Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018_7_10_MeetingDraft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission Edina City Hall Tuesday, June 12, 2018 I. Call To Order Chair Birdman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call was Chair Birdman and members Schilling, Nymo, Blake, Davis and Mondry. Staff Liaison, Emily Bodeker was also in attendance. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Bodeker explained that Consultant Vogel was unable to attend the meeting and therefore asked the Commission to postpone agenda items B & C. Motion was made by Blake and seconded by Schilling to approve the meeting agenda with the changes presented. All voted aye. The Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Schilling and seconded by Nymo to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2018 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Community Comment: None VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Certificate of Appropriateness: 4604 Browndale Avenue Staff Liaison Bodeker explained that the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the two-story Spanish Eclectic style residence built in 1925 included the reorientation (removing and rebuilding) of the garage back to a side loaded garage facing the north property line, the addition of a 16’ x 20’ 2 level addition to the south side of the existing house, and a 5’ addition to the garage area on the front facing façade. The proposed project will also require a variance. The variance request is for an addition that exceeds the allowable square footage within a non-conforming setback. The variance will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 27th, 2018. She explained consultant Vogel reviewed the plans and had a positive evaluation of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Staff concluded with Vogel’s positive evaluation of the project. She explained that notices to surrounding property owners were not sent out Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: and therefore recommended formal action should be taken at the next Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on July 10th meeting. The Preservation Commission discussed the application and agreed that the application adheres to the Plan of Treatment and expectations of the Commission while still allowing the homeowner to update and use property to its fullest potential. The HPC will review and act on the COA application at 4604 Browndale Avenue at the July 10th, 2018 HPC meeting. VII. Correspondence And Petitions: None VIII. Chair And Member Comments: Commissioner Blake asked about the recent planning proposal at 7250 and asked the Commission if there was something more they could do to commend on Heritage Preservation and reviewing planning projects. The Commission then discussed the Comprehensive Planning process and the Southdale Area District plan. Liaison Bodeker recommended discussing and verifying that the Commission’s top preservation goals are added to the Heritage Preservation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Schilling volunteered to lead the annual tour the Commission does on a yearly basis. Staff noted she will contact Schilling to plan the tour. IX. Staff Comments: None X. Adjournment: 8:20 p.m. Motion made by Nymo to adjourn the June 12, 2018 meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion seconded by Davis. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker May 8, 2018 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, AICP, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4604 Browndale Avenue Information / Background: The subject property, 4604 Browndale Avenue, is located on the west side of Browndale Avenue, south of Bridge Street, north of Edgebrook Place and east of Minnehaha Creek. The proposed Certificate of Appropriateness request includes the reorienting (removing and rebuilding) the garage back to a side loaded garage facing the north property line, the addition of a 16’ x 20’ 2 level addition to the south side of the existing house, and a 5’ addition to the garage area on the front facing façade. The proposed project will also require a variance. The variance request is for an addition that exceeds the allowable square footage within a non-conforming setback. The variance will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 27th, 2018. The home, built in 1925, is a two-story Spanish Eclectic style residence. It was built in 1925 for Charles A. Moore, an executive with the United Fruit Company (who is credited with helping to perfect the mechanical process by which bananas are ripened artificially during transport). The house was designed by the architectural firm of Jacob Liebenberg and Seeman Kaplan and is not one of the six “model” Country Club Homes designed for Samuel Thorpe in 1927-1928. Primary Issues: The proposed building addition and changes will be visible from Browndale Avenue. The District plan of treatment recommends rehabilitation as the most appropriate treatment for historic home in the Country Club District. The general standards outlined in the plan of treatment allow for the construction of structural additions provided the new work is architecturally compatible with the historic house and other historic homes in the neighborhood. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: The Spanish Eclectic style (sometimes referred to as the “Spanish Colonial Revival” or “Mediterranean”), is not a common house form in the District. The house contributes to the historic significance and integrity of the Country Club District and is therefore considered a heritage preservation resource. This property may also qualify for individual designation as a heritage landmark resource. This property may also qualify for individual designation as a heritage landmark because of its distinctive construction characteristics (cork insulation and HVAC system) and its historical association with Charles Moore. Based on the plans presented, the proposed structural addition appears to be compatible with the historic character of the house. The addition will require minimal demolition or alteration of the existing structure; no significant architectural character defining features will need to be removed or altered. While the addition will substantially change the size, massing and proportions of the historic house, the new construction should not detract from the essential character of the subject property or the neighborhood. In my opinion, this project meets the requirements of the Country Club District plan of treatment and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the rehabilitation of historic properties. Consultant Vogel recommends approval of the COA. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans for the proposed additions and changes to the front facade, also recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The proposed work is compatible with the historic character of the house and will require minimal alteration of the existing structure. • The proposed changes will not result in the loss of any significant architectural character defining features. • The proposed work will be compatible with the size scale, proportions and materials of the existing house. • The proposed work will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding homes or the neighborhood has a whole. Conditions for approval: • The plans presented Consideration for Certificate of Appropriateness at property located at 4604 Browndale Avenue The owners of this 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival seek approval for the following updates to the street facing façade: • Reorient garage BACK to a side loaded garage located in the north facing side yard. • Addition of a 16’ x 20’ 2-level volume to the south side of the existing house • General maintenance and safety updates to the existing home The original home was designed by the architects Liebenberg & Kaplan and built in 1925. The home is a wonderful example of the Spanish Colonial Revival present throughout the historic district. The garage doors of the original home faced the north side yard a 1950s addition and remodel located the garage doors to the street facing garage. The 1950s addition used panelized stucco, that does not match the original stucco. The proposed garage will be a 3-car garage with doors facing north and accessed from the sideyard. To allow for space enough for 3-car garage a 5’ addition will need to be added to the street facing façade of the garage. This addition does not project beyond the face of the main volume of the house. Additionally, a 5’ addition will be added to the Creekside/ rear yard to create an overall width of 34’ for the 3-car garage. In essense, the 1950s garage is demolished in order to allow for access to the side loaded garage. Above the garage the existing 2nd floor volume will be added onto and align with existing roof geometry (addition towards street). The new roof will match the existing Spanish clay tile roof. A decorative iron window planter will be added to the front facing in-swinging casement windows, using the existing ironwork as inspiration for the design. The north facing double hung window will have decorative shutters to match the unique style of the existing home. The material palate and character will use the existing house as precedent. The scale of the garage and bedroom volume is subordinate to the main volume of the house. Pulling from the existing roof forms, the second story addition quietly resides next to the main volume of the original home. The addition will have stucco walls, exposed rafter tails, and a clay tile roof. Proposed reworking eliminates garage doors on street facing façade, consistent with the Country Club District’s Plan of Treatment. The existing home sits on a double lot and is vastly out of scale with its neighboring grand homes. The proposed design adds a 2-level living space to the south side yard. The proposed addition sits back 12” from the existing front wall of the house – preserving the charming original Spanish Colonial Revival buttress. The addition consists of a Living Room on the main level and bedroom on the 2nd level. The Living room opens to an outdoor patio space. A double fireplace will be a traditionally built masonry fireplace – anchoring the addition. The material palate of the addition will match the exiting house – stucco walls, exposed rafter rails, clay tile roof, decorative iron window planter, and decorative window shutters. The scale and character of the addition compliments, but does not overshadow, the original house. The existing home needs general maintenance and upkeep, and upgrades to meet current life safety building code. Most of the wood windows are rotted and inoperable and need to be replaced. We propose replacement of all windows with energy efficient double hung or inswing casement with simulated divided lites (or “muntins”). The existing stucco with be inspected and repaired or replaced with traditional stucco as needed. Additionally, the existing clay tile roof will be inspected and repaired Additionally, an egress double hung window will be added to north wall of existing main volume of house, to do this the window location will need to be modified. The new egress window is not on street facing façade but is visible from the street. The proposed design also adds glass to the original front door; allowing light to enter the house and visibility to the front stoop. All necessary maintenance items safeguard the longevity of the home and will be in keeping with the character of the historic district. All proposed work simultaneously preserves the historic character of the neighborhood, while updating the home to accommodate a large modern family. The additions bring the house closer in scale to the surrounding stately scaled homes. Within the context of the block and size of lot, the proposed home quietly blends into the framework of neighborhood. The homeowners have lived in the Country Club District for almost 20 years and look forward to moving their family to their new creekside home. is f; - viol) ,). ..., ,.......7.0.... ;I. 4 ,.. ,, I f- „es/ te r. • ie "41.1 ; LU C‘I ti LU CO ROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment ROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 SSUE DATE: May 25. 2018 DRAWN BY: COVER Mulligan Residence 4604 Browndale Avenue Edina, MN Original Architect Liebenberg & Kaplan Built 1925 SITE DIAGRAM NOTES: ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK' IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF THE CREEK TO THE EXISTING 2-STORY HOUSE ALTERNATE OHWM SETBACK 'Fir IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF THE CREEK TO THE EXISTING BASEMENT SITE DIAGRAM KEY: = EXISTING HOUSE = ADDITION = PATIO/ TERRACE • SHADED AREAS DENOTES S.F. COUNTED TOWARDS BUILDING COVERAGE t6 89-4' -- ALT. OHM SETBACK "B" — CD 898' -6: ALT. OH M SETBACK W PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN A01 2 SITE PLAN 7 7 5, "0 cv 7 7 7 7 7 7 ZONING SUMMARY: R-1 DISTRICT , EHLD (EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DISTRICT) SETBACKS: • FRONT: 32.8' (BASED ON AVERAGE FRONTYARD SETBACKS OF NEIGHBORING HOMES) • BACKYARD/ CREEKSIDE: 50' FROM OHWM • INTERIOR SIDE: 10' MAX HEIGHT: • 35' MEASURED TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF . FOR LOTS LOT COVERAGE: • LOTS GREATER THAN 9,000 S.F. BUILDING COVERAGE MAX = 25%. •• BUILDING COVERAGE INCLUDES ALL PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS INCLUDING DECKS AND PATIOS, BALCONIES, PORCHES (THE FIRST 150 S.F. OF AN UNENCLOSED DECK OR PATIO SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WHEN COMPUTING BUILDING COVERAGE. • • EXCLUDED FROM BUILDING COVERAGE: DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, UNENCLOSED STEPS AND STOOPS LESS THAN 50 S.F., OVERHANGING EAVES OR ROOF PROJECTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY POSTS OR PILLARS. • • PER EDINA CODE OF ORDINANCES 36.438 // " I DEMO EXIST. ,` I BASEMENT& M.L. PATIO P (DASHED) 5.'," (1) 1\) STONE STOOP (< 50 S./F.) „;,-H ' ci3 STONE STEEPS7.--& 0 NpINGS &4/o LA "Millaral I k 1111110M s f‘900G 44; 0' _• Q5) Pete PUrrfphOUSe i'L▪ ts (i) 03 O 0: 01 (P. 03 EXISTING SITE INFORMATION EXISTING LOT AREA: 18,184 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: 2135 S.F. EXISTING PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER: 11.74% PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: EXIST. HOUSE (AFTER DEMO) 1624 S.F. +ADDITION 724 S.F. +PATIOS 625 S.F. = 2973 S.F. PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER = 2973 S.F. / 18,184 S.F. = 16.35% < 25% ALLOWF O CO -4 O f50-2'\ DEMO EXIST. Gq COkCRETE"' STAIRS (DASHED) NEW RETAINING WALL, STUCCO FINISH STONE PATIO - elev 898.7' ---- D10 PORTION OF E 1ST. GARAGE (SI-pWN DASHED) CD I EXIST. BUTTRESS TO REMAIN NEW STO4 STOOP (< 50 S./F.) I CONC. SIDEWALK `6' DEMO EXIST J \\ DRIVEWAY (SHOWN \ DASHED) 2j • CI) N-* ()) REUSE EXIST. CURB CUT C oncre te 5 ewaI k O t,A e Br ndale Av SITE PLAN 118" =1*-0" on 24 x 36 or 1/16" on 11 x 17 north FAMILY RM. UP 2R EXERCISE UN EX. LAUNDRY BATH UP IR UP UP IR 15R SAUNA MECH. 0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 3 north north118- -1,0" on 11x17 UN EX. UN EX. WDW WELL LINEN VFY F.P. LOC EGRESS WOW WELL I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I A10 LOWER LEVEL BATH UN EX, GUEST BDRM UN EX. PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN PATIO 0 MAIN LEVEL PLAN O (moan 1'4" on 11x17 north __)north PATIO ENTRY HALL ENTRY FFE. .T VFY FRONT STOOP DNS DN 4R Li VFY HEARTH 7 7 7 7 / 7 7 I IHHI II II I ADDITION SITTING AREA r-ow L 0 vi 0 KITCHEN 48' REF. I I HALL STUDY II—II II—II BREAKFAST NOOK DINING RM. J UP CREEKSIDE ENTRY IHI II I PLANTING BED r //T-V 1Fr GARAGE FFE• 898.T -f PANTRY DN 16R • r MUD RM LIVING RM. DRNEWAY PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN All MAIN LEVEL HALL LINEN BATH BDRM C BATH A CL. CL. B BDRM D. J II II II II DN 15R REUSE EXIST. DESK BDRM B BATH B r I I I I I I I CL. AI ILI CL. D LAUNDRY M. BDRM M. HALL A CENTER HALL M. HALL B mroa I M. CL. #2 LINEN BENCH CL. B M. CL. #1 II M. BATH BDRM A Z• o e Nft 1.0 c\I LO • Z LU IF- 2 co CV E c\I (..) T" 2 u) z +65,2 LL 0 co 65 Lx") ce -2 CV cr) Uj Ct. CO V) c\I • CD C.0 CNI CT) • C\1 PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN A 1 2 UPPER LEVEL 0 UPPER LEVEL PLAN G north (3 pian 1/8" = 1.-0" on 11x17 north EXPOSED RAFTER TALS, TO MATCH EXISTING STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHUTTERS, TO MATCH EXISTING METAL FLOWER BOX TO MATCH EXISTING TIMBER BRACKETS INLAY TILE DETAIL it p 11111111111 TILE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING METAL FLOWER BOX TO MATCH EXISTING STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING -----N STUCCO CHIN EY w/ CLAY CHIMNEY POT EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS, TO MATCH EXISTING PAINTED WOOD SHUTTERS, TO MATCH EXISTING STUCCO DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTNG SIDE VIEW OF SHED ROOF ON TIMBER BRACKETS (COVERS STONE STOOP) —e^ EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS, TO MATCH EXISTING ,3.0c'1' dve- Rv-- 41) 04. C;CC sze STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING INLAY TILE DETAIL TIMBER BRACKETS f. A20 ELEVATIONS CV Z o e z Z HSI W 2 co c\I tX 2 (1) O u_ '- co Et -a N J . .1-LO ▪ 4—, co 2 2 X • CV a) CD • `4. • N (0) (13 Lo w 3g c 2 - co in 2 coo La — Lu 2 PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN TILE ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING REBUILD EXIST. FROM STOOP NEW ADDITION MAIN VOLUME OF HOUSE IS PRESERVED REMODEL & ADDITION &EAST ELEVATION 1/4" 41,0" on 24 x 36 or 1/8" on 11 x17 ®SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" 41'4:1" on 24036 or 1/8" on 11x 17 0 WEST (CREEKSIDE) ELEVATION 1/4" • V-0" on 24536 or anti x 11 iii PAINTED SHUTTERS, TME NEW EGRESS WDW CLAY TILE ROOF, TO MATCH EXISTING TIMBER BRACKETS STUCCO TO MATCH 7,0"11 x x w PAINTED GARAGE DOOR PAINTED GARAGE DOOR ®NORTH ELEVATION 1/4^ • 1,0" on 24 x 36 or 1/8" on 11 x 17 II III II II III II II III II L J nnnnannnrinn PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2018 DRAWN BY: JRL, STN A21 ELEVATIONS S) Basis for bearings is assumed The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 ur-u-r4_ars Trrlifirair Existing Conditions Survey For: DIANE MULLIGAN INVOICE NO 87605 F.B.NO 742-57 SCALE: 1" = 20' • Denotes Found Iron Monument 0 Denotes Iron Monument N Denotes Existing Contours x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation (00. Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage 85°39'58" W 122.10 • 596.5 \ \ \ \ \ 1 11 II 11 11 II II I I II I I II I I I I II I I II II Existing Frontyard Setbacks: No. 4600 Brownsdale Ave. = 33.2 No. 4602 Brownsdale Ave. = 35.4 No. 4604 Brownsdale Ave. = 30.2 No. 4610 Brownsdale Ave. = 32.5 Average = 32.8 Existing Hardcover Lot Area = 18184 sq.ft Building = 2135 sq.ft Total = 2135 sq.ft Percentage of Hardcover = 11.74% S 80°4 '38" E 83.00 PLANNIi\IG DEPARNENT II Benchmark: Top of hydrant Browndale Avenue and Edgebrook Place Elevation = 906.82 Property located in Section 18, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Address: 4604 Browndale Avenue Edina, MN 595:6 — — I x 597.4 \ 24" qak 96. (3.) \ \ \ ~\N8'J~.7 fEi cs. C:55 \ c \ N.D \~~Oc. CP \ \ 0 0 \ \ \ .CP \G\ O ° 595.6 Wing Wall trc 95.6 - 3{ trc 5. I ttrese - E,grese we I I I 1< Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Country Club District, Brown Section The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. 902.3 Concrete Wall Pillar Rev 5- 15- 18 topo Drawn By I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Surveyed by us this 1st day of March 2018. Gregory R. P Mi. n. Reg. No. 24992 CITY OF EDINA Signed F:\survey\country club district brown section - hennepin \5 - 6 -14 \ccdb-5-14fb74257inv87605.dwg Mulligan Residence 4604 Browndale Ave Edina, MN 55424 REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 a yl of co to to Si L 1 X U0 ..9 :A3)1 WVIIDVIO 311S 0' 0 z -106 aug „E I _)10Vej. aelV), 11 i \- X g '06g „kE E'sZ6g (3> 0 96g \ \ °spy • 18o 0.- c<‘..„ /llai4, sgadbg seda.4g sq ssad44ng 9 .0gg Ile/14 - Oun.J194 auc4g - - - 61;260k g'96g 9'006 _ ------------- o L .g6g dO 669 ------- t3OCPC1610N- Lanos ;eel 3s aay1. g9ligJ 0'66g \ _ --- awl' 10 "Oe notidkj a4aduo.3‘ 9'6'69 96g- , -- ------- \ , Z6g — 9.g6g 0.96g \ Jelled Hem a4a...ouoo 0 I:ZZ M „85,6C0943 JO ge x 17Z uo = '006 61Z6g >I- DRAWN BY: JRL, STN CD M C CO "1 ..< 0 > m IQ PROJECT PHASE: Design Devleopment PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 0 8 sgen4 6UIL.116'49 Vuo4S PIO 9"L69 17 17'g6g tiodig X CD co m x m5 E z ENCROACHMENT- - - E —MAY A Y ADO UP TO 200 SF. al 0 I PROJECT PHASE: As-Buills PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN x 1 0 LOWER LEVEL EXISTING PLAN O LOWER LEVEL PLAN plan 118" -1,0" on 11x17 north north ON IR STOR. STOR. LAUNDRY/ MECHANICAL CLG. HT. T-5' VFYALL SOFFITS & MECH LOCATIONS L. CHUTE II MECH1 H2O I I UP 14F CLG. HT. 7,3 /1 -4 1 II I I STOR. REC RM UP 2R CLG. HT. T-312' 32.8' FRONT YARD SETBACK BOILER RM. VFY 10'-10' MEASURED 112&-. -7-3/4" UN EX. LIVING RM. SH: 30.5' NH: 83.5' CLG. HT. 9,7' SH: 42.5' HH: 83' VFY HEARTH II 1 O MAIN LEVEL PLAN plan 1/8" • 1,0" on iixiT north north SH: 2325' HH: 80.5" BEAM DROPS 22" SUN RM. KITCHEN VFY VFY FRONT STOOP ORIS ON 4R REk. j, VFY 3, /( fr DINING RM. LDRNEWAY 7 BEAM DROPS 10 1/2" STEEL BEAM 7 _tom 4.5' DIA STEEL POST 32.8' FRONT YARD SETBACK UP ON 13R 2R 7. 7. 7. 7;_d ss ENTRY/ 1. VFY ENTRY FFE. 10.T DN 3R 7 HALL CLG. HT. l'-21/4' POWDER RM SIDE ENTRY DNVFr HALL 1.4H- CLG. HT. T-7' 1 CL. CL. VY /j DROPPED GIG GARAGE FFE. 898.T CLG. HT. 10, 21/4' VFY WOW - • —/r DN 6R II SH: 43' HH: 86' VFY CLG. HT. 8'-6' I VEY VFY II II II SH: 31.5' HH: 86" VFY H.H.79.5 BREAKFAST NOOK CLG. HT. T-11 1/2' —MAY ADD UP TO 200 SF. IN AREA OF ENCROACHMENT /-- I el09 .40° 50 rA„GVNI° \ tE PATIO PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN x11 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING PLAN r 0 e 0 U. 0 0 UPPER LEVEL PLAN 118'• 1,0" on 11x17 north ___71-1.1130lartnh I RAD. I HAD. VFY ALL RADIATOR SIZES & LOCS 0 I nl 32.8' FRONT YARD SETBACK IIII ll—II S.H.: 35' HH:80.5' I RAD. HAD. CL. BDRM B INS LINEN I I ACCESS HALL B L_ JON _2R_ M. BDRM M. BATH DRESSING RM. CL. .1,002 I RAD. DN 2R a a= S.H.: 325' HH: 86.5' CL. LI CLG. HT. 8,5 1/2" I SP.:76 I MAX:-55' I I HALL A S.H 31* HH: 80' STAIR LANDING L ON 13R CLG. HT. 9,8' REL T. T-9 371-;) BATH A I BDRM A FLAT ROOF DECK II SH: 26' HH: STUDY SH: 3025" HH: 80' 80' ,A1.041 GnP ,s0!'!;: MAY ADD UP TO 200 S.F. WI AREA OF ENCROACHMENT — 0 z .1- Lo ti W Z 2 co • a.' • CO cu Z u_ O 1- (i) 45 Lf) cle3 Lo O. 1-6 00 2 a) CV 0.)c\I LLI Ce c\IN. a) PROJECT PHASE: As-Builts PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN i"I x12 UPPER LEVEL EXISTING PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3o ,zr ti U) (-N .1- Er) I— I-0 ti W• Z 2 00 (NI • — cL 2 (c) i) Z LL O " • L.r) -o ti CY) 't 17) O. 4—/) CO 2 a) N_() 1 cC;1 LLI Ce (NI I— w > • < c\I cn ct3 -cp c z o 2 • W Cn • — 7 2 PROJECT PHASE: As-Buills PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN x20 EXISTING ELEVATIONS e OEAST ELEVATION 1/0" 1.000240366 or 1/8' on 11 o17 T ®SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" 1'.0" on 24x30 or 1/8" on 11 x17 - O WEST ELEVATION 1/4" • 1,0" on 24x 36 or 118" on 11 x17 r I I (-\\ • 'I..' 0 I— ci) 0 0 LL I— ®NORTH ELEVATION 114" • 1'4" on 24 x36 or 1/8" on 11x 17 Li 0 Z U) II En ti z w co (NI r' c4 2 'D Z cp LL 0 • N- \• ! .4- in O. 11) C.° 2 a) N_ x co" ui TD �N I— x21 EXISTING ELEVATIONS PROJECT PHASE: As-Builts PROJECT NUMBER: 18-003 ISSUE DATE: DRAWN BY: JRL, STN if! 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: June 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Country Club District Re-survey When the Country Club District was designated an Edina Heritage Landmark in 2003, the city council directed the Heritage Preservation Board (now the HPC) to conduct a resurvey of the district every 10 years. The purpose of the resurvey was two-fold: (1) to review and re-evaluate the effectiveness of the district plan of treatment; and (2) to identify information gaps in the heritage landmark registration documents that can be filled by historical research or field survey. While the plan of treatment review is essentially a staff exercise, there is no reason that HPC members (and other community volunteers) cannot carry out a significant portion of the re- survey, working independently or in small groups. To this end, I have developed the following list of the six most important information gaps for your consideration: 1) Develop a more complete and fully documented biography of developer Samuel S. Thorpe and his company, Thorpe Bros. 2) While approximately 500 of the restrictive covenants executed between 1924 and 1944 were recorded by the county assessor, very little (in fact almost nothing) is known about how the process actually worked. For example, did Sam Thorpe personally approve all building plans prior to his death in 1934? How did the district homeowner association function? Are there any written records? 3) Besides Mr. Thorpe, who were the principal members of the Country Club design team during 1922-24 and what were their roles in the project? 4) Are any or all of the six Liebenberg & Kaplan designed “model homes” built for Thorpe in 1926 individually significant and therefore eligible for landmark designation? (The historical associations are fairly well documented; but do the individual houses retain sufficient integrity of the design elements, aesthetic qualities and materials necessary to show their individual significance?) 5) About 5% of the homes built in the district during its period of historical significance are believed to have been designed by licensed professional architects or engineers (including Liebenberg & Kaplan, Cyril B. Pesek, Milton Sundin, Bard & Vanderbilt, C. W. Farnham, Charles Trownridge, Rollin C. Chapin, A. R. Van Dycke, Architects Small House Service Bureau). It would be helpful to generate a list of architects/engineers (from building permit records) and collect biographical information about them. 6) It would also be helpful to have a compilation of information about the builders and contractors who worked in the district between the 1920s and 1940s (notable home builders include Anton Duoos, Carl Hansen, Peter A. Christianson, H. R. Rosendahl, 2 Morris Trach, Henry D. Roach, H. F. Nelson, Louis L. Hansen, M. R. McDonald, Herb Thompson). Much of the information needed to fill these gaps probably exists in the back issues of Twin Cities newspapers, city building permit and assessor records, and trade periodicals; a good deal of this archival material is available in digital format or online. Of course, we also have the original National Register survey report and inventory forms from 1980, which is probably the place to start.