Loading...
Heritage Preservation - 02/24/2014 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 7:00 P.M., SMITH DOUGLAS MORE HOUSE 8107 Eden Prairie Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ed Muehlberg (Chair), Cindy Cofer Evert (Vice Chair), Steve Olson, JoAnn McGuire, Pamela Spera, Mark Freiberg, Deb Paulson STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Hannah Jeter, Greta Colford, Laura Lindberg STAFF: John Gertz, Pathfinder CRM, LLC Lori Creamer, Staff Liaison Heidi Wojahn, Recording Secretary GUESTS: Sara Yaeger, Bluestem Heritage Group Nancy O'Brien Wagner, Bluestem Heritage Group I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Muehlberg called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Commissioners Olson and Cofer Evert and Student Representatives Colford and Lindberg were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Paulson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Muehlberg stated "content" should be changed to "comment" in the first paragraph on page 8. MOTION: Spera moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the January 27, 2014 minutes as amended. Motion carried 3-0-2 with McGuire and Paulson abstaining. IV. GUEST SPEAKER—BLUESTEM HERITAGE GROUP (BHG) A. UPDATE ON RILEY-JACOUES (RJ) FARMSTEAD PROJECT O'Brien Wagner explained the in-depth research she has done to date. She is working on piecing together information and filling in gaps as she finishes up the research stage. After providing feedback on the proposed interpretive themes, the text and graphic design development stage will be next. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Page 2 One theme focuses on the Dorenkemper House (DK) from 1855 to 1889. The emphasis would be on the building itself as an early homestead, first generation structure; the people who lived there; and its context in terms of subsistence farming. It is not certain the structure was created circa 1855 so that could change. Ideally an interpretive plan would already be in place to interpret the house to a particular era, and it would be decorated to that era. They would talk about what was happening inside and outside the home during that era. The house is currently in a quasi-1870s to 1920s phase. There are things not from the proposed era inside the home. It may be odd for a visitor to read about the pioneer era outside and then see 1890s decor inside. The Commission will want to carefully consider this before making a decision. The RJ homestead has buildings from four different eras. We probably don't want to address subsistence farming here because it can be covered under DK. There is not much information available on the 1917-1927 era so we probably want to stay away from that, as well. One option is to talk about the 1871-1917 market farming era with the arrival of the railroad. The 1881 second-generation brick house and 1890 granary fit nicely into this time period. Another choice is the 1927-1945 urban fringe farming era and the 1928 barn. A third option is the 1945-1990 suburban development era and the 1953 garage. Her recommendation is we focus either on market farming during Riley ownership or urban fringe farming during Jacques ownership. Paulson asked if there was a way to encompass all the eras so we can see an evolution occurring. O'Brien Wagner said that would be possible with an interpretive plan,but would not work for a single sign containing 300-500 words. Paulson inquired if it could be set up to be done in phases so we do not miss important information. Jeter said she finds both eras interesting and would prefer to learn about each individually. What we decide depends on whether we want to stress the house or the barn. It seems too broad to generalize into one bigger picture. Paulson said there is something to be learned about suburban development. It is modern and relevant. It brings the old up to the new and gives visitors the whole perspective. It would be shame to leave that out. Discussion followed about important considerations such as sign location, access, future plans, chronology, and existing aspects. Muehlberg said the initial focus should be on DK and the barn. RJ can be done later as a second-generation home. Gertz said because the property is divided between two histories,perhaps both signs should be devoted to RJ and the rest can wait for the interpretive plan. O'Brien Wagner said DK can be done with one sign; RJ will need more than two. Gertz said some information can be distributed via educational materials, website, and interpretive programs. The signs can just give an overview of the different eras. He envisions a centrally-located kiosk near the water fountain as a focal point for information. Paulson suggested a sign be devoted to a map with a rough timeframe from beginning to end. O'Brien Wagner said it was a great idea. One sign could orient visitors to the site, and the other sign could be for DK. It would cover 150 years of time in one snapshot. Gertz, Freiberg, and Muehlberg also liked the idea. Muehlberg said it is needed anyway. Gertz said it is a good, safe approach and takes care of the problem of many different access points. O'Brien Wagner clarified the sign would be an HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Page 3 orientation device for all buildings which introduces the concept that different buildings represent different eras of development. It would cover subsistence farming/pioneer-territorial days, market farming, urban fringe farming, and suburbanization. Spera asked if this would be the best decision assuming we were not going to do anything else on site. Creamer said we already have another grant to do an interpretive plan and eventually more signs could be added. O'Brien Wagner said once a plan is in place, the Minnesota Historical Society Heritage Grants program is very supportive of creating signs. She expects we could successfully apply for grants for additional signage. Creamer noted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also has additional money available for CLG grants. Paulson said she feels this is the best use of available funds. O'Brien Wagner said she will come to the next meeting with a draft. V. REPORTS OF COMMISSION AND STAFF A. UPDATE ON HISTORIC SITES 1. Certificate of Authenticity (COA)— Cummins Grill House (CG) Creamer said Facilities Manager Paul Sticha has submitted a COA to remove a chandelier and reinstall it above the bay window at CG. Gertz questioned what the plans are for the old box and whether the intention is to hang both the electric light and the chandelier. McGuire inquired about the reason for the move. It was unclear from the information provided whether or not the work had already been done, so the HPC would like additional information. Gertz said according to the lease agreement, COAs must be done prior to any work. Creamer said she will follow up with Sticha tomorrow. Freiberg said as a member of the CG Committee,he plans to bring it up at the next meeting. Creamer confirmed the joint meeting with EPHS will be held May 19 at CG. A 5 p.m. start time was requested. Consensus was 6 p.m. was better. The fall tour will be an agenda item. Paulson asked about event registration details. B. UPDATE ON EPCF GRANT - McGuire There is no new information. McGuire prefers not to make contact unless there is something specific to request. Creamer said one idea is stands or a kiosk for the RJ interpretive panels. Paulson said McGuire would need more information about dimensions and cost first. Gertz agreed there needs to be a plan in place to show which would not be doable before the March deadline. The Legacy grant would be a better fit given the monthly timetable. McGuire said she will see if there is flexibility in submission dates so we don't have to wait another year to apply. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Page 4 VI. OLD BUSINESS A. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE SCHOLARSHIP Creamer stated scholarships are available until April. She has applied for one for herself. They cover registration, tours, and evening events up to $800 per person. Mileage and lodging are not covered. Freiberg and McGuire expressed interest in going. Creamer will apply on their behalf. Gertz plans to attend as well. B. WORK PLAN REVIEW None. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR LEGACY GRANT PROJECT Creamer reported two proposals were received for the RJ Interpretive Plan, one each from BHG and The 106 Group (106). Gertz said both groups are well-qualified and possess the necessary background, experience, and skills. 106 probably has a little more experience with interpretive plans. BHG doesn't lack experience; 106 has just done more. We should look at consistency in the project and consider the amount of research already done by BHG. Their work on the panels would fit neatly into an interpretive plan. No initial start-up would be needed. Given the timeframe, that expedites the project. They are already working on the site and meeting our needs. They are qualified to work on another phase of the project. We have already established a relationship with them and want to continue. All other things being equal, he feels most comfortable going with BHG based on the work already done. Paulson asked for more information on what an interpretive plan entails. Gertz explained it is a more comprehensive look at the historical context of the site. Families, occupations, the farming industry, and the context of the farmstead itself would be encompassed as part of the plan. From there, interpretive themes and sub- themes would be developed and how to deliver that information would be determined. It would include details such as how many signs there will be and their locations. It would address administrative, marketing, maintenance, and access issues. It would cover who will care for the property and who will run the interpretive program. Typically a plan comes before signage. Paulson asked if BHG is chosen, does it make sense to backtrack and work on the plan first and then the panels. Gertz said the problem is the grant deadline for the panels. The two will run concurrently,however. If selected, BHG would immediately shift from focusing just on the two panels to thinking in a larger context of an interpretive plan. They will fit the panels into the plan as they work through it. Tonight's earlier discussion of having the panels serve as an introduction to the site will fit well into a plan. Hearing O'Brien Wagner talk about her research made him feel confident they will do a good job. Paulson commented on how impressed she HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Page 5 was by O'Brien Wagner's familiarity with the families she is researching, while Spera noted the energy behind it. Muehlberg stated it makes sense for them to continue. The cost is the same. He is most comfortable having BHG dovetail this project with the panels. Paulson agreed. Creamer said letting them have the bigger project will give them a better idea of what to do for the two panels. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by McGuire, to accept BHG's proposal for the RJ interpretive plan based on review criteria. Motion carried 5-0. B. CLG GRANT DISCUSSION—Gertz Possible projects to consider for a CLG Grant are national registration for the Smith Douglas More House (SDM), updating and/or replacing existing interpretive panels, or additional panels for the RJ Farmstead. Creamer brought up the photo display at City Hall. Gertz said that does not fit into the realm of a CLG grant—it is more of an art project. Creamer said Sticha and the City Manager have informed her there is probably City money available to cover this and it would need to be installed in the lower level of City Hall. Paulson said with the arrival of the new panels this summer, it would be nice to replace the existing signs at the same time so everything has a cohesive look to it. Gertz said it depends on the City as it must match CLG grant funds. There are funds available from the CG print sales and we would re-use the existing stands. It could be done at a reasonable cost. Information would need to be updated first. Creamer said the quote BHG received for the new metal material was $230 per sign. There are no quantity discounts. As of now,parks maintenance plans to use a compound to try to clean them in warmer weather. Muehlberg said QR codes should be added. Gertz said he felt it would be most prudent to clean them first and then decide which ones need replacing. There is not enough time to determine which signs are most in need of replacement by the March 7 deadline. McGuire said there is no need to let the grant deadline dictate what we do. Gertz said there is also no urgency to put SDM on the national register. Paulson said we want more signs at RJ and there are sure to be unanticipated costs. Gertz said five signs total might be adequate. An additional two to three would range anywhere from$5-15,000. There should be two or three in the kiosk, one by the barn, and one by DK. There should not be one by the Riley House as it is being rented. He is leaning towards additional signage at RJ for the grant. Spera agreed we want more signage so there is sufficient information on site for people to read and learn. Muehlberg asked if there would be a difference in kiosk versus free-standing signs. Gertz said the signs should all be kept the same size but they can be oriented differently. We can start by asking for three or four and ask for more later if we need them. Regardless, we have to do what we ask for. McGuire said she thought it was too soon to ask. There is no urgency and not all the commissioners were there to weigh in. Discussion ensued about grant timelines and project deadlines. Gertz said if we are approved this spring, there is plenty of time to HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2014 Page 6 get the signs done by the July 2015 deadline. Spera asked if there is any issue with us continuing to ask the City for matching funds. Gertz said it would be reduced some by time,but it would primarily be a cash match. Muehlberg said he supports the idea of asking for a grant for additional signage at RJ. It doesn't hurt to ask and SHPO is requesting applications. Paulson said she feels good we are not making any decisions we are locked into in terms of display and content. Everyone can have a voice going forward. McGuire said she had been swayed to support the idea. Gertz said he will move forward with preparing the grant application. VIII. FYI ITEMS - Creamer Creamer asked for feedback on the video proposal she emailed. It seemed more appropriate for EPHS so she forwarded the information. Creamer stated commission interviews will be held Wednesday. Paulson said it was quite clear she was fulfilling a one-year appointment but she did not receive notice about reapplying. Creamer will double check on this. Gertz said there should be a list of commission members with term dates. Creamer distributed a memo from Parks and Natural Resources Manager Stu Fox on the removal of a rotting ash tree at SDM. Creamer reported she had inquired about the Overlook site as a follow-up to the Metropolitan Airport Commission's (MAC)plans to have some of its land rezoned to office and commercial. Fox sent Creamer a copy of a 2001 letter stating MAC has no intentions of opening the area to public park land. It is in the flight pattern/safety zone whereas the office/commercial sites are off to the side. Muehlberg requested this be put on the agenda for next month. Rather than asking for park, we should ask for access to stabilize the site. IX. STUDENT UPDATES None. X. FUTURE MEETINGS/EVENTS The next HPC meeting will be Monday, March 17, 2014, 7 p.m. at City Center, Prairie Rooms A & B. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: McGuire moved, seconded by Paulson, to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Muehlberg adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.