Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014 11-10 HPB Packets Regular
AGENDA EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING EDINA CITY HALL, 4801 W. 50TH STREET MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014, 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 14, 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. Certificates of Appropriateness I. H-14-10 4524 Drexel Avenue - New Detached Garage 2. H-14-11 4901 Bruce Avenue- Changes to Street Facing Facades • VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. 4505 Arden Avenue - Construction Update (COA approved 3-11-14) B. 2014 Human Services Task Force Report- Member Mellom C. Election of Officers: Fill Vice Chair Vacancy - Continued from October Meeting VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 9, 2014 XII. 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, October 14, 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, Druckman and Otness. Absent were members Christiaansen and O'Brien. Staff present was Senior Planner,Joyce Repya. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel was also in attendance. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member McLellan moved to approve the meeting agenda. Member Sussman seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES September 9, 2014 Member Moore moved approval of the minutes from the September 9, 2014 meeting. Member McLellan seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT— None VI. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Certificates of Appropriateness I. H-14-8 4625 Arden Avenue - New front entry canopy and new Detached garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4600 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home, a Colonial Revival - Dutch Colonial style constructed in 1925, currently has a 2-car detached garage located on the north side of property in the rear yard. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails construction of a new front entry canopy, and replacing an existing 2- car detached garage with a new garage. The plans also include an addition to the rear of the home that does not extend beyond the front facade of the home. Ms. Repya pointed out that the plans for changes to the front of the home propose to add a flat entry portico with columns projecting approximately 4.5 feet from the front building wall over the existing stoop. A gambrel-roofed dormer centrally located on the second floor elevation is proposed above the portico. Consultant Vogel provided a written evaluation of the project where he observed that the proposed new front entry porch will not significantly alter the scale or detract from the historic character of the façade; the columned portico design will help accentuate the front door, which will remain centered. Mr. Vogel added that the addition of a gambrel-roofed dormer above the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14,2014 front entry is consistent with the Colonial Revival aesthetic. Mr. Vogel also observed that the replacement windows are appropriate for a historic home rehabilitation in the Country Club District; and the new work has been designed so that the remodeled house will be compatible in size, scale, color, and texture with other Colonial Revival style homes in the district. Regarding the plans for replacing the detached garage, Planner Repya explained that the new structure is proposed to be a 528 square foot 2-car structure measuring 24' x 22' feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to complement the Colonial Revival - Dutch Colonial style of the home with traditional gambrel roof design, stucco walls, and heavy cedar shake shingles with a traditional bell curved bottom at the eave. Trim board at eave height is provided on all elevations. On the west elevation attention to detail is provided with two custom entry doors. The garage plans also demonstrate a roof with a height of 18" at the highest peak (same height as the existing garage), and is consistent with the dimensions of new garages which have been approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Furthermore, the proposed location of the will be further back (to the east) on the lot to allow for construction of the proposed rear addition to the home. Consultant Vogel observed that based on the plans presented, the design for the new garage • appear to be compatible with the historic house in scale, size, and building materials and will not detract from the neighborhood's historic character. Planner Repya pointed out that plans for the addition to the rear of the home were provided for the Board's information. The new living space has been designed to provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time maintain the home's overall historic character. Concluding Staff's evaluation of the proposed improvements to the home, Planner Repya observed that since the proposed facade alterations are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and new detached garage has been designed to be compatible with the historic house in scale, size and building materials and will not detract from the neighborhood's historic character, approval of the COA is recommended subject to the plans presented and placement of a year built plaque on the exterior of the new detached garage. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed projects. • The proposed detached garage will complement the architectural style of the home and not be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The proposed new front entry porch will not significantly alter the scale or detract from the historic character of the facade • The changes to the front entry canopy and Gambrel roofed dormer on the front facade compliment the Dutch Colonial features of the home. • The new work has been designed so that the remodeled house will be compatible in 2 I Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14, 2014 size, scale, color, and texture with other Colonial Revival style homes in the district. • The proposed facade alterations are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildings that lack individual architectural distinction. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Applicant Representative: Scot Waggoner, w.b. builders - Available to respond to questions Public Comments: None Board Discussion: Member Mellom commented that she thought the plans demonstrated a nice design; however she opposed the changes to the front facade because they would destroy the historic features of the home and were inconsistent with the direction provided in the district's plan of treatment and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Member Sussman observed that he believed the proposed design changes to the home and the new detached garage were compatible with the Dutch Colonial style of the home and the district's plan of treatment; adding that he viewed the changes to be an upgrade to the property. He added that the cross-gambrel style proposed on the front elevation was common for homes constructed during the district's period of significance. Member Moore agreed with Member Sussman's comments adding that he too believed the proposed changes were complete, enhance the property and comply with the district's plan of treatment. Chair Weber stated that he believed the plans complemented the Dutch Colonial style of the home. He also pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards recommend that changes, if removed in the future will not impair the form and integrity of the historic property; and he believed the proposed changes to this home follow that recommendation. Mr. Weber added that he believed the enlarged window openings on the front facade improve the home's proportions. Member Mellom observed that she believed it is not the task of the HPB to determine what changes to a property are compatible with the historic homes; rather the board's primary charge is to ensure that the historic street facades and streetscapes are preserved. Chair Weber responded that his understanding of the district's plan of treatment is that residents are allowed to make changes to their homes with guidance. The plan of treatment was designed to meet the needs of the Country Club District, and was written to allow changes 3 I Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14, 2014 which may not follow the strictest preservation standards found in some other historic communities. He pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, used as a basis for the plan of treatment's design review are intended to promote responsible preservation practices. He added that now that a majority of the homes are 80 years or older, it is understood they will need work, and the plan of treatment will be the guide. Planner Repya agreed with Chair Weber's comments, pointing out that the goal of the district's plan of treatment is not to prevent change, but rather to provide guidance for potential changes to ensure that the houses and streetscape maintain their historic integrity. She added that changes have been allowed to the street facing facades of the district's homes as long as the changes are vetted through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Consultant Vogel pointed out that the preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the district is rehabilitation which is defined as "The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values." Mr. Vogel pointed out that change is inherent with rehabilitation, and it is not the intention of the plan of treatment to freeze dry the architecture of the district. He added that the HPB has followed the directive of the City Council who enacted the preservation ordinance • which gives owners as much latitude as possible in adjusting the character of their homes as long as the integrity of the district as a whole is preserved. Addressing the subject project, Mr. Vogel observed that the composition of this Dutch Colonial home is unusual in the Country Club District and the proposed introduction of the gambrel- roofed dormer on the front facade actually helps accentuate the front entrance which is a main feature in Colonial Revival architecture. He concluded that the proposed changes to the front facade of the home are legitimate design decisions to make in the 2 I S` Century with a challenging architectural style - they've done a good job. Motion: Member Moore moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque be installed on the exterior of the garage. Member McLellan seconded the motion. Members Sussman, Weber, McLellan, and Moore voted aye. Member Mellom voted nay. The motion carried. 2. H-I4-7 451 I Browndale Avenue - Change to street facing facade Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Browndale Avenue. The existing home constructed in 1924 has an attached 2-car garage. she reminded the board that a COA application for a renovation project to the home was considered at the September 9th HPB meeting. Those plans included removing the existing roof, and adding a 3rd story which as defined in the District's plan of treatment, would be considered a demolition of the original home since more than 50% of the roof was to be been 4 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes • October 14,2014 removed. Because the home was constructed during the District's period of significance the (1924 - 1944) demolition cannot be a consideration, thus the application for the COA was denied. Ms. Repya pointed out that the application currently under consideration includes new plans for changes to the street facing facade and an addition to the rear of the home. Details of the plans included the following elements: • Reduction in the size of the front entry overhang from 5' x 13' to 2.5' x I I'; • Replacing the windows in the same location, but increasing the window size in some Instances; and • Removing the shingled eyebrow extension over the first floor windows and replacing it with a trim band. Ms. Repya added that plans for an addition to the rear of the home were provided for the Board's information. The new spaces include a rebuilt attached 3-car garage on the south elevation utilizing the same driveway, and a family room addition on the first floor; with expanded bedroom spaces on the second floor - changes which provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time maintain the its overall historic character. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel evaluated the project and in a written evaluation commented that: When built in 1924, the subject home lacked architectural significance but shared a number of design characteristics common to the majority of homes built in Country Club during the district's period of historical significance (1924-1944). Those characteristics include its compound rectangular ground plan, two-story wall height, symmetrical facade, hip roof, and stucco wall cladding. As with the great majority of the houses in the district, its original decorative detailing was little more than a skin-deep embellishment of a basic suburban house form. Although it exhibits some aspects of the Craftsman and Prairie styles, these are minor design elements and should not be viewed as significant character defining features. Mr. Vogel pointed out that the home as it appears today, does not embody the distinctive design elements that would make it individually significant as an authentic specimen of Craftsman or Prairie style architecture (neither of which is considered a Period Revival style). Addressing the proposed alterations to the exterior appearance of the house by replacing the existing windows and entry on the front elevation, Mr. Vogel observed that the original roof shape and stucco wall cladding will be retained, and it appears that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to preserve the historic character and details of the original building facade, thus the proposed changes will not compromise the historic integrity of the Country Club historic district. Mr. Vogel also observed that as a result of the proposed changes to the home, its distinguishing 5 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14, 2014 historical qualities will not be destroyed and the property will be visually compatible with the size, scale, color, and materials of other historic homes in the district - thus approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the plans presented was recommended. Planner Repya stated that she agreed with Consultant Vogel' evaluation and approval recommendation, pointing out that the proposed plans were well thought out - reflecting meetings with the city staff and preservation consultant, research into the city's records on the Country Club District homes, as well as consideration of the comments expressed at the September HPB meeting. Ms. Repya added that new plans ensure that the character and historic integrity of the original home will not be compromised - the height, scale and mass of the original home remain untouched. Furthermore, the proposed plans entail changes to the front façade of the home that are not unlike changes which have been approved for other homes in the District through the COA process. Ms. Repya concluded that findings supporting the recommendation include: • The proposed plans meet the plan of treatment guidelines for new construction by being compatible in materials, size, scale, and texture with other historic homes in the district. • The proposed changes are consistent with the character and historic integrity of the subject home as well as the adjacent historic structures. • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed projects. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment, and the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Representatives: Available to respond to questions - Lon Oberpriller, Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC - Kevin & Laura Carlson, owners 4511 Arden Avenue Public Comments: • Dan Dulas 4609 Bruce Avenue Mr. Dulas explained that he believed it is important to maintain the streetscapes in the district and the proposed plans were not in keeping with the plan of treatment - pointing out that the changes to the windows and the reduction in the size of the front entry were not consistent with the Prairie architectural style of the home. Mr. Dulas then asked Consultant Vogel if changes approved through the COA process could have the consequence of removing a home's historic resource status. Consultant Vogel responded that the heritage resource status of homes receiving COA approvals will not be in lost. He pointed out that the district is one historic resource with 550 6 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14, 2014 components, and the plan of treatment recognizes that changes to the homes are inevitable. How to mitigate adverse effects of the change is of utmost importance and one of the responsibilities of the HPB when reviewing COA applications. He added that the HPB is advisory to the City Council, and it is the City Council who directed the preservation ordinance and the district's plan of treatment to allow for controlled changes in the district. If that direction were to change, thus preventing changes to the street facades of the homes, both documents would have to be rewritten and approved by the City Council. Board Discussion: Member Mellom stated that the HPB is responsible to preserve the original streetscape of the homes in the district which have changed very little from the 1920's and 1930's. Regarding the proposed changes to the front facade of 4511 Browndale Avenue, Ms. Mellom opined that shed believed removal of the front porch, the picture windows and the eyebrow trim above the first floor windows will have a detrimental effect on the historic integrity of the home, as well as the streetscape. Furthermore, she believed that if approved the changes would put the home at risk to be torn down in the future, and she was not in favor of approving the COA request. Member Sussman explained that he believed the changes in the plans from the September submittal were favorable. They are no longer proposing to alter the roofline, and the character of the home retains aspects of the original home to include the form, mass and building materials. Also, extending the horizontal trim board the full width of the house enhances the horizontal treatment that currently exists. Mr. Sussman concluded that overall the plans are a step in the right direction in terms of updating the home, but not creating something different from what currently exists. Member Moore commented that he appreciated the applicants coming back with the revised plans; adding that the changes to the plan have embraced the essence of the historic home. Motion: Member Moore moved approval of the COA request for changes to the street facing facade of the home subject to the plans presented. Member McLellan seconded the motion. Members Sussman, Weber, McLellan and Moore voted aye. Member Mellom voted nay. The motion Carried. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. City Council Work Session - September I6th: Board Member Reflections Chair Weber observed that the board's annual work session with the Council included a review of the 2014 work plan initiatives as well as a preview of the work the board is proposing for 2015. Member Moore commented that he believed the meeting went very well. Former Chair Birdman led a good discussion, and the Council appeared pleased with the progress of the HPB. 7 M_. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14,2014 B. 2015 Work Plan Council Work Session: Chair Report Chair Weber explained that on September 16th the City Council held a work session with all board and commission chairs to review each groups proposed 2015 Work Plans. He observed that it was interesting to hear the work planned for the coming year for the respective boards and commissions. The HPB's proposed 2015 work plan was well received by the Council; and they particularly liked the several designations for heritage landmark status scheduled for the coming year. C. Wooddale Bridge MnDOT Report: Consultant Vogel explained that the Wooddale Bridge report received from MnDOT consultants LHB, Mead & Hunt was commissioned by MnDOT as part of a management plan for all bridges that fall within their jurisdiction. The Wooddale Bridge was identified as a potential historic property, and the report provides not only a good physical description, but also lays out the equivalent of a plan of treatment for potential improvements which may be required in the future. Mr. Vogel pointed out that currently MnDOT is in the midst of a parallel project to list this bridge on the National Register of Historic Places with the National Park Service; and once that is completed, the HPB will move forward to designate the Wooddale Bridge an Edina Heritage Landmark property. Member Moore asked if when the HPB moves forward on the Edina Heritage Landmark designation of the bridge would we be able to elaborate on the report provided by MnDOT. Mr. Vogel explained that MnDOT's report would be incorporated with the nomination study, but it would also include information available from the city records and the Edina Historical Society. Member Moore also wondered if the bridge was constructed of the same stone as the St. Stephen's Church. Member Sussman stated that the materials were the same Platteville limestone. He added that the he was concerned about the deteriorated state of the bridge's limestone cited in the report, and wondered who would oversee any future restoration. Consultant Vogel pointed out that once designated an Edina Heritage Landmark, the bridge's plan of treatment and oversight of improvements will be the responsibility of the HPB. Chair Weber commented that when he attended the AASLH Preservation Conference last • month, he sat in on a seminar about historic bridges that included some great examples of restoration work that maintained the historic character of the original structures. 8 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14, 2014 A general discussion ensued regarding the Wooddale Bridge. All agreed that they looked forward to receiving the National Register application from MnDOT to start the designation process. No formal action was taken. D. Election of Officers: Fill Vice Chair Vacancy - Continued to November Meeting VIII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS - None IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Member Moore shared the following: 1. Community education class - "Southdale: A Building That Changed America", Tuesday, October 21" at the Edina Community Center. Cost $10. Mr. Moore explained that Marty Rud, Southdale's first public relations director will talk about the early days of the mall and events he orchestrated. It should be a fascinating event, and all are encouraged to attend. 2. Grange Hall - Mr. Moore reported that he noticed 2 holes in the siding on the exterior of the building which should be repaired prior to winter setting in. Planner Repya asked Mr. Moore to get back to her on the exact location of the holes, and she will report them to the city's facilities manager. Member Sussman shared the following: I. Country Club District Walking Tour - Mr. Sussman commented that he was pleased to receive information that a group of residents in the Country Club District are planning an architectural tour of their neighborhood for May 9, 2015. He added that he hoped the organizers will be collaborative with the HPB in planning the event. 2. Architect, Elizabeth Close (6909 Dakota Trail) - Mr. Sussman observed that the October 5th Home Section of the Star Tribune highlighted a new home in the Morningside neighborhood owned by Jane Hession and Bill Olexy who happen to be working on a documentary of the life of Architect, Elizabeth Close. Since the HPB is working with the owner of 6909 Dakota Trail (designed by Elizabeth Close) on a future landmark designation of the home, he suggested that the HPB invite Ms. Hession and Mr. Olexy to share their knowledge of Elizabeth Close. The board agreed that would be a good idea. • 9 • Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes October 14,2014 X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. NEXT MEETING DATE November 10, 2014 (MONDAY) XII. ADJOURNMENT 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Reyya ill 10 • oHERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARDK �'� c,, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Q.el STAFF REPORT •jk00RpoRoP• 1888 Originator Meeting Date Agenda # VI. A. 1. Joyce Repya November 10, 2014 H-14-10 Senior Planner APPLICANT: Ryan Thuftedal, AIA, rt Design for Zach & Kelley Burnett LOCATION: 4524 Drexel Avenue PROPOSAL: Construct a new 2-car detached garage on the south side of the rear yard RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Request • Subject to Conditions INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the west side of the 4500 block of Drexel Avenue. The existing home, a Colonial Revival style constructed in 1925, currently has a 2-car attached garage, one-story in height with a flat roof, accessed by a driveway on the south side of the property. The COA request entails the construction of a new detached garage on the south side of the rear yard. The project also includes converting the attached garage to two stories of living space which is not visible from the street façade; thus not subject to the COA approval. Detached Garage The proposed 572 square foot 2-car detached garage measures 22' x 26' feet in area. Access to the garage will be obtained on the east elevation from the existing driveway where two overhead doors and two windows in the gable area are proposed. A service door and window are provided on the north elevation. The rear elevation includes a gable vent and two windows. The south elevation lacks architectural detailing because that side of the proposed garage abuts a tall privacy fence. The design of the structure is proposed to complement the Colonial Revival style of the home with hardi lap siding (existing on the home) and asphalt shingles. The garage plans demonstrate a roof with a height of 17' 1" at the highest peak. The height at the mid-point of the gable is shown to be 12' 5", and a height of 7'11" is provided at the eave line. The ridge length of the roof is 26'5"' and a 9/12 roof pitch is provided. All dimensions proposed for the structure are consistent with the surrounding detached garages and new garages previously COA H-14-10 4524 Drexel Avenue November 10, 2014 approved by the HPB through the COA process. The proposed location of the garage is shown at 23 feet from the rear property line and 3 feet 6 inches from the south property line. Attached Garage Conversion to Living Space Plans for the conversion of the attached garage to living space at the rear of the home have been provided for the Board's information. The footprint of the existing 440 square foot attached garage conversion will increase to 625 square feet of living space, an additional 180 square feet; two-stories in height. The new living space has been designed to provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time maintain the home's overall historic character, utilizing the same hardi-plank siding and asphalt shingles as the original home. PRESERVATION CONSULTANT ROBERT VOGEL'S COMMENTS: Built in 1925, the subject property is a two-story house in the Colonial Revival style. It represents a good example of mid-20th century suburban vernacular architecture and is typical of Colonial Revival style homes built in the district during its period of significance (1924-1944). eligible its as-built appearance and is not individuallye been altered from t g While the house has pp for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark, it has been evaluated as a contributing property within the Country Club Heritage Landmark District and is therefore considered a heritage preservation resource. The COA application describes the proposed new detached garage. The design is consistent with the design review guidelines laid out in the district plan of treatment. It will match the architectural character of the historic house and be compatible with it in size, scale, massing, and materials. Furthermore, the proposed garage appears to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and should not detract from the historic significance and integrity of the district as a whole. Therefore, I recommend approval of the COA. Demolition of the existing attached garage and construction of a two-story addition to provide additional living space does not require a COA. The existing garage is not a significant historic character defining architectural feature; its removal will not result in the destruction or alteration of any important architectural element. Because the proposed new construction will be located on the back of the existing house and will match the essential architectural character of the 1925 home, it should not have an adverse effect on the historic character of the streetscape. This type of remodeling project has been common throughout the Country Club District (where approximately one-third of the homes were built with attached garages) since the 1960s and is considered a historically appropriate rehabilitation treatment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel's evaluation of the proposed improvements to the property, noting that the detached garage is consistent with new garages previously reviewed in the district and conversion of the attached garage to living space will blend well with the historic façade of the home. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request is recommended. 2 COA H-14-10 4524 Drexel Avenue November 10, 2014 Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed projects. • The proposed detached garage will complement 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 and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Conditions for approval: • Subject to the plans presented and • Placement of a year built plaque on the exterior of the new detached garage. Deadline for City Action: December 1, 2014 3 rt DESIGN architecture+interiors 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W MINNETONKA, MN 55305 TEL 952.300.2240 4 November, 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness: Explanation of Request Project: Burnett Residence at 4524 Drexel Ave S City of Edina Heritage Preservation Board for Country Club neighborhood Dear Committee- The proposed project at 4524 Drexel is to include the removal of an inappropriate flat roofed addition off the back of their existing home, adding a new addition with family and master suite in the same location and adding a detached two car garage within all setbacks and city rules. The new addition will integrate seamlessly into the existing home and will maintain a similar scale and detailing to the existing home. The new home addition and garage will be clad in"Nardi-plank"cement board siding which matches the existing home. The new garage will be modestly sized and be appropriate and matching the existing home in detail, materials and scale. The south wall of the garage lacks detail because it faces the neighbors fense which is only 42"away and 6'-10"tall and blocks the entire wall of the garage. This project allows the home owners • to modernize their home to the way we live today and to much better utilize their fantastic Edina back yard. Key project facts: 1. We are not altering the front of the home at all. 2. We will be matching all materials and details to be consistent with the homes historic intent and will enhance the side elevation beauty immensely for a much better neighbor experience. 3. This project does NOT seek any variances or other approvals,we are operating within the Edina code. 4. This project's roof ridge is below the established front roof ridge of the home and will not be noticed from the front of the home. Sincerely, Ryan Thuftedal AIA rt design C:\_rt_design_projects\Burnett\Burnett_Ito2Edina.doc rt design 44-j,27-2 ), ta m a 1,,, • w v01, JR, 0 ark14.-- 4A.iv •1 4, roRPoILM.- 1869 j �� CASE NUMBER ` i /O DATE i0~ ii1 — j41-' EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK FEE 4f toOO --- Planning Department 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0462 FAX (952) 826-0389 Application for : CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FEE:$600.00 $1,200.00 New House PROPERTY ADDRESS: _4524 Drexel Ave S APPLICANT: NAME: Ryan Thuftedal AIA rt Design (Burnett Res) ADDRESS: 11420 Park Ridge Dr W Mtka, MN PHONE:w, 612-743-6225 PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:_ Kelley and Zach Burnett ADDRESS: 4524 Drexel Ave S PHONE:_ 612-387-3177 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lot 13, Block 6, Country Club District, Fairway section, Henn. County, MN ZONING: R-1 P.I.D.# 18-028-24-12-0133 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Certificate of appropriateness (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) • IS A VARIANCE REQUIRED: NO is required or requested ARCHITECT: NAME: Ryan Thuftedal AIAPHONE: 612-743-6225 SURVEYOR: NAME: Travis Van Neste PHONE: 952-6: .`,055 ',1,- %-;;;---;'-; ---',061— /Di/Cl/F 1 ., 1 // � 1srope a ner's Signature (Date) Ap i icant's Si• ' a ure ( ate) ' Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 -... Interactive Property Hennepin Maps Map 7 -'44.,&y ‘Q-44..., i, ° r-r, - ,,. timpoors. ,-. �F a/7 '!1 X ' P.r .. t rr�, ' ,,,:),,,,,,,41:., ...: , :,:iiiiixii- .. . - , ' 'ttSii ,-...". ---_-7 : '1 t, to T t • -+.."41. a • QF.ti 11114 r e "4 Ea 11-%*4./1- 431. ,, -Y� gY-� r ,.fi y - '4. ce [ �. : f j 4, . 1� !i 1 ,r J , %i 6.. K ... , !;''.,'* ..' ''' '' :. ,pf. '''''.;F:.'''.,'4..i '''' 74;111••••• '1'• '1''06-.. IP,'.44- ,, ,A, Ad.', i `�4,T�k � le' �5 1 5 * v �� lw ,..,... ' .,n - . �`f':Y,1,' Y7.t _ % Map Scale: 1"=50 ft. N Parcel 18-028-24-12-0133 A-T-B: ID: Print Date: 10/23/2014 (10- Owner Market Name: Zachary D&Kelley R Burnett Total: Parcel 4524 Drexel Ave Tax Address: Edina, MN 55424 Total: Property Sale Pr This map is a compilation of data from various Residential P Type: sources and is furnished"AS IS"with no Sale representation or warranty expressed or Home Homestead mplied,including fitness of any particular stead: Date' purpose,merchantability,or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.19 acres Sale COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 8,453 sq ft Code: This::Green! http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=473243.1923 5000014,497378 8.4829... 10/23/2014 Report Name: City of Edina Printed: 10/23/2014 t PropSumm Public Page: 2 Public Property Summary This information is a summary of available data and is not guaranteed to be complete or accurate. r c `-- T,,yam, - +�&,.. t6• ->.:- r r`.�1. dt' r. , `-_ --a::-...-, ly >� i1r.. cm. E',Jr"' + } -. we.: a tam y • '� _. k 4,, _ f .Ti, It Y�,- l,s: if 46 2-I- kit 4.0L 6.0' Ve 14 L'f/tr m Gazebo m 6.0' 22.0' Garage N Open Porchso-7 o 17.0' cr 17.0' ----- 9.0' 2/B N q 18-028-24-12-0133 N g 110 34.0' Sketch by 4ex IV'm ,c4 )91:1�j��, HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD o r, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Nov 4° STAFF REPORT 8ae Originator Meeting Date Agenda #VI. A.2 Joyce Repya November 10, 2014 Senior Planner H-14-11 APPLICANT: Mark & Kristina Dietzen LOCATION: 4901 Bruce Avenue PROPOSAL: An addition to the street facing façade, and a new front entry portico RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) ® request subject to conditions INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Bruce Avenue and Country Club Road. The home, constructed in 1934 is a Colonial Revival style with an attached one story 2-car garage accessed from the north on Country Club Road. PRIMARY ISSUES: The homeowners initially received a COA in 2012 for an addition to the rear of the home facing Country Club Road. Construction of the approved plans never occurred, and they are now requesting approval of a new plan which entails changes to the Country Club Road façade on the north side; and the Bruce Avenue front facade on the west side of the property. Country Club Road The plans proposed for the north side of the home call for converting a portion of the existing attached garage to living space, expanding the attached garage 12 feet to the east, and adding a second story master suite over the garage fronting Country Club Road. A new curb cut will be required east of the existing driveway due to the relocation of the garage. The previous plan approved in 2012 included an addition to the rear of the home which expanded the home's footprint and reduced the livability of the rear yard. Bruce Avenue Changes to the front façade of the home propose removing the partial brick surrounding the front entrance and adding a flat-roofed front entry portico projecting 4 feet from the front building wall, with fluted columns and crown molding. H-14-11 4901 Bruce Ave. The plans also call for replacing the existing aluminum siding with cedar lap siding; adding flat board banding at the second story overhang on the front elevation and continuing along the mid-section of the home; and installing new windows and doors. It is the intention of this project to address the home's issues of disrepair, provide additional living spaces to meet the needs of the homeowner, and add traditional Colonial style elements which are currently lacking. PRESERVATION CONSULTLANT ROBERT VOGEL'S COMMENTS: Preservation Consultant Vogel evaluated the proposal and pointed out that the proposed renovation project will reverse the adverse effects of physical deterioration as well as previous remodeling work while preserving those architectural elements which are important to the house's historic character. The plans also show an attempt to modify the house to give it a more "traditional" Colonial Revival character. The inappropriate aluminum siding will be replaced with wood lap siding and some relatively minor structural alterations are also proposed, including a small addition on the rear elevation. All of the existing windows will be replaced. The applicant has strived to rehabilitate the exterior of the house in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties. The proposed work requires minimal alteration of the building structure and the distinguishing original qualities of the house (its two-story form, symmetrical facade, side-gabled roof, balanced pattern of fenestration. and accentuated front entry door)will not be destroyed. No significant character defining architectural details will be removed or obscured. The inappropriate aluminum siding will be removed and replaced with wood lap siding—however, the application does not address the original wall cladding, which may be preserved underneath the aluminum siding. The best practice would be to repair rather than replace the old wood siding; but if new siding is necessary, the replacement material should duplicate the original clapboards as closely as possible. The proposed rear addition, new front entry, and composition shingle roofing will not alter the essential character of the house. The project narrative discusses the owners' desire to modify the stylistic details of the facade to make the house more compatible with other houses in the district. Colonial Revival was one of the dominant architectural styles for homes built in the district between 1924 and 1944, but the term refers to several different house forms. Most Colonial Revival houses in Country Club are variations on the Georgian colonial house prototype, but the district also includes examples of houses influenced by other popular "colonial" styles such as Cape Cod, Adam, and Spanish Colonial. This particular house exhibits design traits more characteristic of Midcentury Modern than Period Revival domestic architecture—many architectural historians would classify it as an example of the "Contractor Modern" style, which first made its appearance during the mid-1930s. The "garrison saltbox" form (distinguished by its second-floor overhang) was a popular contractor-built suburban tract house form that rapidly gained acceptance after the establishment of national house building standards in 1934—the style became extremely popular nationwide after the Second World War. In the context of Country Club, we refer to these as "Neocolonial" houses. The typical neocolonial house is not as picturesque as a traditional Colonial Revival house. Only a relatively small proportion of the Colonial Revival houses in the Country Club District are identifiable as neocolonial houses. 2 H-14-11 4901 Bruce Ave. The applicant proposes to slightly alter the architectural character of the façade to create a more picturesque appearance—in other words, to make the house more closely resemble Country Club colonials built in the 1920s. One of the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation recommends against alterations "which seek to create an earlier appearance"; however, I believe the proposed facade changes do not rise to the level of a fundamental change to the architectural character of the house. The house is not architecturally significant; none of the distinguishing original design qualities of the house will be lost as a result of the proposed renovation; and its association with Thorpe's original plan of development (including the design controls incorporated in the original covenants) will be preserved intact. Therefore, I recommend approval of the COA. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Staff concurs with Mr. Vogel's evaluation and also recommends approval of the COA request. The recommendation is subject to the plans presented. Findings supporting the approval recommendation include: • The proposed renovation project will reverse the adverse effects of physical deterioration as well as previous remodeling work while preserving those architectural elements which are important to the house's historic character. • No significant historic architectural features or fabric of the home will be destroyed. • The proposed alterations are compatible with the historic character of the house. • • The plans provided clearly illustrate the scale and 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. 3 4901 Bruce Avenue,Edina 4901 Bruce Avenue is a colonial style home built in 1934. The house is in disrepair and need of updating. We intend to restore the house in line with traditional colonial homes as detailed below. Remodel History We do not believe that 4901 Bruce has been updated for several decades. The home has old aluminum siding, the windows are original and in disrepair, and we are unaware of any additions to the home. We believe the kitchen was remodeled in the 1970s or 1980s, and the three season porch in the southwest corner of the house was converted into a makeshift den (circa 1960s). Summary We are proposing to update our home's exterior in a manner consistent with colonial style houses, add a modest addition (12 feet by 20 feet) off the back of the house, and include additional living space above the attached garage. We will also replace the existing aluminum siding with cedar wood siding, the original windows with Marvin windows, and the stained grey asphalt shingles with architectural shingles from Timberline. Proposal Front Façade: We believe that the front façade of our house looks more like a home built in the 1960's than a charming home from 1930's. We are proposing to remove the partial brick façade that surrounds the front entrance and build a covered front entrance with wood fluted columns and crown molding to give depth and character to the home while protecting visitors from the elements. Side-Street Façade: The north side of the home borders Country Club Road. We propose to extend the back of the home 12 feet to the east, and fill that space with a side door entrance to the house with a covered stoop. The stoop will tie into the garage to give the space a more purposeful look and the side door will allow easy access into the newly created mudroom. The garage will remain attached, but will shift 12 feet to the east. We will also add living space over the attached garage, which will allow us to minimize the expansion of the home's footprint while maximizing the size of the yard where our children play. Although the front façade of the house has and will continue to have shutters (and the current side street façade has shutters), we have decided to not add shutters to the side-street façade of our home. Instead, we will install traditional decorative trim around each window. We believe that maintaining symmetry with the windows on the side street facade of our house outweighs the benefits of shutters. We considered including shutters to the extent possible, but realized several windows would only have one shutter. Since shutters were originally installed DOCS-#4368976-v1 to protect the windows from the elements, we believe it would look out of place to have shutters on only one side of a window. We also considered including shutters on the existing portion of the house to differentiate the original home from the addition. However, we concluded that the banding in the center of the home, together with the roofline change, clearly indicated where the original home ended and the addition began. In addition,we thought that having shutters on half of the side street facade looks incomplete and off-balance as if we had forgotten to finish the job. Since many colonial style homes do not have shutters of their side street facade, including many of the corner-lot houses in the Country Club neighborhood of Edina, we concluded that we were not running afoul of the historical nature of the district by including shutters in the front but not the side of the house. Exterior Materials: Currently, the exterior of the home is covered with aluminum siding, original windows, and a faded and stained flat asphalt shingle roof. All are in disrepair. We will be replacing the aluminum siding with cedar siding that will bring the home back to its original state from the 1930's. The faded and stained flat asphalt shingles will be replaced with an architectural grade shingle from Timberline. We will also replace all windows in the house. Most windows will be replaced with Integrity double hung windows by Marvin. When necessary to comply with egress window requirements, Integrity casement windows will be used. We note, however, that these casement windows will mimic the style of the Marvin double hung windows and there will be no noticeable difference when viewing the house from Bruce Avenue or Country Club Road. Finally, we will replace the garage door with a carriage style door. Conclusion Upon completion of the project, we believe that we will have restored a tired house in disrepair into a charming traditional colonial home with the use of high-quality materials and classical finishes while adding a modest amount of additional space for our family. We welcome any questions you have regarding our project. Inventory List • Windows — Remove original windows and replace with Marvin Integrity Double Hung or Casement, as applicable • Shutters—Replace original front facade shutters with similar louvered shutters • New Siding—Remove aluminum siding and replace with Horizontal Lap, Cedar • New Shingles — Remove aged flat asphalt shingles and replace with Architectural Shingles from Timberline • New Custom Door Entrance and Columns from Spectis • New Flat Board Banding the mid-section of home, tying into fascia board • New Side Entrance Door—Traditional Style from Scherer Brothers • • Garage Door—Traditional Style carriage door from Twin Cities Garage Door • Front Door—Traditional Style from Scherer Brothers DOCS-#4368976-v1 . O z 1888 CASE NUMBER n _ a""" f DATE r —k,(� FEE ;`,' _" Planning Department 4801 West Fiftieth Street* Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0462 FAX (952) 826-0389 APPLICATION FOR: EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK $600.00 FEE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS $1,200 new house APPLICANT: NAME: Mark and Kristina Dietzen ADDRESS: 4901 Bruce Avenue PHONE: 651 334 4137 (cell) PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: Mark and Kristina Dietzen ADDRESS: 4901 Bruce Avenue PHONE: 651 334 4137 (cell) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Single Family Detached Home PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4901 Bruce Avenue PRESENT ZONING: Residential P.I.D.# 18-028-24-13-0139 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Addition and Remodel with side and front façade changes. Master suite addition over the garage. See full narrative for more detail. (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) IS A VARIANCE REQUIRED: n YES ® NO ARCHITECT: NAME: Dennis Rusinko PHONE: 612 789 2272 SURVEYOR: NAME: Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors PHONE: 952 469 4328 Property Owner's signature (©ate) Applicant's Signature '(Date) Report Name: City of Edina Printed: 10/23/2014 PropSumm_Public Page: 2 Public Property Summary This information is a summary of available data and is not guaranteed to be complete or accurate. 't, fs., T.S. '-'1; , -I .4I i 00_ r >"` } i;J -.. ...--, -. -,..\O.: -,'".:1' ,_ � : t I = ti 14A ''`�'� � _ gal _ _ `x11I T ip. _IL 1 . L t . ipi e i art,ce_e_. avein-La___-. Patio Area a Garage N DeCW1/B 9.0/ 20.0' 11.0' 0 0 2IB a N 1/0 c 38.0' 2nd flr OH 18-028-24-13-0139 Sketch by Ppex IV'm Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Hennepin interactive Property , Maps Map ��+�jj d1 i„,„ t,ftt / is iL p. r ,. , - �. . �: " +' .� ,per+ _ _--d t y` . # #. ""�� a r ..� • " .t s. I ,•••••••• .1' o-�°;ter, F •rF 4 Y � � ' s i � ,� � ,,..".< , l - s - — — S � , t ��g +{ { fes. ,xe a� i £i < rt • ��pL t' '� F + " ( A. •yrs > . 'wtr r ..� �,A_ I i. t. 'ss� T: 1� r,e. tF .` l an ._ � ,'t i� . w . 4 '.; - . AV' . mss'� .r � *4 t 'v* i �' r ; '� S� 1,.,P i r Parcel 18-028-24-13-0139 A-T-B: Map Scale: 1"=50 ft. N ID: Print Date: 10/23/2014 Owner Mark C&Kristina M Dietzen Market Name: Total: Parcel 4901 Bruce Ave Tax Address: Edina,MN 55424 Total: Property Residential Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished"AS IS"with no Home- Homestead Salerepresentation or warranty expressed or Stead: Date: implrepried,including fitness of any particular purpose,merchantability,or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.23 acres Sale Area: 9,814 sq ft Code: COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Tai ink Green! http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=473 495.06745 00009,4973440.93195... 10/23/2014 CITY OF EDINA MEMO Community Development Department-Planning Division 4 ��1L A • Phone 952-826-0369• Fax 952-826-0389•www.EdinaMN.gov pra.131 tti \E:26 ELtyj •'�UA�e�A1� To: HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD cc: From: Joyce Repya, Senior Planner Date: November 10, 2014 Subject: 4505 Arden Avenue - Construction Update A Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for 4505 Arden Avenue on March 11, 2014. The application included the following activities and was subject to the plans dated 3-4-14: • Building a new detached garage • Converting the attached garage to living space; and rebuilding the substandard rear addition • Changes to the street facing façade of the home. As the project commenced, major problems with the existing foundation became apparent warranting an evaluation by a structural engineer and David Fisher,the city's chief building official—both agreed that "The foundation walls were not in acceptable condition,were inadequately constructed and were performing poorly"; consequently, Mr. Fisher determined that the footing and foundation needed to be replaced due to the deficiencies. You will recall that in 2010,Steve Kirchman,the chief building official evaluated a structural engineer's report and determined that"I do have concerns about the structural integrity of the foundation , but I don't know the extent of damage to the foundation at 4505 Arden Avenue."The most recent engineer's report dated October 7, 2014, provided more definitive information regarding the inadequacy of the foundation that substantiated Mr. Kirchman's concerns. The change in building process was not referred back to the HPB for consideration because the building plans for the home have not changed, and life-safety issues are not subject to HPB approval -this was a collaborative decision between the chief building official, community development director, Planner Repya and Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel. This project would have been referred back to the HPB if the plans for the house had changed, but that is not the case. The building permit for the new home is subject to the plans approved by the HPB. From the onset,this project has been required to follow the more stringent procedures for a tear-down as outlined in the city's new"Construction Management Plan" (CMP) because the addition that was being demolished comprised more than 50%of the home's wall & roof area. The CMP required notification and I a meeting with interested neighbors within 300 feet of the property,signage identifying the project with telephone numbers as well as more restrictive times for construction activity. Mr. Busyn also installed his company sign which is allowed. City of Edina • 4801 W.506 St. • Edina, MN 55424 F 1 f C'S(121 )1-t‘4 •INc�ieee�'T� Ea October 14, 2014 City ofdin Great Neighborhood Homes Attn: Scott Busyn 3939 West 50th Street Suite 103A Edina, MN 55424 RE: 4505 Arden Avenue, Edina MN and the structural deficiency of the distressed CMU foundation On October 13, 2014, I reviewed a memorandum dated January 11, 2010, from Steve A. Kirchman, Chief Building Official. The memorandum said, there were many structurally deficient components that would not meet today's building code. Mr. Kirchman had some concern about the foundation's structural integrity in 2010, but there was not enough evidence. I also, reviewed the structural report you provided from the Hanson Group, Nick Hanson, Professional Engineer dated October 7, 2014. The report stated: "It is our professional engineering opinion that the existing exposed foundation walls noted at the site visit of the single family residence are not in acceptable condition, were inadequately constructed, and are performing poorly." Mr. Hanson goes on to recommend full replacement of the foot and foundation of the home. On October 14, 2014, I visited the site and made the same conclusions that the structural engineer made. The footing and foundation need to be replaced due to the deficiencies. A copy of Mr. Kirchman CBO memorandum and Mr. Hanson PE are attached for reference. If there are any questions please contact me by email at Dfisher(a�Edina.gov or by phone at 952-826-0450. Sincerely, David Fisher Chief Building Official City of Edina City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379 • , ME HANSON GWSaugural evneent." I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report October 7, 2014 was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the St to f flesot . r itt Great Neighborhood Homes Nick Hanson Date: 10-7-14 3939 West 50th Street Suite 103A Minnesota Registration No.46665 Edina, MN 55424 Attn: Scott Busyn Subject: Distressed CMU Foundation Assessment 4505 Arden Avenue, Edina, MN Hanson Group Project:4.326 To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a structural engineering review of distressed foundation walls at the above address. ASSIGNMENT The Hanson Group has been retained to provide a structural engineering assessment of the distressed condition of masonry foundation walls of a single family residence at 4505 Arden Avenue in Edina, MN, as directed by Scott Busyn of Great Neighborhood Homes. BACKGROUND The above referenced home is currently under demolition for the planned remodel. A city Building Official reviewed the exposed interior foundation walls prior to construction finding no major damage. During removal of backfill at the front foundation wall, the Builder uncovered unexpected construction techniques and concerning conditions. The Builder is requesting that an independent structural engineer assess the condition of the area and comment on the foundation system. DESCRIPTION The house is a two-story single family home with a full basement and an attached garage at the rear of the home. The foundation walls are constructed of concrete masonry blocks (CMU) and the above grade construction is wood framed. Great Neighborhood Homes Hanson Group Project:4.326 October 7,2014 Page 2 OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS 1. The following information was obtained through a site visit on October 2, 2014 by Nick Hanson, PE of The Hanson Group. The following is noted: a. The site visit included visual observations of the interior and exterior exposed front masonry foundation wall. b. The house was originally built in the 1930s, according to the Builder. c. The front wall was constructed of 7'-6"tall CMU blocks in running bond pattern. The units were approximately 6"tall x 12" deep x 24"wide. d. The front interior exposed walls had some minor cracking at the interior locations of the front stoop. The mortar joints were fairly loose and could be penetrated with a screwdriver by hand up to 1"with little effort. e. The individual units appeared relatively solid from the interior as noted with limited sounding techniques. The wall appeared to be rotated in at the top. The main level wall appeared to be down significantly from the interior bearing supports. The wall showed signs of significant water damage and efflorescence throughout the wall. f. The front right portion of the basement was covered in a mortar skim-coating that was fairly hollow sounding as noted with limited sounding techniques. The lower portion of the wall in this area was bumped inward approximately 6". g. The floor joists span left-to-right(parallel) along this front wall and no blocking was noted at the front foundation wall. h. The left foundation wall was not exposed from the exterior. This section of foundation wall had two separate metal window wells and a stairway running alongside the wall accessing the main level. The exterior grade along the front wall had been removed exposing the foundation wall along this section of the structure. j. The foundation wall at the front wall toward the right side had offset blocks approximately 6"inward in the bottom 4'-0" of the wall. k. The right side of the front foundation wall had no footing beneath the CMU blocks. The middle and left section of the front foundation wall had 12" CMU blocks that were rotated 90 degrees from the foundation wall and dry-stacked beneath the wall. The rotated blocks had extensive offsets to the touch and did not appear to be wet-set or solidly grouted. I. The mortar joints between individual units could not be easily seen and we covered with a significant amount of backfill. A screwdriver was easily penetrated into the mortar joints by hand up to 21/2" with little effort. Other areas could be seen direction through the mortar joints. 2. The following information is noted in regard to the above observed conditions: a. A foundation wall of this nature is intended to span vertically from top to bottom to resist the lateral soil pressures at the exterior. The foundation wall in question was designed to be supported by the wood floor system at the top and concrete slab- on-grade at the bottom. The front foundation wall appears to have never had an Great Neighborhood Homes Hanson Group Project:4.326 October 7,2014 Page 3 adequate top-of-wall support. No blocking within the floor system appears to have ever been installed. The left foundation wall has two separate window wells and a parallel stairway with no adequate top-of-wall support system. These conditions appear to have allowed the foundation wall to rotate inward. b. A concrete strip footing is intended to support the vertical loads of the supported structure above. The right side of the front foundation wall does not appear to have any type of strip footing present. The middle and left side of the front foundation wall appear to have an inadequately installed and poorly performing footing system. Significant movement or settlement of the foundation wall is evident by the main level floor unevenness along the front foundation wall. The concrete strip footing is not present and/or does not appear to be performing its intended function. The soils beneath the footings appeared to be loose, wet, and questionable for suitability of bearing capacity. c. The offsetting foundation wall construction and significantly deteriorated mortar joint is inadequately constructed and significantly deteriorated to the point of replacement. The foundation walls do not appear to be performing their intended function and should be replaced. d. The foundation walls appear to continually have water seepage and damage that jeopardized the mortar joints. Minimal investigation of the exterior mortar joints by hand reveal a significant amount of material degradation and structural inadequacy. PROFESSIONAL OPINION 3. It is our professional engineering opinion that the existing exposed foundation walls noted at the site visit of the single family residence are not in acceptable condition, were inadequately constructed, and are performing poorly. The Hanson Group recommends full replacement to adequately resist the vertical and lateral loads required. Though the interior of the foundation walls did not disclose any major alarming conditions,the exposing of the exterior of the front foundation wall revealed the lack of a continuous footing, inadequate construction of footings, significant mortar deterioration, water damage, concerning offset foundation wall construction, and rotated/settling foundation walls. GENERAL 4. The observations and opinions expressed in this report are based on our professional engineering judgment and professional practice, as well as limited visual observations of exposed materials only. No testing or removal of materials was performed to determine physical condition and state of structural foundation components, nor compliance with the present Building Code. Contact The Hanson Group should evidence contrary to the above observations and findings noted be found during construction. 5. No other engineering was performed or requested for this project. This document pertains to the general structural assessment and condition of the exposed existing foundation system at the exposed foundation walls only. All inspections are to be conducted by City Building Officials or licensed structural engineers. Geotechnical engineering examination of the soils is recommended. Structural design is not part of this report. All waterproofing, as well as means Great Neighborhood Homes Hanson Group Project:4.326 October 7,2014 Page 4 and methods of application, are the responsibility of the owner and/or contractor. This report is limited to the foundation elements exposed only and no destructive testing was conducted or requested. 6. All construction is assumed to be in accordance with this document, standard industry practice, and the requirements of the Code unless further information is supplied by the contractor or City inspector regarding the construction of the foundation system. 7. The conclusions are based on preliminary and limited examination and analysis. We reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these findings and/or opinions should new information become available. Concealed discrepancies and/or defects limit the accuracy and scope of this report. No warranty, either expressed or implied,for any portion of the structure is given. If you have any questions,please contact us. Sincerely, The Hanson Group tj / Nick Hanson, PE Attachment: Picture of Front Exterior Foundation Wall • r; -,,,,i..;.-..''''': • .... ... , . . .... . . , „• • , _, ,..,....:.4 4: + ,< A 01 7 • y w a Fs . Y -' 'fit zf q F # 5JCl /t • 1 ... , -4.,, 3t ';',..5.:,'...:. M, d" ��Qk x` qi� ..,,4,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,:,,, ..,_ .,,,.,..,,.....,:-4.4„,,..,_.- -- , . ,- , . . .,,,,,,i,,,,,--,7,,,,,, -. : , ,,,:;-...,,,,,„.,, ,,,,,....;-„,..," , ;,...,.. X rt.,-.,'`.;,,,,,',„;71'..%,,, 1p� ,..*.e.:',.'..,''';'.‘:;'.,' x ,+'�.€ .t„.•',;;,, ' k i 7w w }lid *F �` e 'IT/4'4,` a a d ,, , ,y ,- g. t � v r Sk f• M 'u ( Ys e-11.''''''," SH t. 'j#• .F dd yi -'F ' #yF € '.':'....',,'°-° �. .�A ¢ � r 3 tkYY 41, �''�ryiM ° a '�� i '�,f a+'R p�q y � t'S R ► s x,'�. Ps 4 ♦ �' ` # � .�p4i , ' { .e is . tt .. a, ` e` " ' N 1 s .y� -; mow. _ � . i.. x w , a iq a *o. ,,,,,g, �x wr 'rte '#"* < tp ', '�` .iM" ^x�.. ,.a;. 'baa v x• e" , " x p r� ok :W • V R ., MEMORANDUM TO: Joyce Repya,Associate Planner FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Chief Building Official DATE: January 11,2010 SUBJECT: 4505 Arden Ave I've reviewed the BEM report dated 11/23/09,the Larson Associates,Inc letter dated December 10,2009 and the letter with attachments from Scott Busyn dated January 11,2010,regarding their inspections of the home on 4505 Arden Ave. Based on the information submitted and reviewed,I agree there are numerous components of the dwelling requiring repair or replacement;there are some components which are structurally deficient and there are numerous building code violations. However,most,if not all, structures constructed in the early 1900s require repair or replacement of many building components;most,if not all,dwelling structures constructed • in the early 1900s would be judged to contain some structurally deficient elements and most,if not all, dwelling structures constructed in the early 1900s don't meet many other requirements of current building codes. Rehabilitation of the dwelling will require demolition of a great deal of the existing home,but is possible. I do have concerns about the structural integrity of the foundation.Most residential dwelling foundations are over-designed and a limited amount of deterioration is not structurally significant,but I don't know the extent of damage to the foundation at 4505 Arden Ave. I do not believe evidence has been presented to render a judgment the home is unsafe or uninhabitable. Macintosh HD:private:var:folders:39:06zw0rzx7cv922gsvnpjmr7r0000gn:T:com.apple.mail:com.apple.mail:compose: attach:Building Official's Evaluation 1-11-2010 (2) .doc City of Edina q � � Permit Type: ;.�utt�ling 4801 50th St West , Permit Number: ED133932Edina,MN 55424 • *ED133932* 952-826-0372 �'� �• a+ ).1 O www.ci.edina.nm.us v ..� Date Issued: 09/30/2014 • Ztvsr- Site Address: 4505 Arden Ave Lot: 002 Block: 002 Addition: Country Club District Fairway Section PID: 18-028-24-12-0016 ••: Use: Description: • Sub Type: Single Family Detached(101or434) Construction Type: Work Type: Other Demolition(645-649) Description: DEMO HOME Census Code: - Occupancy: Zoning: Square Feet: 0 • Comments: Fee Summary: Description Amount Revenue Code I Demolition-Flat $1,500.00 4111 Valuation: 5,000.00 Demolition Escrow $2,500.00 1495.4109 Surcharge $0.50 4380 Total: $4,000.50 Contractor: - Applicant - Owner: GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES 15L St.Lic: BC521688 Timothy J Pronley 3939 W 50TH ST 4505 Arden Ave STE 103A Edina MN 55424 Edina MN 55424 (952)807-8765 I have read the information contained herein and certified it to be correct. I agree to do the proposed work in accordance with the approved plans,the Edina City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code and/or Minnesota State Fire Code. im'`'1�.. rO 1e *Mft . � , PERMIT NUMBER �.�A� CITY OF EDINA �, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, I �, oid,.) Q12 . Building Inspections Department For office use only ,® - y (952) 826-0372 FAX (952) 826-0389 TDD (952) 826-0379 v A www.ci.edina.mn.us /30�_ r •f�c.„DtlB a�9• QIAr t, I DEMOLITION / MOVING PERMIT S�-p `/1/c- ¢ PRINT OR TYPE APPLICATION CM... d all Site InformatiY5-0-5- n / ���rj�f Address �5_®-5- 4 c� nit-ell v�- /Suite/UUnit Number _ Lot 2-- Block �- Subdivision ��� � 7 /✓�5 � f"'; 1.1141.4.7 Tenant/Building name -*c- 7,cd-‘ Erimolition Description (Move Description Proposed starting date 2/ '/'!' Completion Date ['Single Family Detached 03&4 Family Residential ❑ Industrial Building ❑ Public School ❑Single Family Attached 05&More Residential ❑ Hospital/ Retail Store ❑ Private School ❑Residential Garage ❑ Restaurant ❑ Church/Religious Bldg ❑ Hotel/Motel ❑Residential Addition/Porch ❑ Office/Bank/Professional ❑ Pools ❑ Other Demolition ['Residential Deck/Shed ❑ Office/Warehouse ❑ Other Nonresidential Bldg ❑Recreation/Amusement Additional Description Valuation 15_7Applicant is ❑Owner contractor (moving permit cost is$212.00) Contractor Infonation L ' ` S.2/6 F� Company name itf / 4,w 4 UG./ / 25 MN Contractors License# Address 39t7cj t4ie5- 51 -`.-A k / 74 City C`Y i c State 41/V Zip ,S'S`4JL�f Contact person name .51-o Tr- iiks i'1 Phone ll p Ce11952- �? ?65 Pgr Fax Email SC67%' - 9K�e' e �j�1cii/ II ouk lic.)44 f, Col,c Owner Information iQ�' �r l� Name jo...,, //4;c 4 e _ 5 Address '/Sd S irDieL, ,cli-c City Cil i ti 41 State,474/ Zip 5S 72 Phone Cell Email r' Moving Permit Requirements ❑ Destination of structure Move date ❑ Attach map and description of moving route ❑ Survey with grade elevations at each lot corner,grade elevations at each corner of the existing foundation, elevation at top of entry floor. CONDITION OF PERMIT: Property must be restored within 30 days of building move-utilities I abandoned at the property line with a permit, foundation demolished with a separate permit, debris removed, demolition excavation filled to match adjacent grade and seed or sod placed and maintained Contractor Owner at disturbed areas. OR A permit must be issued for a new structure within 30 days of the building Initial Initial move. (6,„11,--- c eor,,i . ,:i(i r Demolition Permit Requirements ®Sewer and Water disconnected. Permit number Approved by Date _ ❑ Fire Dept burning permit if applicable. Permit Number Approved by Date ECl/Survey with grade elevations at each lot corner, grade elevations at each corner of the existing foundation, elevation at top of entry floor. ❑Metropolitan Council Environmental Services SAC credit determination required for commercial demolition OR Owner letter acknowledging their understanding that SAC credits will be denied if credit determination not received in the same calendar year the demolition permit is issued. CONDITION OF PERMIT: Property must be restored within 30 days of building move—utilities it;v' abandoned at the property line with a permit, foundation demolished with a separate permit, debris removed, demolition excavation filled to match adjacent grade and seed or sod placed and Contractor Owner maintained at disturbed areas. OR A permit must be issued for a new structure within 30 days of the Initial Initial building move. Applicant Signature I hereby apply for a permit and attest to the following: F All information on this application is complete and accurate. • All work will comply with Conditions of Permit, Edina City Code and Minnesota State Building Code. • I understand this is an application only, not a permit. Work will not start without an approved permit. City of Edina when approvedplans arerequired. work will be done according to plans approved by the C ty pp requt ed. • Erosion and s-. •-nt control,whpplicable, will be installed before starting wor . Applicant's signature „or-, Date Z'9 Applicant's printed or yped name Com_ Owner/Applicant Statement- To be completed only when the homeowner is the permit applicant I understand the State of Minnesota requires residential contractors,residential remodelers and residential roofers be licensed to work in the State unless they qualify for a specific exemption from the licensing requirements. By signing this statement, I certify that I am building or improving this dwelling myself. I claim to be exempt from state licensing requirements because I am not in the business of building on speculation or for resale. I certify I have not built or improved any other residential structures in the State within the past twelve months. I also acknowledge that,because I do not have a state license,I forfeit any mechanic's lien rights to which I may otherwise have been entitled under MS 514.01. I further acknowledge I may be hiring independent contractors to perform certain aspects of the improvements on this dwelling,and I understand some of these contractors may be required to be licensed by the State. I understand unlicensed residential contracting,residential remodeling and residential roofing activity is a misdemeanor under Minnesota law,and I forfeit my rights to reimbursement from the Contractors Recovery Fund in the event any contractors hire are unlicensed. Homeowner's signature Date Homeowner's typed or printed name Contact the Minnesota Department of Commerce,Enforcement Division to determine if a contractor is licensed or exempt or to check on contractor status. Metro:(651)296-2594,Outstate:1 (800)657-3602,www.commerce.state.mn.us/mainbc.htm Approvals for office use only Fees for office use only Building I spe tions Dept _ / Fixed permit fee Yes ❑No By Date t // Permit fee(by va ue) ❑Yes ❑No By pt 74 I`f State surcharge Oyes ❑No y V Date Engineering Dept Investigation fee ['Yes ❑No By Date Fire Dept 4,00 acv By Date Police Dept By Date G:\Forms\Applications\appl-D EMO012309 16Xt1 CUSTOM HOMES I RENOVATIONS I INTERIOR DESIGN September 1st,2014 by, ,fi��T�1h T Dear Arden Avenue Neighbors, •', Our company,Great Neighborhood Homes,will be renovating the home at 4505 Arden Avenue for Tim and Michele Pronley,current residents on the block. We are planning to remove the outdated addition on the rear of the home, renovate the existing home, and build a new detached garage.We will be doing some work to prepare the site for the demolition portion shortly. We feel it is a privilege to renovate and bring new life to this home on Arden Avenue. It is our goal to enhance Arden Avenue by leaving behind a well designed,quality home that fits the character and scale of homes on the block.Attached are the elevations of the proposed renovation. We completed a similar project at 4620 Moorland Avenue if you would like to see an example of one of our finished projects. I would like to share the complete plans and survey to the neighborhood and answer any questions you may have. I plan on being available on Wednesday, September 10th at 4505 Arden from 5:00 to 6:00 pm. I will have the full set of plans and survey to show at this meeting.If this time does not work for you please contact me directly at 952-807-8765 or at scott.busvn@comcast.net and we can schedule a time to meet individually. The project will commence within a few weeks and be completed by next spring.We will utilize signage to prevent parking issues. However, the initial stages of construction do require larger vehicles (cement trucks, backhoe trailers, etc.) for demolition and foundation work,and we appreciate your patience during these stages. During construction,we demand adherence to the City's Construction Management Plan as well as our company-specific rules by our subcontractors and suppliers: 1. Respect the neighborhood.Treat it like your own. 2. Stay off the neighbor's property. 3. Follow our parking rules,do not block the street,and do not turn around in neighbor's driveways. 4. Manage water drainage through all steps of project. 5. Clean the job site daily. 6. No loud music. 7. Watch out for kids at play. 8. Be safe and keep the job site safe for the neighborhood. We appreciate the opportunity to breathe new life into this old home on Arden Avenue.Please feel free to call anytime with questions or concerns at 952-807-8765 or email me at scott.busynWcomcast.net. Sincerely, Scott Busyn President GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES SCOTT BUSYN 3939 West 50th Street,Suite 103AEdina,MN 55424 MARGARET BUSYN (952)807-8765 rt•rtru.nivatn:.,bbo:'bemrlhorn1'2.01171 (952)807-8766 Scott.Busyn@comcast.ne[ t LICENSE t6C5216S8 MBusyn@comcast.net Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor 4500 Arden Avenue ® 4503 Arden Avenue 4507 Bruce Avenue Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 • Edina MN 55424 0 Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor 4502 Arden Avenue • 4507 Arden Avenue 4509 Bruce Avenue s Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 • Edina,MN 55424 Neighbor 1hcJ Vkink Neighbor Neighbor 4504 Arden Avenue 0 4509 Arden Avenue 451.1 Bruce Avenue • Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 TW L RettA s -11)1s Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor • 4506 Arden Avenue to 4511 Arden Avenue 4513 Bruce Avenue el Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor 4508 Arden Avenuce 4513 Arden Avenue • 4515 Bruce Avenue Edina,MN 55424 -� �tt Edina,.MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 • Ref Anbor 9510 ,lry'l.e Y, Neighbor Neighbor Ft.4 ;,“,L 4515 Arden Avenue • 4517 Bruce Avenue Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 • KA-1444-1'•,-e- 6i-15.e-L. tiSo s :-)c, Blvd. -Trerg:r or --- Neighbor Neighbor 4512 Arden Avenue 0 4517 Arden Avenue 0 4114 Sunnyside Road® Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Neighbor Neighbor Neighbor 4514 Arden Avenue $ 4501 Bruce Avenue * 4112 Suuniyside Road • Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Neighbor Neighbor * Neighbor 4516 Arden Avenue a 4503 Bruce Avenue 4110 Sunnyside Road Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 Neighbor. Neighbor Neighbor • 4501 Arden Avenue ® 4505 Bruce Avenue 4108 Sunnyside Road Edina,MN 55424 Edina,MN 55424 0 Edina,MN 55424 il ?Iroft.,It b K L! i S [wt3. P Y� " sr figs " } x L ,•-• ,„- "-4;'-i",:=1.; lf� I% t -- �`.•.{,1. V41. t 7.,.4 f 1,...; A :! 1 r� ... , _ , l ! t / 1 is Xx' - 4 �y,x? a"i fi s✓G-4.t t „ K t1 i f4, Ar...4,.,iy 0,,,,„. i . , . _. ,;,,,, ..„,..,... „..,...,‘ ,....„,„ , , . . .. ,.,. , ,..." . ,. 4 r„....,,,-,`"- ''', _r i1, 4 flr, a,,,,.._/ ///,,' P•W c v � � - l .1 - EUILD:NG DEPARTMENT SEP O 4 2014• PERMIT NO. IV- 412.59CITY OF EDINA ISSUED TO IhiI 1,' Jlichele Fronk FOR: :. R IaA) -- &N6LPE FA4IW HOC LOCATED AT: q�o5 AJ gdi,,4. By The Board of Managers of the MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 15320 NIINNETONKA BLVD., MINNETONKA, 1 55345 952.471.0590 Signature: ir#C. Title: D 8 3+ C.+ 7&.1, i C/41 PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: l iO i ' POST CONSPICUOUSLY AT PROJECT SITE FOR PROJECT DURATION OR A.MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS • Joyce Repya To: James Hovland Abject: RE: Letter to the Mayor and City Council on 4505 Arden Tear-Down Original Message `\61�t� ,f,� U, From:Jane Lonnquist [mailto:jjlonnquist@earthlink.net] (��U V� Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 9:45 AM 16. To: Edina Mail ? 3 Subject: Letter to the Mayor and City Council on 4505 Arden Tear-Down Dear Mayor and City Council, As a Country Club resident who worked closely with City staff, officials and neighbors to revise the Historic District's 2002 reconstruction rules into the current 2008 Plan of Treatment, I am very concerned about the process by which total demolition of 4505 Arden was approved. Of course city officials have the right and responsibility to condem unsafe buildings. But why did city staff decide to waive the 20-day notification period to the adjacent neighbors when they approved demolition of the historic facade? Neighbors had been told that the rear addition would be demolished and the historic facade would be rennovated. Why wasn't the Heritage Preservation Board informed of this change of plans as well?The haste and the silence are at odds with the clear and transparent process we worked hard to create. During the four-year quest by the builder to have this home demolished, City staff and the Heritage Preservation Board ised the 2008 rules to guide procedures and decisions.Then suddenly,the process went "off script" without input from the HPB or the adjacent neighbors.This sets a bad precedent for future adherence to the guidelines. It also leaves many residents feeling distrustful, once again, of the City's alliance with developers who seek profit, rather than residents who seek the preservation of this city asset. Thank you for reviewing the case of 4505 Arden. It sets an important precedent for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jane Lonnquist 4510 Drexel Avenue h: 952-926-3725 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3485/Virus Database:4031/8498- Release Date: 11/02/14 1 ' I ,. Joyce Repya From: Hancock Family <ktwj@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:58 PM To: Joyce Repya; Cindy Larson; Cary Teague Cc: jmellom@lawyer.com Subject: Re: 4505 Arden Avenue RENOVATION Hi Joyce- Thank you for letting me know that the new home planned for 4505 Arden will not change in any way and will keep with the HPB guidelines. Unfortunately the sign out in the front of the house said RENOVATION. The "RENOVATION " sign was in big red letters under the Great Neighborhood Homes promotional sign, for weeks! It was removed and replaced with another sign saying "SOLD" Other sites available" when the house was completely torn down. The poster board (in the picture you attached) said/meant Renovation (front of house) / Demolition (back of house). There was no indication of total Demolition. Going from Renovation to total Demolition (Tear down) overnight without any warning in this Country Club neighborhood, which as you know is Historically certified, is disgraceful and you have the whole neighborhood talking. Believe me it is getting around. Please inform the builder that he is not helping his reputation. Thank you for your time... Carol Original Message From: Joyce Repya <JRepya cr EdinaMN.gov> To: 'Hancock Family' <ktwiaol.com>; Cindy Larson <CLarson c(r7EdinaMN.gov>; CTeague <CTeaque(a,Edina.MN.gov> Cc:jmellom <jmellom(a�lawyer.com> Sent: Thu, Oct 30, 2014 12:58 pm Subject: RE: 4505 Arden Avenue RENOVATION Hi Carol— The City required this project comply with the requirements for a"demolition" via the Construction Management Plan because the home's old addition that was approved to be removed comprised more than 50% of the building area of the home. I have consulted with Cindy and we are in agreement that the building plans for the new home have not changed since the initial neighborhood meeting. Also, Cindy shared with me a copy of the required sign which does indicate a demolition/renovation (attached). Rest assured, the building plans approved by the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) have not changed. As the project commenced, problems with the existing foundation became apparent warranting an evaluation by a structural engineer and the city's chief building official—both agreed that the foundation needed to be replaced. This change in building process was not taken back to the HPB because the building plans have not changed, and life-safety issues are not subject to HPB approval. I hope I have answered your questions. Sincerely- 1 Joyce Repya, Senior Planner 952-826-0462 j Fax 952-826-0389 ([ 4801 W. 50th St. 1 Edina,MN 55424 JRepya@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning ...For Living,Learning,Raising Families & Doing Business From: Hancock Family [mailto:ktwj(c�aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 11:29 AM To: Cindy Larson; Joyce Repya; CTeaque(a Edina.MN.gov Cc: Edina Mail; jmellomlawyer.com Subject: 4505 Arden Avenue RENOVATION The builder directly violated#5 on this building document. See attached. No one was informed about the demolition of this house. No one! There was NEVER a sign out front saying Demolition. "RENOVATION"was what was advertised on the builder's sign ("false advertising")When the 4505 house was totally removed on Monday October 27 and there was a big hole in the ground by Tuesday October 28, the"RENOVATION" sign went down and a "SOLD" sign was put up. Shocking. Does this mean that the construction plans for the new house will change as well? Will it be larger?Wider? Will it stay within the Historical Preservation Rules and guidelines of the pre-existing Historically registered house that is now totally taken down to the ground..? Thank you for your answers...These complaints are not directed at the owners/and current neighbors of the tear down. Carol Hancock 4503 Arden Avenue 2 ... j ... r 111C it t� , Iff sr , 1 ' .„, , „. --„,„: .„,,,, .,.... \II. .iy j A''41. p >, x, • Y` !- ' + F y :1 Y r ..i r _ �' r - S Y 'rte: t. }h1 -,J e 44#,4,44, e - tel? rte. . > • it " , ,:11:4:-_i_,I...1 F % .7' / y • J f p. • J”..4-,,;',47,..., ri- vt + ',; , it. 7 . . w., ' ` y' QCµ3i4 "rF '44r s. A t t - .: k • Li' 4 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR (For Office Use Only) Project Name&Site Address Number QR Cade Permit Number The construction on this site will follow normal industry and City accepted construction methods for a project of this type. Specific items of concern will be addressed as noted below.Any references to start date or duration of specific items are estimated and included only for reference. Construction management plans can also be found at:www.EdinaMN.gov The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for complying with the below conditions. Signature of Contractor Date Site Contractor: Address: Phone: Email Address: The estimated construction start date is The estimated completion date is Sec. 10-I 10. Permit Requirements. Unless otherwise specifically provided the following are required for both demolition permits and building permits. Demolition and Building Permit are defined as follows: Demolition: The removal or destruction of more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the exterior walls of a single or two family dwelling unit. Building Permit: A permit to construct a new single or two family dwelling unit. (I) The applicant must furnish the City with a certificate of insurance evidencing the following required coverage: Commercial general liability, including XCU coverage: Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate products and completed operations Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability (owned, non-owned, hired): Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 each accident Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence l system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden storm water runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. Sec. 10-III. Permit Standards for Both Demolition Permits and Building Permits. (a) The permit holder must comply with the State Building Code,State Statutes and the City Code, including articles III,VI, VII and XVII of this Chapter. (b) Deliveries of equipment and material to the site, work crews on site and construction and demolition activity are prohibited except between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 7:00 p.m.Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.on Saturday. Work is prohibited on Sundays and Holidays. (c) The permit holder must repair any damage to public property, streets, and sidewalks. If damage occurs to the foregoing, it must be repaired within three (3) working days after the damage occurs, unless the permit holder has received written permission from the Building Official to delay repairs to a later specified date. (d) The permit holder must maintain a five-foot(5')parking setback from driveways and a thirty-foot(30')parking setback from intersections. When parking on a street,a vehicle must be completely located on the street surface,parallel to and within twelve (12) inches of the curb. Vehicles in violation of these requirements may be towed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes§ 1688.035. On street parking of equipment other than licensed motor vehicles is prohibited. Stopping, standing or parking a vehicle is prohibited, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device, in any of the following places: 1. On a boulevard between the sidewalk and roadway; 2. Within five(5)feet of the intersection of any public or private driveway or alley with any street or highway; 3. Where the vehicle will block a fire escape or the exit from any building; 4. Where temporary signs prohibit parking. Parking is allowed on local streets if a twelve-foot (I 2') wide area is open for the traveled portion of the road. On collector and arterial roadways, a minimum of twenty-two feet (22') must be open for the traveled portion of the road. Off-street and off-site parking for on site workers is required to the extent practicable. Police officers,community service officers,parking monitors and the Residential Redevelopment Coordinator of the City shall be responsible for enforcing the parking requirements and parking regulations of this Section. 3 Joyce Repya From: Cindy Larson Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:58 PM To: 'Miriam Stake' Cc: Joyce Repya Subject: RE: Arden tear down Hi Mimi, Thank you for sharing your concern with us. The building plans approved by the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB)for 4505 Arden Avenue have not changed.As the project commenced, problems with the existing foundation became apparent warranting an evaluation by a structural engineer and the city's chief building official—both agreed that the foundation needed to be replaced. This change in building process was not taken back to the HPB because the building plans have not changed, and life-safety issues are not subject to HPB approval. The City required this project comply with the requirements for a "demolition"via the Construction Management Plan because the home's old addition that was approved to be removed comprised more than 50%of the building area of the home. The building plans for the new home have not changed since the initial neighborhood meeting notification that was distributed to properties within 300'of the subject property. I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Cindy Larson, Residential Redevelopment Coordinator 952-833-9521 I Fax 952-826-0389 :P. 4801 W.50th St. Edina,MN 55424 CLarsonAEdinaMN.gov i www.EdinaMN.gov/Planninq ...For Living,Learning, Raising Families&Doing Business From: Miriam Stake [mailto:stakefarn(&gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:27 AM To: Cindy Larson Cc: Joyce Repya Subject: Arden tear down Dear Cindy, I am outraged that the builder on Arden was able to tear down a home that was specifically supposed to be a renovation without any discussion with neighbors and concerned citizens. As I understand it the foundation was not solid enough to do the work that they hoped. As I speak to other builder friends this is not standard procedure. This could have been determined earlier. The design needed to be redone to allow for the limitations to the foundation. How did this happen without contacting any neighbors? or put in front of the Preservation Cmte? What do we need to do to communicate better and prevent this sneaky approach to building in this area? Mimi Stake 1 4617 Edina Blvd 2 Joyce Repya To: Cary Teague Subject: RE: Home demolition at 4505 Arden Ave. From: Fittipaldi, Lisa [mailto:lisa.fittipaldiftuhg.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:55 AM To: James Hovland Subject: Home demolition at 4505 Arden Ave. Importance: High Dear Mayor Hovland, I was greatly disturbed to come home Monday and see that an historic home across the street from me was demolished. This home has come before the Preservation Board on several occasions and demotion was not approved at any time. As a neighbor across the street (kitty corner to the demolished home), I thought I would receive notice and a chance to be heard before the home was demolished. I feel that the processes and procedures in place were bypassed and I would like an explanation. The damage is irreparable. A 100 year old home no longer exists and that cannot be reversed. The neighborhood is changed forever. When this home first came up for demolition, I took my personal time to canvas the neighborhood and collect petition signatures to prevent demolition of this historic English Tudor. We gathered nearly 100 signatures against demotion and in favor of preserving the neighborhood's historic appeal. The Preservation Board had an objective independent structural assessment done for the home and it was determined that the home was structurally sound. It is imperative that these assessments are done by someone objective and not someone with a clear financial stake in the outcome. The Preservation Board voted NOT to destroy this home and further that the front façade of the home not be materially changed. Scott Busyn of Great Neighborhood Homes came before the Board again last year with plan to materially change the front façade of the home and those plans were approved. This alone is disturbing, but I was given notice of that hearing and the procedures in place were adhered to. So neighbors must live with those consequences. Imagine my surprise when I came home Monday and the home was destroyed. My understanding is that it was determined the foundation was not sound. The homes in this neighborhood were all built nearly 100 years ago. The foundation of that home is as sound as the foundation on all the homes in the surrounding streets. Faulty foundations can be repaired —that is called preservation. Moreover, it is quite possible that a builder can damage a foundation themselves in the process of remodeling. The answer to a damaged foundation needn't be demotion. I am concerned in addition, about the objectiveness of some of the members of the City. It seems to me that Mr. Busyn has a great deal of influence and personal relationships that may be influencing decisions. When a decision of this magnitude is made, a process must be followed and neighbors Should be given an opportunity to weigh in. 1 1 As I said, the harm is irreparable. Once an historic home is destroyed, there is no going back. Imagine how Boston or Philadelphia or Washington D.C. would look if they tore down every home that was old and needed renovation. The entire point of a preservation board is to repair and preserve. Edina has charm that Woodbury, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie do not. Yesterday a component of that charm gave way. The consequences are irreversible. A mockery has been made of the Preservation Board. I would like an explanation as to why the neighbors were not informed and also as to what independent objective review was in place to determine that the foundation could not be repaired. Thank you. Lisa This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. 2 Joyce Repya From: Joyce Repya Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:55 PM To: 'Jane Lonnquist' Subject: RE: 4505 Arden Signage The district's plan of treatment does not address signage on rehabilitation or tear-down projects. Usually,that is required as a condition of COA approval. However, because this project was required to follow the more stringent "procedures" for a tear-down which includes notification and a meeting with surrounding neighbors, signage identifying the project with telephone numbers as well as more restrictive times for construction activity, additional signage was not required. Mr. Busyn installed his company sign on his own. Yes, I will include your correspondence in the HPB's meeting packet. Joyce Repya, Senior Planner 4801 W.50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 952-826-0462 I Fax 952-826-0389 JRepya@EdinaMN.gov www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Original Message From:Jane Lonnquist [mailto:jjlonnquist@earthlink.net] Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:42 AM To:Joyce Repya Subject: RE: 4505 Arden Signage 111Thank you,Joyce. Does that mean the language on his signs is solely his decision? Can you please add this correspondense to the HPB's next meeting packet. I think it is an item worth flagging for their consideration. Thanks, Jane Original Message >From:Joyce Repya <JRepya@EdinaMN.gov> >Sent: Oct 28, 2014 10:34 AM >To: 'Jane Lonnquist' <jjlonnquist@earthlink.net> >Subject: RE: 4505 Arden Signage >Hi Jane- >Your request has been relayed to Mr. Busyn. >Joyce Repya, Senior Planner >4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 >952-826-0462 I Fax 952-826-0389 >JRepya@EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov/Planning...For Living, Learning, >Raising Families& Doing Business Original Message >From:Jane Lonnquist [mailto:jjlonnquist@earthlink.net] >Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:13 AM >To:Joyce Repya >Subject: 4505 Arden Signage 1 >Good morning,Joyce, >I see that 4505 Arden was demolished after all.Whatever the reasons that this was allowed, I am writing to request that the city asks Mr. Busyn to remove/change his two signs that label this project a "renovation."These should be quic' and easy changes for him to make: >1) remove the red "renovation" sign he hung underneath his normal >business stand and >2)tape over"renovation" on the new white sign announcing "Demolition/Renovation"or add "New Home Construction" in its place. >I feel very strongly that this developer should not be allowed to label his project in a way that is misleading to the public, self-serving to his business interests,and in direct conflict with a previous ruling of the Heritage Preservation Board.Specifically, his third approach to the HPB requested a "whole house renovation"that"removed and replaced all materials."The board correctly decided that he was actually asking for a demolition and new home construction. Since this is the end result, let's make sure it is labeled as such. Since this is only the second historic home torn down in the CCD since the new 2008 guidelines (the first being the Busyn's own home on Woodale), I think precedent is very important. >Thanks for your consideration,Joyce. >Jane Lonnquist 2 ''., 4' 414~. Y -f'i e , f" . ii., , • -44:. , ,, „.,,,tit, • • ,t C _ ,��,• ms-". • ash IMIM! .wrr ,�� • — .•Baca:a. V s -wHililii rill �. iFr s ... �--- - - ,,. ..: -"E:----;;;;,`,".--#' _._ we.' .a.c,...,....e .........-; _:.. _ .. =w -. 91 Wi__......---_. I •. wY�waux ..0. . r a -- s01Mo IIIIMOMMINein \ � I r• . NOMMINIMINOMti ` lallivr:7,-' 27 .1.-=. ,rrr ' s • JI _- ' 1h : r +r✓A rt• „iii N, .',. ll' •:'�. ,11 !,,-"-it,:: `f ,r: - yj r j Y Lr _a Y 40"41.4Wilailikt ft Drawing Index FOR CERTIFICATEOFAPPROPRIATENESS, CITY OF EDINA DESIGN ,.7 , � r i "'R" architecture+interiors G101 COVER SHEET, PROJECT IMAGES v44. n;,. ,-*: ptt, _• _� 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W ;. .; r� SITE PLAN MINNETONKA, MN 55305 kl. _._.__..__ G102 952.300.2240 TEL '• ` t SURVEY rt-design.com - L "` A100 BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN "+. Y 4523 f A101 FIRST FLOOR PLAN f 0. ,-• - • : ���� A102 SECOND FLOOR PLAN ® i A103 ROOF PLAN t3 t. �' _ 1 t_` hz , i �'- ��.rI♦ I A201 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION '� �;r`,: -- - `` �. i II� A202 EXTERIOR ELEVATION „w � A203 EXTERIOR ELEVATION , '` T . .._ _ . '.- A204 GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS STREET VIEW OF HOME STREET VIEW OF HOME, ENLARGED y.. ' y •,i :e , '7,;!--. -4' aft- ' - i" i; .: • ' t o` t s� \ ?i !t !, ! emodeIR .i = r_, s fi ., T�i x h +�- � 4524 Drexel Ave �� �� ;. - _" �� x :' - _< �` '` Edina, MN 55424 z , �`__ — \ p -.""..rte- G- ^i v r. _Sy-..:::::,;',„1:. r x?;y�' 1611111111111111110111116 --- 4 � 1 .A� • . i • I .Y Cover ,x. M -� - .. Sheet :I ! _ ,,- :letilii —ii- II s -It ,,_______ ._____ i - -� i r` 4 .. .. z T t, I -- --. • { �� • Date: 10/15/14 I� �_ — 1 1`1 F _ . , --------- , 1 _- `-; � Drawn by: RBT I ,,>;r - -- ��`1 Reviewed by RBT i �, - Issue dates: 5 -s . , = T`� - - EDINA 10/15/14 WEST (REAR) AND SOUTH SIDE VIEW NORTH SIDE VIEW SOUTH SIDE OF GARAGE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ADDITION G1 GARAGE HEIGHT MAX 17'-1" DESIGN . NEW GABLE VENT _ NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING architecture 4- interiors FACIA MIRATEC, ME 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W NEW HARDI LAPSIDING TEL 952 TONKA,MN 55305 TEL 952-300-2240 ....'% CORNER MIRATEC TRIM, ME rt-design.com ir MIDPOINT OF ROOF 12'-5" II Ill o NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING ��UI 1 FACIA MIRATEC, ME ,u 'l IJ l 1111 11 NEW HARDI LAPSIDING U U II_ IJ CERTIFICATE OF - NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH -\--- — — — —EXISTING-HOME — — — — — — — APPROPRIATENESS i ;11FEEH I Project 0 Burnett! Rummel Remodel 4524 Drexel Ave. Edina, MN 55424 / NORTH ELEVATION OF GARAGE 2 WEST ELEVATION OF GARAGE I¢ A204 "IFm-- 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A204 SCALE: 1/4 kt 3'-6 I Architect's Stamp I " k I hereby certify that this plan,specificatic GARAGE HEIGHT MAX 17'-1" ® — report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly Licensed NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING Architect under the laws of the the State of FACIA MIRATEC, ME ROOF SLOPE MATCHES Minnesota. EXISTING HOME SLOPE Ryan B.Thuftedal,AIA NEW HARDI LAPSIDING Signature CORNER MIRATEC TRIM, ME License#44757 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 9 I MIDPOINT OF ROOF 12'-5" iuL 1 11 11 L SMALL GREEK CORNER 12 NEW GARAGE 1 II J_I 10 11 IJ U LI TO MATCH EXISTING / ELEVATIONS dil u 11111111 NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING �J11J uJ1 / — — scale= 114"= 1'-0" FACIA MIRATEC, ME LID 1�I I 11-d1LJII U11 111 1J NEW HARDI LAPSIDING date: 10/15/2014 SD review SET 8/14/14 DD review 9/12/2014 CD review 9/30/14 `- i —o CITY EDINA COA 10/15/14 — 1 i\ ] I I NEW GARAGE DOORS 3 SOUTH ELEVATION OF GARAGE J1 5,1 4 EAST ELEVATION OF GARAGE sheet A 204 A204 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" A204 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 rt design LLC 2014-2015 NEWNEW LOW SLOPE ROOF SHINGLE ROOF rin DESIGN architecture + interiors 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W � MINNETONKA,MN 55305 mid TEL 952-300-2240 II III III II III II II ""\� -, I TIE NEW ROOF INTO 9 rt-design.com ml EXISTING 2 ROWS ICE AND WATER TO HERE 12 6.5 -nil12 VAULTED CEILING 12 EX GABLE FACIA — — — NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING EX SIDING / — --N Ilh►- / N. FACIA MIRATEC, ME- I UM. CORNER MIRATEC TRIM, ME— 411111111111111111111.— — SII 1 II II II II CERTIFICATE OF 4111111111116h1- h.q. .. MINN — �I APPROPRIATENESS , O O NEW HARDI LAPSIDING SIDING, ME EX EX 11E NEW ROOF INTO ROOF Project EXISTING FACIA, ME — ."1"1.-----ICE AND WATER UP 12" ON WALL CORNER TRIM, ME Burnett! Rummel I u Remodel U U L -- �I I� I I I I , II I II I I 4524 Drexel Ave. ___ 1L_ 1 Edina, MN 55424 I I 1 Architect's Stamp I I I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or i report was prepared by me or under my I supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the the State of EX Minnesota Ryan B.Thuftedai,AIA EX I O Signature License#44757 I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I - - - - - t- - - INTERIOR I ELEVATIONS I — scale= 114"= 1'-0" I � I I I I EX FOUNDATION NEW FOOTING AND FOUND NEW FOUNDATIONS date:10/15/2014 SD review SET 8/14/14 DD review 9/12/2014 CD review 9/30/14 I— — —Tj-- 1 I I CITY EDINA COA 10/15/14 L— L — I_1 L — _ J L- - -1 I NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION sheet A 203 A203 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 rt design LLC 2014-2015 rm DESIGN NEW LOW SLOPE ROOF7 L EX FP architecture interiors NEW MATCHING SHINGLE ROOF 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W TIE NEW INTO EX ROOF MINNETONKA,MN 55305 .--\ TEL 952-300-2240 i Ill Illi PHI III U k11 I II i NO WORK TO THE FRONT rt-design.com OF THE HOME 9 2 ROWS ICE AND WATER TO HERE I I illl] I II I I I III u 'U U Uu UUL II U 12 INT VAULTED CEILING -"mMUMIP- 6.5 r--, NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING �n�� 12 U FACIA MIRATEC, ME /' \ J u u i1 LL I�j II III I) I I„ I I I I I I " 1 I I `CORNER MIRATEC TRIM, ME T lJ - _ _ 11)1 1i Ll y IJ r I I III I l l l l i CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS null ' - —_ - 0 8.5SF 1111.11 -- - I.. Project 0 -I -NEW HARDI LAPSIDING _ ,11111. EX Burnett! Rummel ROOF 0 © Remodel - _ 4524 Drexel Ave. _EACIA,_-ME_ _ - EX WINDOWS TO REMAIN i ■I ■ I n i ■ I� Edina,MN 55424 CORNER TRIM, ME CX HOUSE-CORNER- - EX HARDI SIDING Architect's Stamp I hereby certify that this plan,specificatic I report was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the the State of Minnesota. Ryan B.Thuftedal,AIA © © LSicensee License#44757 =-o EX EX EX EX EX NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION _ U � U EX � - EXTERIOR O - FLOUR BOX AND BRACKETS ELEVATIONS l- T L� C I scales �i A11= 1 0 —III—III 1'I I—i i iEI I I—III_ I iEE I—L—I l I i—���i—iii—d i r— El IV III l t—III—III III I I — -III III-1 I It +.I I 11 H I L it It=1 a H I-H I-HH I�=H H I-t -I I 1_iEX HOME TO REMAIN ���I��������a 1 l���II -Il -I��.-� NEW CONC STEPS NEW FOOTING AND FOUND date:10/15/2014 -11 SD review SET 8/14/14 hNN\I\\ LI_ N DD review 9/12/2014 EX CORNER OF FOUNDATIONS CD review 9/30/14 CITY EDINA COA 10/15/14 FO NEW EGRESS WINDOW WELL, TIMBERS I— - - _ - NEW EGRESS WINDOW I — I H I I- — — -t-I— — J-C -J L- — —L - - I I - - - I I - - - I SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION sheet /y/� 2O 1 A201 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ©it design LLC 2014-2015 rj0 DESIGN architecture + interiors 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W MINNETONKA,MN 55305 • I I TEL 952-300-2240 ME= MATCH EXISTING rt-design.com REAR ADDITION ROOF PITCH IS DIFFERENT FROM REST LOW SOPE ROOF TO ALIGN WITH ROOF PEAK OF HOME AND IS BEING HONORED IN THE ADDITION 'ND THE GARAGE. 9 NIIIII 2 ROWS ICE AND WATER TO RE FP VENT OUT ROOF f EX ROOF 12 NEW ROOF TO MATCH CERTIFICATE OF I it , , U LI FACIA MIRATEC, ME APPROPRIATENESS UHU Lill ll 0 CORNER TRIM MIRATEC, ME .4 ,i I I U 1 I I I U II HU U 1 EX MIRITEC FACIA Ai . II III �I III II EX HARDI SIDING NII II II II II NH II iiilil it II II NMI II HUH IIII III I i H J Project Burnett] Rummel EX FIRE PLACE 0 I Remodel 4524 Drexel Ave. EX --EX ROOF Edina,MN 55424 OE O H AND ADDITION ,a I NEW ROOF 7 .d NEW MIRATEC FACIA, ME I �1 r. 1 i r li--t i , — — — — — CORNER TRIM, ME Architect's Stamp is ,, 1 litow — — I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or I report was prepared by me or under my crvicon and that m a dulyeLiceated Architect under the laws of the the State of --NEW HARDI LAPSIDING _ Minnesota. . j iLl LI I lilliam..-. Ryan B.Thuftedal,AIA /\ n Signature 8 /\ / \ 8 License#44757 I / \ / \ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION / \ / \ / \ / \ � \ —E) o-- — o i EXTERIOR \ / \ / EX ELEVATIONS \ / \ / EX scale= 114"= 1=0" ©\ / ©\ / \ / V V —I I I � \ NEW i'— date: 1011512014 NEW LANDSCAPE STEP SD review SET 8114/14 EX FOUNDAl10N DD review 9/12/2014 CD review 9130/14 I. WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION FOUNDAl10N TO MATCH CITY EDINA COA 10/15114 A02 i SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0' I I NEW FOOTING AND FOUNDATION i I11111 . I ! I sheet A202 0 rt design LLC 2014-2015 I, DESIGN architecture + interiors 11420 PARK RIDGE DR W MINNETONKA,MN 55305 TEL 952-300-2240 rt-design.com 1 T ® e __...._ LOT LINE i� I `n , 28'-0 1/2" 28'-4 3/4" -i_I JIl �- i- - Ii \— r ®I® APPROPRIATENESS 25-0" I II „_ iii BACKYARD ILZI PATIO N M�+ Project U 148 SF N - - •_I Burnett! Rummel m II INNEW ADDITION EXISTING HOME N Remodel o / M 4524 Drexel Ave, o \ _ II Edina,MN 55424 IllitilL D TOTAL HOME AND ADDITION Architect's Stamp I 1,687 SF Ihereby certify that this plan,specificatio o } I I I I — report was prepared by me or under my i 12'-0" 4'—O" I) supervision that l af 4" / '� — Architect underand the lawsam of the duly the StateLicensed of Minnesota. ID Ryan B.Thuftedal,AIA 23'-0" c __. 32'-0" Signature 4_,, / License#44757 1 P \ / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 , - \ OVERALL DRIVEWAY NSUNROOM I) SITE PLAN L. �� 5NEW 62 SF RAGE NEW AC % scale= 7/8"= 1-0" 0 Z LilZ ill J J Z IU Z J = k8:- C13 o w o date:10/15/2014 J (/I J U7 SD review SET 8/14/14 - DD review 9/12/2014 CD review 9/30/14 CITY EDINA COA 10/15/14 ® ~� I SETBACK LINE �� 1.--,.. 4` 26'-0" X - REVISED SITE PL 10/22/14 LOT LINE I SITE PLAN OF PROJECT G102 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0' sheet G102 0 rt design LLC 2014-2015