared those concerns and would be keep the HPB advised as the planning for the convention progressed. X. STAFF COMMENTS - None M Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes December 9, 2014 XI. NEXT MEETING DATE January 13, 2015 XII. ADJOURNMENT 8:40 p.m. Member O'Brien moved for adjournment at 8:40 pm. Member Christiaansen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya • Liaisons: Report attendance monthly and attach this report to the Commission minutes for the packet. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously -scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with a special meeting. inactive inactive inactive inactive ..