Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-11 HPC Packet MAPLEWOOD HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL September 11, 2014 – 7:00 PM 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Agenda 4.Approval of Minutes a.July 10, 2014HPCMeeting 5.New Business a.CIP Process 6.Old Business a.Park Master Plan b.Historic Context Study i. Comments on council workshop and meeting ii.Recommendations from study 7.Visitor Presentations 8.Maplewood Area Historical Society Update 9.Commission Presentations a.Chair Boulay - History Mystery 10.Staff Presentations 11.Adjournment MINUTES MAPLEWOOD HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 7:00p.m., Thursday,July 10, 2014 Council Chambers, City Hall 1.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Heritage PreservationCommission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and called to order byVice Chair Currieat 7:00p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Commissioners Chairperson Peter Boulay Absent Commissioner Robert Creager Present Commissioner Richard Currie Present Commissioner John Gaspar Present Commissioner Frank Gilbertson Present Commissioner Leonard Hughes Present Commissioner Brenda Rudberg Present Staff Natural Resources Coordinator, Ginny Gaynor Present 3.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Natural Resources Coordinator, Ginny Gaynor, added agenda item 10c: Ramsey County Poor Farm Barn. Commissioner Rudberg moved toapprove the agendaas amended. Seconded by Commissioner Gaspar Ayes – All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.June 12, 2014HPC Meeting Commissioner Creager movedto approve the June 12, 2014minutes. Seconded by CommissionerHughes Ayes – All The motion passed. 5.NEW BUSINESS a. Thursday, July 10, 2014 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 6.OLD BUSINESS a.Historic Context Study Ginny Gaynor discussed the HistoricContext Study with the commission and documented changes to the study. Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the Historic Context Study with changes submitted, giving the consultant final decision on changes. Seconded by Commissioner Hughes Ayes – All The motion passed. 7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. 8.MAPLEWOOD AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY UPDATE Presidentof Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS), Bob Jensen, presented upcoming events and MAHS news. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 10.STAFF PRESENTATIONS a.Meeting Schedule: i.August Meeting Cancelled ii.September 8, 2014, 5:00pm (time to be confirmed) Present context study to council iii.September 11, 2014, next HPC meeting b.Keller Golf Course – Opening Celebration c.Ramsey County Poor Farm 11.ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Currie movedto adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Creager Ayes – All The motion passed. The meeting was adjournedat 8:20PM. Next meeting is September 11, 2014. Thursday, July 10, 2014 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator/HPC Liaison DATE: September 11,2014 SUBJECT: CIP Plan Process Introduction The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a document that coordinates the planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects. Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) members have requested clarification on the CIP process. Discussion The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) is preparedannually to coordinatethe planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects.It is separate from the city’s general operating budget. Some key itemsfor HPC members tonote are listed below. 1.The CIPtypically handles expenses and projects over $50,000. 2.The CIP is prepared each year and covers a 5-year period. 3.Being included in the CIP does not commit the council to funding the project. When the time comes for undertaking the project, staff must seekapproval from council for funding. 4.The CIP process is typically as follows: Jan-Feb:Staff submits CIP requests to theirdepartment’s Director Spring: Management team preparesCIP proposal for council Summer:Commissions review the CIP; Planning Commission holds public hearing on the CIP;City Council reviews, adjusts, and adopts the CIP If theHPC hassuggestions regarding potential CIP projects those should be discussed in January or February. Your staff liaison can submitsuggestionsto the Parks and Recreation Director. From there, the Management Team (City Manager and Department Directors) developstheproposal for city council. In August 2014, commissions were asked to review the proposed CIP. Because the August HPC meeting had been cancelled (cancellation approved at the June 2014 HPC meeting), the HPC was not able to review the CIP. However, commissioners received informationon the CIP, were invited to attend the public hearing at the August Planning Commission meeting, and were invited tosubmit comments on the content of the CIP to staff. No HPC commissioners attended the planning commission meeting. One HPC commissioner submitted a comment on the CIP content to staff. Recommendation No action needed. Attachment None MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator/HPC Liaison DATE: September 11, 2014 SUBJECT:Maplewood Park System Master Plan Introduction Maplewood is engaged in a community process to developa ParkSystem Master Plan. At the September Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting, commissioners will have an opportunity to provide input on the plan. Discussion In 2013, Maplewood began work on a Park System Master Plan. The plan will guide investments in parks over the next 20 years and ensure the park system meets community needs now and into the future. It addresses the community’s aging park infrastructure, changing city demographics, evolving parks and recreation trends, and long-term funding. There has been an extensive process to gather informationand ideasfrom the public including Task Force meetings, public meetings, a statistical survey, and on-line survey.Earlier this year, Maplewood hired Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.to develop the plan. Preliminary recommendations have been drafted and are ready for public review and input. The city is hosting a series of open houses in September to discuss the recommendations with residents. For more information on the plan and open houses, visit: www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/parks. At the September meeting, HPC commissioners will have an opportunity to provide information on the recommendationsrelated to historic preservation.Keep in mind, these recommendations address how history and historic preservation should be addressed in our park system and park programming; these are not recommendation on how the city should approach preservation overall. Recommendations from Natural Areas Section: Establish Community Preserves as integrated, multi-purpose areas set aside for the preservation of natural resources, connecting people to nature, educational programming, and historic interpretation. Strategies: Categorize Maplewood Nature Center, Prairie Farm, Gladstone Savanna, and Fish Creek as Community Preserves. Use natural resource management plans to guide the preservation, management, and restoration of natural resources. Use individual master plans for each Community Preserve to define the ability of the site to accommodate more intensive activities that benefit from natural settings, such as play areas, sitting areas, picnic shelters, paved trail networks, community gardens, and educational programming. Provide historic interpretation to share the history of the site. Recommendations from Arts and Culture Section: Build awareness and appreciation for the community’s history: Identify and preserve any significant historic resources at parks and preserves. Provide historic interpretation where possible in parks and preserves and along trails and greenway routes. Support the community-wide initiatives of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm. Partner with groups such as Maplewood Area Historical Society on history programming. Commissioners should provide input on the above recommendations. Some questions you may want to consider include: 1.Do you agree with the recommendations? 2.Are there other things you would like to see in the recommendations? 3.Are there parks, trails or open space sites that have significant history and should have historic interpretation? Recommendation Commissioners should discuss recommendations for the Park System Master Plan. No action required. Attachment None MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM:Ginny Gaynor,Natural Resources Coordinator/HPC Liaison DATE: September 11, 2014 SUBJECT:Historic Context Study Introduction At the July 10, 2014 Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting, commissioners approved the Historic Context Study prepared by consultant Thomas R. Zahn and Associates. Consultants presented the study to City Council on September 8, 2014. At the September 11, 2014 HPC meeting, commissioners will discuss the presentation to council and begin reviewing the recommendations in the study. Commissioners will receive a copy of the final study at the council meeting or at the commission meeting. In addition, an electronic copy isposted online at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/history The recommendations have been pulled into a separate worksheet to facilitate review (Attachment 1). Please prepare for the meeting byreviewing the attachedrecommendationsand for each context identifying the recommendation you think is highest priority. Attachments 1. Context Study Recommendations Recommendations and Future Actions – From 2014 Historic Context Study HPC Commissioners: The recommendations below are pulled directly from the Historic Context Study. For each context, mark the one recommendation that you think is the highest priority and needs the most immediate attention. If you have another recommendation that is more pressing, please write it in the blank box provided. Context 1 – Native American and Early Settlement PriorityRecommendation Maplewood should pay special attention to archeological investigations of any remaining Native American sites — most notably the publically-owned Fish Creek site. A brief archeological survey of the area was completed in 2005 as a pre-development effort. Now that the land is publically owned and presumably more accessible, ideally, a full Phase II archeological survey should be completed; minimally the area should be protected and surveyed as possible. It is the Consultant’s understanding that this is a potential future project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) could advise and assist on this matter. Most other Native American sites have been lost due to public development (such as roads and even parks) and private development (farms and homes). However, many Maplewood-area residents have stories of finding artifacts such as arrowheads and serving implements. The HPC should work with the Maplewood Area Historical Society on accessing and interpreting these resources as they become available. Interpretation of public spaces, such as trails and parks, should include reference to Native American settlement and even to the pre-settlement natural conditions. Several of the conservation plans for area nature preserves already do this well and could serve as a model. Concurrently,the city may desire to pay special attention to any early settlement resources, such as the former Gladstone Shops and townsite. Ideally, a larger full archeological survey would again be completed, perhaps as part of future development of the area. A Cultural Resources Assessment of the area, conducted in 2005 by the 106 Group, is an excellent resource for this. Pete Boulay’s “Walking Tour of Old Gladstone” is similarly evocative. The Consultants specifically recommend a greater consideration of the Gladstone Shops site, as detailed later in the study. The Consultants recommend further study of the original Town Hall building (as moved and altered), to determine historic integrity and the possibility of its preservation. Any remaining original settler sites should be preserved. Maplewood stands in contrast to many Minnesota communities in that often Native American resources are lost while late 1800s settlement is very prevalent. This can appear to weigh a community’s history toward the later period. In Maplewood’s case where many resources throughout time have been lost, this contrast is far less evident, which in some ironic way may provide more historic continuity. 1 Context 2 -Agriculture and Farming PriorityRecommendation To the Consultants’ knowledge, no complete farmsteads remain in Maplewood. However, due to the fact that many farms remained in operation until relatively recently, and as many of them were well-kept, there may be some valuable hidden resources. The HPC should work with area property owners to identify and inventory farm-related resources still in existence, and develop a program to preserve and protect these resources even as the use of the land changes. Several farmhouses still exist, though now surrounded by other residences. The HPC should create a comprehensive listing of these houses, and work with homeowners to preserve and protect these homes. The HPC should support the MAHS and its efforts to interpret the Bruentrup Farm. This farmstead, though moved from its original site, maintains excellent resources in the house, barn, granary, maintenance shed, and machine shed, and is an extremely accessible and educational resource. The Schroeder Dairy story is compelling but often overlooked. The HPC should look into further recognition and preservation of the site. As smaller community gardens and “urban farms” become more common, Maplewood may regain a sense of this history (albeit a reconstructed one). It should be aware of sense of place. Context 3 - Transportation PriorityRecommendation As discussed at length in this section, very few transportation-related resources still exist, which is a common issue. Those that do, or that are discovered, should be surveyed and cataloged, with particular attention paid to the importance of this context. A key remaining resource are the archeological remnants of the Gladstone Shops. These elements are located beneath the city-owned Gladstone Savanna, and are generally protected by being buried. The City should ensure their protection and interpretation. Any reuse of the area should be carefully considered. Future development of the Gladstone area should give a nod to the past, without being tempted by replication. 2 Several trails, such as theVento Trail and the Gateway Trail, take advantage of former rail corridors for recreational use. These trails are lightly interpreted already, and there is room for more historic interpretation along them. The HPC should work with the MAHS to interpret the transportation-related resources that the Society possesses. Context 4– Cultural Life PriorityRecommendation In many cases, religious cultural resources are lost because congregations need to expand on limited budgets, and are often ineligible for tax credits that for-profits can use in preservation efforts. This is particularly the case in Maplewood, where the existing religious buildings generally represent the recent past. The HPC should work with local churches to ensure that resources are protected. Cemeteries are generally not eligible for National Register nomination, though this trend is reversing in Minnesota, especially for those with significant structures such as the Forest Lawn Mausoleum. The HPC should consider National Register designation for this resource. In many communities, cemeteries also generate much interest and their own preservation societies. Maplewood’s cemeteries should consider similar initiatives. Parks and open areas have long been part of Maplewood’s cultural history, since long before the Open Space Referendum. In general, these places do not have buildings or similar resources to preserve, but their sense of place is still crucial. The HPC should work with the Parks Commission to include historicpark features in the currently in-process Parks and Recreation Plan. Similarly, Maplewood has strong Natural Resources plans in place. Adding historic resources to these plans might be tricky, as few built resources remain. However, the natural environment of the Maplewood area is also part of its history/pre-history, and so preservation could be integrated into these plans in many ways. Redesign Maplewood’s “Big Tree Registry” to ensure it has a historical component as well as a natural resource element. Other cities, such as Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and Madison have similar programs, usually based on size, age, and significance. Some areas have developed walking tours or even iPhone apps for their programs. Maplewood retains several sports-related sites, though the loss of the Keller Golf Clubhouse — a prominent landmark designed by a significant local architect — was an unfortunate blow. The HPC should recognize and retain these sites. In particular, the HPC should investigate listing 3 Aldrich Arena on the National Register of Historic Places. Similarly, though the remaining tourism resources (such as the Hennings cabins) are in poor condition, the HPC should investigate retaining and preserving them. The historic neighborhoods are part of Maplewood’s core identity. Though things like the community clubs are long gone, the HPC should investigate interpreting the neighborhoods and their character, perhaps through signage, banners, etc. Context 5– Civic Life PriorityRecommendation Maplewood should consider preserving both the original New Canada Hall (threatened) and the Maplewood Municipal Building. The latter especially stands as a good example of mid-century work, and is indicative of the area governance. The HPC should support the MAHS in their oral history project on area firefighters. These histories provide a very evocative description of the importance of the fire department in Maplewood’s history. With the new combined fire station under construction, the Consultants understand that the city will likely sell the current fire stations. The HPC should work to ensure that these are preserved, and also interpreted in some manner. The two original schools that have been converted to private homes are interesting cases. The HPC should consider working with these homeowners to allow interpretation without the loss of any property rights. The barn of the Poor Farm is Maplewood’s only current National Register site. There are some related resources, including other buildings, the Potter’s Field, and the (moved) caretaker’s house. The HPC should investigate an expansion of the National Register nomination, or at least some other ways to interpret and preserve the existing resources. Context 6 – Commerce andIndustry 4 PriorityRecommendation The MAHS has done significant research on the Saint Paul Plow Works and the Railroad Shops. The HPC should consider working with them to commemorate these lost resources. The 3M complex is truly Maplewood’s most significant resource. Both in its cohesive mid- century modern design and its impact on the community, it for better or worse defines Maplewood. The MAHS is currently commissioning a study on the company and its campus, which is of great importance. The HPC should support this study, and the City of Maplewood should work with 3M to preserve and protect as much of the campus as possible. These contexts provide an extremely brief overview as to the significance of Maplewood’s commercial and industrial operations. Further research should be completed on the topic, and survey work initiated to establish the existence and condition of these resources. Context 7 – Residential Architecture PriorityRecommendation In order to accurately assess cultural resources, and prioritize the nominations for residential properties, Maplewood should update the residential parts of its surveys. To this end, the HPC should consider completing a reconnaissance survey of its residential housing stock. The survey could be completed as part of the Certified Local Government (CLG) or The Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage (Legacy) Grant process. Similarly, the HPC should consider doing a similar survey of related residential features such as outbuildings and street amenities; these elements could also be included in the comprehensive survey. The Consultants found relatively few of these resources remaining. Based upon this initial survey, the Maplewood HPC should encourage local nominations of architecturally or historically significant residences or residential collections. This should lead to the development of outreach materials on the locally nominated properties. The HPC may then want to develop a driving tour map for significant residential property sites within the community. A few homes in the area may be suited for National Register inclusion. These are listed in the Recommendations and Further Actions for the study as a whole, along with some non-residential sites. If further research justifies the action, Maplewood should consider preparing a Multiple Property nomination for mid-century development housing. Based upon inventory research, Maplewood may also want to consider designating a historic district, either locally or to the National Registerof Historic Places. One possible candidate for this may be the neighborhood adjacent to Lake Phalen which appears to have a cohesive 5 collection of significant residential architecture. The HPC should conduct outreach to city residents regarding architectural styles and preservation techniques. Such information would allow homeowners to understand their home’s distinguishing features, and assist them in planning for the preservation of their property. Such outreach should not ignore elements such as outbuildings, landscape, fences, walks, and other details. Ideally, this process would occur through some sort of residential design guidelines. General Recommendations PriorityRecommendation One important next step that the city could take wouldbe to complete a full cultural resources survey. There are some important past surveys (including the standard Ramsey County one and a Maplewood-specific one), but they are in need of clarification, addition, and updates. Such an initiative is quite largeand time-consuming, but some of it could be completed by a team of enthusiastic volunteers under professional leadership. Maplewood has only one National Register-listed site —the Poor Farm Barn. As described in the recommendations for that context, the HPC should consider expanding that nomination. At least a few other properties, such as the Bruentrup Farm, do not qualify since they have been moved. Some suggested other potential properties for National Register listing include: • The Forest Lawn Cemetery Mausoleum, 1800 N. Edgerton St. • The Seaholm P. Gottfried House, 1800 E. Shore Drive (unique Moderne design) • KSTP Transmitter Building, 2792 Highway 61 (Art Deco/Moderne style) • A Multiple Property listing for the two converted schools: Edgerton (1745 Edgerton Street) and Carver Lake (2684 W. Highwood Ave.) • JWS Frost House, 1889 Clarence St. • Saint Paul’s Priory at 2675 Larpenteur, determined National Register eligible in 2010. As well as suggesting National Register nominations, Maplewood should develop a local nomination process. A local designation would help to identify significant resources and offer them a level of appropriate protection, while also increasing public participation. There are a number of properties that would be suitable for such designation, including several of the existing railroad resources, the Sundgaard house, the Swanson house, and others. The relatively new Minnesota state tax credit, as well as existing federal tax credits, allow significant deductions for historic, income-producing properties, and the HPC should encourage commercial property owners to use these to full advantage. See Appendix A for more information. There are several natural allies for the HPC in their preservation work. In particular, the 6 Maplewood Area Historical Society has been doing strong work in exhibits, oral histories, and research. The HPC and MAHS should work together whenever possible to promote Maplewood preservation. It is especially important that they work together with regards to the 3M site, which is an important resource. One of the biggest challenges that will continue to face Maplewood is the idea of “historic.” Important as Gladstone’s history is, it’s time to move beyond that as being Maplewood’s main resource. The area is large and diverse, and contains many historic elements. Especially important are the area’s mid-century resources, ranging from homes to 3M to civic buildings. To many, the idea of preservation of the recent past is a difficult concept; they simply can’t fathom that something in their lifetime can be historic. The HPC should aggressively promote the understanding of the preservation of the recent past and its resources therein. Maplewood has lost too many of its historic elements. It should work to preserve the important ones that remain, and beyond preserving them, should develop interpretation and outreach plans so that its residents understand the importance of these resources. The HPC should create a “Top 10” (or 20, or 30) list of resources it will not stand to lose. It should also make clear to the public that simply recognizing the history of something (such as photographing it before demolition), or collecting parts of it for a history display (such as saving an architectural feature) is not the same as preserving the building. Finally, the HPC needs to be vigilant in educating that replication is not the same as preservation. Tearing down a building, and then creating a new one in its place in a historic style, is not preservation, and actually stands counter to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s (see Appendix B). Other cities have been successful in using completed context studies as a kind of training and introduction manual for new HPC members. Such a use would be an excellent way to ensure that the Commission has a standard basis of knowledge and shared goals for the future. 7