HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019_6_11_MeetingAgenda
Heritage Preservation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Community Room-City Hall
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
7:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes: May 14, 2019
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant
issues or concerns. 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/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Archeology Grant Report
B.Process for Landmark Designation
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta/ Comments
A.Council Work Session Dates
IX.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 ampli5cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: June 11, 2019 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes: May 14,
2019
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the May 14, 2019 Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
May 14, 2019 HPC Minutes
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Heritage Preservation Commission
Edina City Hall
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
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, Lonnquist, Schilling, Widmoyer, Nymo, Blake
and student members Venell and Maheshwari. Staff Liaison, Emily Bodeker was also in attendance.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Lonnquist seconded by Blake to approve the meeting agenda as
amended. All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Lonnquist recommended the word volunteer be added to the 44TH & France Small
Area Plan Heritage Nomination award.
Motion by Black seconded by Schilling to approve the meeting minutes with the changes as
presented. All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. Special Recognitions and Presentations:
A. Archeology Project Update
Archeology consultant, Jeremy Nienow gave the Commission the last of the Archeology
101 presentations. He explained that he will present the report at the June Heritage
Preservation Commission meeting.
VI. Community Comment: None
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. H-19-3 4604 Browndale Avenue COA
Staff Liaison Bodeker explained that the certificate of appropriateness request for 4604
Browndale was for slight changes made to the front and side elevation during the finalizing
of the design. The proposed COA included specific changes to the bump out on the
southeast corner of the front façade and a front porch expansion.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
The applicant was in attendance and further explained the reason for the changes
requested with the updated COA. Staff Liaison Bodeker informed the Commission that
the applicant is also requesting an updated variance from the Planning Commission for
slight changes to setbacks to the creek.
Motion made by Schilling seconded by Blake to approved the COA at 4604 Browndale
Avenue. Nymo abstained. The motion carried.
VIII. Chair and Member Comments:
A. History of Edina-Arjun Majeshwari
Student member Majeshwari gave a brief presentation on the History of Edina and
inclusion.
B. Artifact Identification Day: May 18th 10-Noon, Edina Historical Society.
C. 4602 Browndale Photo
The Commission discussed the project going on at 4602 Browndale Avenue. Staff
informed the Commission that she would have to check on the status and follow up on
the building permit.
IX. Staff Comments:
Staff Liaison Bodeker reminded the Commission that the Preservation Award was being
presented at the Tuesday, May 21 City Council meeting.
X. Adjournment
Motion made by Nymo to adjourn the May 14, 2019 meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion seconded by
Schilling. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker
Date: June 11, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Archeology Grant Report Action, Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Accept the Archeology report presented by Jeremy Nienow.
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Edina received a CLG grant to complete an Archeological Phase Ia Literature Review and
Predictive Model Data.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Archeological Phase Ia Literature Review and Predictive Model Data
Archaeological Phase Ia Literature Review
and Predictive Model Data
City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Jeremy L. Nienow, Ph.D.
Nienow Cultural Consultants LLC
Registered Professional Archaeologist #12071
Laura Koski
Zooarchaeology Consulting
Draft Report
June 2, 2019
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The City of Edina (Edina), under the auspices of the Edina Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC), secured a Certified Local Government grant administered by the Minnesota State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). This grant was to be used to perform an archaeological literature
survey to identify prehistoric (i.e., pre-contact) and historic cultural resources and formulate a
model predicting presence or absence of archaeological resources at specific locations within
Edina city limits. Although little archaeological work has been carried out within Edina, the
potential for preserved archaeological resources is believed to exist and local historic contexts for
pre-contact and contact period archaeological resources have been delineated as part of the city’s
comprehensive plan.
In February 2019, Edina contracted with Nienow Cultural Consultants, LLC (NCC) to undertake
a literature search and records review with the primary objective to develop a model for predicting
the general location of archaeological sites. NCC’s Principal Investigator is Jeremy L. Nienow,
Ph.D., RPA. Project work was coordinated with Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner, and
Robert Vogel, Edina historical consultant. All project activities followed Secretary of the Interior
standards and guidelines for the identification of historic resources and the SHPO Manual for
Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Limited archaeological fieldwork, consisting of windshield
survey, complied with the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries
Act, and other pertinent state and federal laws.
NCC completed extensive review of available resources available related to Edina including the
following: historic maps; aerial imagery; SHPO and Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)
research; geomorphological evaluation; previous context and historic research related to
architectural and city documents; as well as consultation with relevant local stakeholders including
an artifact identification day on May 18, 2019. Fieldwork entailed visiting multiple city
greenspaces (parks, golf courses, waterways, etc.) and conducting preliminary windshield survey.
No artifacts were collected or documented. Dr. Nienow also completed several presentations for
the HPC. At the completion of this work, a general predictive model map was produced, based on
available research referenced above, using QGIS software. Generally, multiple city greenspaces
have moderate site potential for prehistoric sites. Recommendations for application and
dissemination of this work were presented to the HPC and are detailed in this report.
With any project there is the chance of unanticipated discovery. Should archaeological materials
surface during any future construction, it is advised that a professional archaeologist be consulted.
Minnesota Statute 307.08 protects unplatted cemeteries (including burial mounds) and issues
guidelines for dealing with unexpected finds. Should human remains be encountered during earth
moving activity, all work must stop, and local law enforcement must be called.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT AREA 2
3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY AND CONTEXT 4
4.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 10
5.0 GIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE EDINA PREDICTIVE MODEL 17
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 20
7.0 REFERENCES CITED 22
APPENDIX A: PROJECT CONTRACT AND LICENSE 24
APPENDIX B: EDINA PREDICTIVE MAPS FOR PREHISTORIC
ARCHAEOLOGY
30
APPENDIX C: SMG GEOMORPHOLOGICAL RERPORT 37
TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Commonly Understood Geo-Political Boundaries of Edina. 3
Table 2: Archaeological Sites within a Five-Mile Radius of Center of Edina. 12
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Edina (Edina), under the auspices of the Edina Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC), secured a Certified Local Government grant administered by the Minnesota State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). This grant was to be used to perform an archaeological literature survey
to identify prehistoric (i.e., pre-contact) and historic cultural resources and formulate a model
predicting presence or absence of archaeological resources at specific locations within Edina city
limits. Although little archaeological work has been carried out within Edina, the potential for
preserved archaeological resources is believed to exist and local historic contexts for pre-contact and
contact period archaeological resources have been delineated as part of the city’s comprehensive
plan.
At the start of the project, Edina was aware little archaeological work has been carried out within its
boundaries, with one archaeological site, the Edina Mill (21HE245), having been previously
identified. However, they knew surveys carried out in neighboring communities (including Eden
Prairie, Bloomington and Minnetonka) have resulted in identification of numerous archaeological
sites. In February 2019, Edina contracted with Nienow Cultural Consultants, LLC (NCC) to
undertake a literature search and records review with the primary objective to develop a model for
predicting the general location of prehistoric archaeological sites. NCC’s Principal Investigator is
Jeremy L. Nienow, Ph.D., RPA. Dr. Nienow is licensed within Minnesota to complete archaeological
surveys (2019-40). Project contracting and licensure are included as Appendix A. Dr. Nienow was
assisted with the project by a series of subconsultants including artifact day photography by
Anastasia Walhovd (Makoons Consulting), back ground research by Alison Hruby (ARH
Consulting), QGIS products by Laura Koski (Zooarchaeo Consulting), and geomorphology soils by
Michael Kolb (SMG Inc.).
Project work was coordinated with Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner, and Robert Vogel, Edina
historical consultant. All project activities followed Secretary of the Interior standards and guidelines
for the identification of historic resources and the SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in
Minnesota. Limited archaeological fieldwork, consisting of windshield survey, complied with the
Minnesota Field Archaeology Act, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, and other pertinent state
and federal laws.
An archaeological literature review, or Phase Ia, examines standard references to summarize what
has been written or known archaeologically about a given area without the necessity of fieldwork.
Literature review can be used: to assess the need for archaeological survey; to determine what
methods to employ; to develop site locational models; to identify landscape disturbance and/or land-
use; to provide historic context for site evaluation (Phase II); to provide background information for
archaeological data recovery plans (Phase III); as well as to provide information for National Register
nominations or site interpretation (Anfinson 2005). Literature review is typically synonymous with
a records search or archival research, although literature review can include interviews and
communication with appropriate project stakeholders such as landowners, local collectors, and
topical experts.
NCC approached this project as an expanded Phase Ia literature review with the end product an easy-
to-understand archaeological resources predictive map for prehistoric sites and a report laying out
2
project methods and results. NCC initiated the project by first completing extensive background
historic and archaeological literature review beginning in late February and extending through mid-
April. This was followed by consultation with relevant local stakeholders including an artifact
identification day on May 18, 2019 and subsequent preliminary fieldwork entailing the visitation of
multiple city greenspaces (parks, golf courses, waterways, etc.). At the completion of this work, a
general predictive model map was produced, based on available research referenced above, using
QGIS software. The results of this project area presented below. This report includes not only the
results of a Phase Ia and associated predictive model maps, it also gives a brief history of archaeology
in Minnesota as well as limited prehistoric context for the region in which Edina falls within the
state.
2.0 PROJECT AREA
This project area consists of the political boundaries for the Edina, a first-ring Twin Cities suburb.
Edina’s boundaries are commonly understood to be Highway 100 to the west, Interstate 494 to the
south, Highway 31/Xerxes Avenue on the east and cities of Hopkins and St. Louis Park to the north
(Figure 1). The project area is within Anfinson’s Archaeology Region 4: Central Lakes Deciduous
East (1990: 147-148; 2005:57). The topography of the region has been well documented, and its soils
are characterized by several glacial events resulting in outwash sands and sandy loam forming within
moraines. Beginning about 75,000 years ago, the Laurentide ice sheet expanded into the upper
Midwest and over the course of the next 63,000 years multiple glacial episodes expanded and
contracted across the region including the Wadena lobe-pre-Granite Falls Phase, Superior lobe-Hawk
Creek Phase, Wadena lobe-Granite Falls Phase, Wadena lobe-Hewitt Phase, and the Rainy Lobe
(Brainerd sub lobe)-St. Croix Phase. Additional details on the geomorphology of Edina can be found
in Dr. Michael Kolb’s An Assessment of the Potential for Deeply Buried Archaeological Deposits in
the City of Edina, Minnesota (2019). Dr. Kolb’s report is included as Appendix C.
There are two Metro Area watershed districts within Edina, namely the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (www.minnehahacreek.org) and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
(www.ninemilecreek.org). These are local units of government responsible for managing and
protecting water resources in these heavily used, urban watersheds.
After the retreat of the last glacial episode, this portion of Minnesota witnessed several vegetative
states beginning with a spruce-dominated boreal forest beginning around 11,000 years ago. This
forest was gradually replaced from the south by a mostly deciduous forest and by 9,000 years ago an
open woodland covered central Minnesota. This too was replaced by prairie until about 6,000 years
ago and the prairie retreated to the western and southwestern portions of the state. Anfinson (1990)
states that white tailed deer occupy riverine settings and woodland fringe areas. Wetland species,
including beaver, are present in areas nearby rivers and the numerous glacial lakes of the region. Fish
and waterfowl would have been plentiful along with extensive wild rice beds and acorns. Today, the
project area is suburban/urban with areas of woodlands and greenspaces including parks, golf
courses, etc.
3
Figure 1: Commonly Understood Geo-Political Boundaries of Edina.
4
3.0 ARCHAEOLGICAL HISTORY AND CONTEXTS
The following is a brief history of the evolution of archaeology in Minnesota as well as the accepted
prehistoric (Native American) context periods which guide archaeological in this region. These are
provided here to give general guidance and context for how archaeologists do their work and frame
their understanding of the past.
3.1 Brief History of Archaeology in the Surrounding Area
To date, a comprehensive history of archaeological work in Hennepin County has not been
undertaken, however, examination of the order in which archaeological sites have been documented
and numbered in the county, closely mirrors the general history of work in the county and around
the state. Four archaeological themes related to the history of work in and around the Edina can been
recognized: Antiquarian and Early Archaeological Work; the Jenks/Wilford Era; the Rise of
Institutional Archaeology; and Historic/Public Archaeology and Modern Practices. This report uses
these four general themes to give a brief history of the archaeology conducted in the area.
3.1.1 Antiquarian and Early Archaeological Work (1849-1917)
Citizens of the United States have long been interested in the peoples who populated North American
before their colonial arrivals of the 15th through 17th centuries. Much of this curiosity and speculation
centered around those peoples known as the “mound-builders” or earlier cultures who had built
mounds common throughout the eastern and central portions of the continent. President Jefferson,
himself an avid historian and naturalist, conducted some of the first scientific excavations into
mounds on his own property and correctly concluded that they had been built by earlier Native
Americans for ritual, territorial, group identity and burial purpose – and not by such august groups
as the Phoenicians, Atlantis, or the Lost Tribe of Israel.
In Minnesota, interest in the State’s cultural and natural resources began even prior to statehood with
the formation of the Minnesota Historical Society in 1849. Here too, archaeological interest primarily
revolved around documentation of Native American villages and mound groups by avocational
archaeologists. Noted contributors to the period include civil engineer Alfred J. Hill, rail clerk and
later surveyor Theodore Hayes Lewis, attorney and politician Jacob V. Brower, and
geologist/archaeologist Newton H. Winchell. Together with others in the territory and later state,
these historically-minded individuals worked to understand the prehistoric cultures of Minnesota
prior to Euro-American arrival. The period culminates with the publication in 1911 of Winchell’s
Aborigines of Minnesota by the Minnesota Historical Society. No sites in Winchell’s volume are
from Edina, however, dozens of mound groups as close as Lake Minnetonka and along the Minnesota
River to the south are represented. These have the earliest site numbers in the County.
3.1.2 The Jenks/Wilford era (1918-1959)
In 1918 the University of Minnesota split Anthropology from its Sociology Department and
appointed professor Albert E. Jenks to head it. Overtime, Jenks began to focus more and more of the
department’s interests on Archaeology and, along with his assistant Lloyd Wilford, began doing
archaeological work with their students throughout the region, United States, and the world including
trips to New Mexico and Algeria. Their initial work again focused on key, ancient, populations
including work in western Minnesota. This represents the first serious, archaeological investigations
by trained individuals – although it should be noted neither Jenks or Wilford, who succeeded Jenks
in 1938 after his retirement until 1959, started their careers as archaeologists. Based on Wilford’s
5
files (at the State Historic Preservation Office), he spent considerable time in Hennepin County in
the 1940s (1940-1947) and almost all the way up to his retirement in the 1950s (1956), visiting
landowners primarily in the Lake Minnetonka area to investigate mounds identified in Winchell’s
volume and at that time still visible on the landscape.
3.1.3 The Rise of Institutional Archaeology (1960-1990)
After Wilford’s retirement in 1959, Elden Johnson was hired to replace him. Johnson was a 1948
graduate of the University of Minnesota department and had been working at the Science Museum
after graduate work at Yale and ethnographic work abroad. Johnson’s return corresponded with the
passage of the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act in 1963, which formally established the Office of
the State Archaeologist (Elden held this jointly with his other appointment until 1978).
On the whole, this period is dominated with the formal entrance of legislation and federal endeavors
into the heretofore primarily academic field. This need was driven by the unprecedented expansion
of major government projects after WWII and the realization earlier eras of American history were
literally being razed to make way for new endeavors. In order to place a check on this new expansion,
the National Historic Preservation Act was passed in 1966 establishing the National Register and
dictating those entities undertaking federally funding project, or utilizing federally managed lands,
consider cultural resources as well as any other natural resources they may impact. Thus, the era of
Cultural Resource Management (CRM) was born, irrevocably changing the extent, direction, and
character of archaeology in the United States. Work during this era shifted from being dominated by
the Science Museum and the University of Minnesota to such agencies as the Army Corp of
Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. This period is capped by the passage of a final act in 1990, namely the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which sought again to change how academic pursuits
interacted with native peoples. The earliest sites within a five-mile radius of Edina are from this
period with 21HE31 identified in 1977.
The State Archaeologist’s office continued their interest in Hennepin County throughout this period,
generating a list in 1975 demonstrating at the time 39 prehistoric sites around Lake Minnetonka
including 467 mounds. As of the 1970s more than half (62%) were destroyed, leaving only 24
mounds intact and 24 mounds partially destroyed.
3.1.4 Historical / Public Archaeology and Modern Practices (ongoing)
This final period represents the continuation of CRM and modern practices involving state and
federal oversight of compliance driven archaeology. Few major advancements have taken place since
1990 in Minnesota, chief among the increasing acceptance and shift to understanding the state’s
historic sites in contrast to its early prehistoric focus. This has drawn in additional members of the
public through public archaeology excavations at places like Eliot Park in Minneapolis and broadly
with projects under the umbrella of the Metro Area Historical Society Collaborative.
Moreover, because agencies continue to update and expand their existing infrastructures, they are
increasingly impacting sites created since the 1850s and our own Statehood – leading to additional
interest in these periods of Minnesota history. Recently, the citizens of Minnesota, through an
amendment to the state constitution have continued to show their support for the natural and cultural
resources of their region, with the passage of the Legacy Amendment. One of the chief outcomes for
archaeology associated with the Legacy Amendment is new funding for archaeological
investigations through the Office of the State Archaeologist. Undoubtedly, as we continue to impact
6
our surroundings, we will continue to come into contact with our own histories and those of the
Native Americans who lived here prior to statehood (and still live here today). Nearly all of the 44
known sites documented with a five-mile radius of Edina’s center were identified within this period
of time starting in the 1980s and continuing through the present day. The most recent identified site
is 21HE410 documented in 2016.
3.2 Precontact Contexts
In order to more fully understand the complex relationships of past peoples within Minnesota,
archaeologist typically place their work into a series of context. This has successfully allowed them
to record the cultural changes and adaptations previous peoples have done throughout the
environmental region. Some of this work is arbitrary however, assembling meaningful typologies
often begins with general, morphological characteristics and then moves toward chorological and
functional understandings. Broadly then, archaeologists divide the Upper Midwest into
Prehistoric/Precontact and Historic/Contact periods. Similar to the overall history of archaeology in
the County, a detailed application of these contexts to Hennepin County has not yet been attempted
or implemented to include all of the archaeological sites known in county. However, Edina has done
this broadly for the period of Native American occupation of the landscape in their Edina Historic
Contexts document done by the Heritage Preservation Board in 1999.
The Minnesota SHPO has developed statewide contexts examining Minnesota’s Prehistoric through
recent Historic past. These contexts are laid out on the Minnesota Archaeological Site Form
(Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist 2017). Native American contexts divided into three
major traditions: Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland. Late Woodland is further subdivided into
Plains Village, Mississippian, and Oneota Traditions. These divisions are based on significant
changes in how these communities lived, with a special focus on subsistence strategies. Historic
contexts are generally divided into Contact and Post-Contact periods. The Contact period begins with
early European exploration and continues through the Post-Contact period including Euro American
settlement and Minnesota statehood. The following is a general summary of these traditions using
the Authors general knowledge and various disseminated sources including the OSAs website, Elden
Johnson’s 1988 The Prehistoric Peoples of Minnesota, Gibbon and Anfinson’s 2008 Minnesota
Archaeology: The First 13,000 Years, and Gibbon’s 2012 Archaeology of Minnesota.
3.2.1 Paleoindian Tradition (11,500 to 7,500 B.C)
The Paleoindian Tradition in Minnesota is divided into two periods: Early Paleoindian and Late
Paleoindian/Early Archaic (Gibbon and Anfinson 2008). Throughout the Paleoindian, Native
American communities were small, mobile, and focused on hunting. However, between the early
and late period, the environment and available food resources change dramatically. The beginning
of the Early Paleoindian Tradition is characterized by retreat of glacial ice and the growth of spruce
forests. During this time, now extinct megafauna like mastodon, mammoth, and large bison were
available for hunting. The Early Paleoindian period is poorly understood in Minnesota because most
evidence for Paleoindian lifeways comes from isolated finds of large, fluted projectile points (Gibbon
and Anfinson 2008). Based on more plentiful sites in the southeastern and southwestern portions of
the United States, it is generally assumed Native American populations were small consisting of
highly-mobile hunters and foragers who followed large game throughout the landscape (Gibbon and
Anfinson 2008).
7
By the Late Paleoindian period, modern vegetation zones had established themselves in Minnesota.
Modern animal species like white tail deer, grouse, and fish were available for Native American
communities to hunt and fish. Lithic tool evidence from Late Paleoindian sites in Minnesota take the
form of stemmed rather than fluted points and a wider range of tool types including groundstone
tools (Gibbon and Anfinson 2008). Again, lifeways during this time are poorly understood, but based
on three well-documented sites found in Minnesota (Cedar Creek 21AK58, Bradbury Brook
21ML42, and Browns Valley 21TR5), communities were small, highly-mobile and focused on
hunting larger animals and foraging for wild plants. However, stone toolkits did diversify and
communities began exploiting smaller territories. It is also likely populations started to increase
(Gibbon and Anfinson 2008). There are no identified Paleoindian sites within five miles of Edina.
3.2.2 Archaic Tradition (7,500 to 800 B.C.)
The Archaic Tradition continues the trend of resource diversification started in the Late Paleoindian
period. Native American communities developed broader toolkits, used a wider array of foods, and
became less mobile over the course of the Archaic. Additionally, by the end of the Archaic,
communities were using communal burial sites. Stemmed and notched points, groundstone tools-
particularly those for woodworking, and cold-hammered copper tools are hallmarks of the Archaic
Tradition in the archaeological record (Anfinson 1997; Gibbon and Anfinson 2008). By the end of
this period the climate shifted to a cooler, wetter pattern up until the strong, human-driven, warmer
climates of the modern era. Resource gathering technologies during the Archaic included the
aforementioned hunting, as well as trapping, fishing, foraging, woodworking and plant processing.
Many of the larger, documented sites in the central portion of the state likely began during the end
of this period. In the area surround Edina there are only two sites (21HE313 and 21HE314) which
have been identified as containing Archaic components. However, there are more ten sites which are
listed as just having lithic debris or waste materials. Some of these locations could be Archaic,
however, with no diagnostic materials recovered (projectile points), it is not possible to definitively
add them to this category.
3.2.3 Woodland Tradition (800 B.C. to European Contact)
In the Midwest region, archaeologists tend to divide the Woodland Tradition into three periods:
Early, Middle, and Late. However, Anfinson (1987) and Gibbon (2012) suggest in Minnesota it is
more appropriate to divide the era into Initial and Terminal Woodland periods. This view is not as
widespread as research would at first suggest, with more recent work including Arzigan’s Statewide
Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland Tradition (2008), and Buhta et. al. On the
Periphery?: Archaeological Investigations of the Woodland Tradition in West- Central Minnesota
(2014), retaining the more traditional use of Early, Middle, and Late designations. Beginning
approximately 2,800 years ago, peoples in the region experienced increases in population with the
advent of first horticultural and then agricultural subsistence strategies to augment already extant
systems of hunting and gathering. As populations increased, settlements near favorable
transportation and resource corridors shifted from seasonal to year-round occupations (Johnson
1988; Anfinson 1987:222).
The period also witnessed the technical transition from spear/atlatl to bow and arrow weaponry useful
for both hunting and warfare. This change in technology lead to the use of smaller projectile points
or arrow heads. Similarly the period also saw the invention of ceramic vessels and it is these vessels
and their change over time, from thick walled, grit tempered, conidial vessels, to thinner walled, shell
tempered, globular vessels, which has greatly assisted the archaeological community in further
8
refining their understanding of group identity, cohesion, and integration throughout the region. There
are more than ten major, recognized, ceramic complexes for the state with many temporal overlaps,
often based more on location than visual representation. A final example representing not only
identity and permanence on the landscape, but also religious practices, was the use of earthen burial
mounts. Although community size was likely similar between the Early Woodland and Late Archaic
periods, by the Late Woodland period, populations were certainly on the rise. Although numerous
occupations from this Tradition, including burial mounds and habitation sites have been investigated
there is still little understood about the transitions between the occupation in this portion of the state.
Winchell (1911) investigated several burial mound groups in Hennepin and Central Minnesota. Later
work by Wilford has suggested that burials were of the Mille Lacs aspect. Of particular interest to
the Lake Minnetonka area is the transition between Middle and Lake Woodland activities. Ceramics
and mound building were adopted relatively early in the transition followed by technological
movement to bow and arrow hunting. Furthermore, intensification of wild rice harvesting aided in
the increase of habitation sites and population. As shifts from nomadic to more sedentary subsistence
patterns continued, lager village sites concentrated on major lakes with smaller campsite and special
activity sites moved to major waterways. Specific ceramics complex for this region include Malmo,
Howard Lake, St. Croix, Onamia, Kathio, and Clam River (Anfinson 1979). St. Croix and Onamia
series ceramics are the predominate types for the transitional context. Woodland sites are the largest
group of identified sites within five miles of Edina with more than a dozen site locations including
at least one mound (21HE223). Most Woodland sites identified are small artifact scatters likely
related to camp sites
3.2.4 Plains Village and Oneota/Mississippian Traditions (A.D. 900 to European Contact)
Terminal/Late Woodland period sites in Minnesota exhibit significant changes in subsistence and
settlement patterns. Maize (corn) became the primary food for peoples living along the Mississippi
River. Peoples living on the plains relied more heavily on bison hunting. Settlement patterns
continued to shift to larger and more permanent villages with fortifications (Gibbon and Anfinson
2008). In the archaeological record, ceramic vessels have different forms and decorations from the
Initial Woodland and tend to be larger, shell-tempered vessels with smoothed exteriors, decoration
on the shoulder, and lugs or handles. Bow and arrow continues to be the weapons of choice and
projectile points become smaller and notched.
Initially, Native Peoples of the Upper Midwest were called the Upper Mississippians to reflect this
assimilation of cultural trajectory and many believed groups living in the area were, in fact, emigrants
from farther south or so acculturated into their views as to make them similar. Archaeology today
has shown migration, cultural diffusion, and local cultural evolution created a much more complex
picture than the model espoused above. The term Mississippian is still used if for no other reason
than to mark this period of cultural complexity as separate from the earlier Woodland expressions.
Mississippian archaeological localities within Minnesota are divided into four complexes: Cambria,
Great Oasis, Silvernale and Oneota. Over time, archaeologists have struggled to continue making
large generalizations in Minnesota concerning these peoples as they increased in population and
individual identity. Each complex extends through different areas of the state and slightly different
periods of time, making for a patchwork of new material cultures and subsistence and settlement
patterns.
9
Population concentrations continued to occur within this region throughout late periods. Occupations
of Oneota peoples were likely contemporary with the last Woodland settlements in the region.
Winchell (1911:449) described a ceramic rim fragment from Lake Minnetonka that resembles
Oneota pottery. Several of the Woodland sites identified surrounding the city of Edina (21HE216
and 21HE217, 21HE289, are documented as extending into the Late/Terminal Woodland Period (AD
1700) and likely were present during this period.
3.2.5 Contact/Post-Contact Period (1630 A.D. to Present)
Early explorers, whose travels were largely confined to the major river corridors, passed through the
region in 1680 (Hennepin), 1691 (LeSueur), and 1766 (Carver). This period generally refers to the
span of time extending from the first European explorations until intensive Euro-American
settlement of the region. Minnesota’s historic period began in 1673 when French explorers Marquette
and Joliet discovered the upper portion of the Mississippi River. Ten years later, Catholic Missionary
Father Louis Hennepin told his story of exploring Minnesota and being held captive by Dakota
Indians in the first book written about Minnesota, Description de la Louisiane. The territory
containing modern-day Minnesota was claimed at various periods of time by Spain, France, Great
Britain, and the United States. The primary inhabitants of the Territory following 1750 were the
Dakota and the Ojibwe, two nations often at odds with each other. The Ojibwe occupied large tracts
of northern Minnesota and the Dakota the same in southern Minnesota. The metro region often served
as either a neutral or contested zone (Anfinson 1989).
Lieutenant Zebulon Montgomery Pike lead the first United States expedition through the area which
would become Minnesota in 1805. Fort St. Anthony (later Ft. Snelling) was completed between 1819
and 1824, and in 1836 the Wisconsin Territory, including a portion of Minnesota, was formed. Just
one year later, on September 29th, 1837, during treaty negotiations in Washington, D.C., Dakota
leaders ceded their lands between the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers.
The fur trade drove much of European exploration and settlement into Minnesota prior to territorial
frontier settlement in the mid-1800s. While the fur trade impacted Native American communities
throughout all of Minnesota, the heaviest impacts came with later Euro American settlement.
Intensive settlement and agriculture dramatically transformed the landscape, displacing large
numbers of Native Americans and their communities. In 1862 tensions between white settlers and
Native Americans resulted in the U.S.-Dakota War. Ultimately, this war left 462 whites and “an
unknown but substantial number” of Native Americans dead (Anderson and Woolworth 1988). The
conflict concluded with the largest mass execution in United States history with the hanging of 38
Dakota on December 26, 1862 at Mankato and the deportation of remaining tribal members to Santee,
Nebraska.
By 1856, the recreational value of Lake Minnetonka was beginning to be recognized and small towns
and settlements like Wayzata and Smithtown were established (Neill 1882). by the 1930s and 1940s
the west Metro region was quickly filling between Lake Minnetonka and Minneapolis. Lake
Minnesota was a major center of population in the past, as it is today. Historic period Dakota Native
American peoples so valued the Lake that they may have intentionally steered early Euro-American
settlers away from the area. Hundreds of earthworks on its shores and islands were documented
during the 19th century making the Lake one of the three largest concentrations of mounds in
Minnesota (Anfinson 1984). However, only a tiny handful of these earthworks were ever
investigation and most were destroyed by modern development. The numerous earthworks suggest
that there should have been equally extensive village and actively areas around the Lake - but only a
10
few, small sites have been identified and none studied in any but the most basic fashion with the
exception of the Halsted Bay site complex at 21HE211 (Nienow 2004).
The City of Edina has its own fascinating history beginning in the middle of the 19th Century, which
is not the focus of this project (but could easily relate to future changes to the predictive model). It
should be noted, of the 44 sites within a five-mile radius of the city, nearly half are from the historic
period and comprise farmsteads (21HE372), mills (21HE110 and 21HE218), and other
middens/collections of historic artifacts.
4.0 PROJECT METHOLOGY AND RESULTS
The following section includes the methods used to complete the initial Phase Ia Literature Review
and subsequently the predictive model. Archaeologists traditionally employ a standard tool box of
methods to examine any area prior to initial archaeological survey. Given the specific needs of this
project, the Phase Ia was expanded to include geomorphological, topographic, and aerial examination
as well as local knowledge in the form of an artifact identification day.
Beyond this work, and ahead of any future archaeological surveys within the city, it is recommended
any archaeologist/consultant take the opportunity to review the methods used below, as well as make
good use of city resources including any existing grading plans for a proposed site which may be
available from city offices as well as available staff knowledge.
4.1 Office of the State Archaeologist
The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) (www.mn.gov/admin/archaeologist) was established
in 1963 with the passage of the Field Archaeology Act (Minnesota Statutes 138.31-.42). Today,
multiple state laws and statutes have impacts on the position, most recently the Minnesota Legacy
Amendment (MS 103F). The OSA is part of the Minnesota Department of Administration and
serves the primary roles of: burial identification; regulation of archaeology conducted on public
(non-Federal) lands within the state via a licensure process; public resource for archaeological
questions and research; and the official Minnesota registrar of archaeological sites identified within
the state. The OSA annually sponsors Minnesota Archaeology Month and its offices are located
across the Minnesota History Center. Research at the OSA resulted in the collection of 44 known
sites and seven alpha sites, which are discussed below.
4.1.1 Known Archaeological Sites within the City of Edina and its Periphery
Currently in Minnesota, archaeological sites are given a particular number after documentation by
archaeologists is provided to the OSA. Criterion for giving site numbers is different depending on
the cultural natural of the materials found, the condition of the site, and other factors. Sites in
Hennepin County have the prefix 21HE in front of them denoting Minnesota’s numeric designation
(21) as determined by the National Register, and its county abbreviation code (HE). As each new
site is documented and incorporated into the system it is given the next number in the system.
Therefore, the earliest investigated sites in each county are those with the lowest numbers.
Only one site, 21HE218, the Edina Mill Site, is currently documented within the city limits of Edina.
This mill, built by William Marriott, dates to 1857 and was documented in 1977 with an excavation
and report by Richard Busch The Excavation of the Edina Mill. A selection of its materials and
artifacts are retained by the Edina Historical Society. Beyond 21HE218 there are 43 known sites with
a five-mile radius of the center of Edina (Table 1). These sites are split between prehistoric (n=21)
11
and historic sites (n=14) with several (n=8) having both historic and prehistoric components. The
vast majority of these sites are small artifact scatters dating to either period. If one expanded the
search another mile in radius, multiple early mound groups (21HE1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 17, and 19) along
the Minnesota River at the Hennepin/Dakota County border would also be included. Proximity to
lakes and streams is the single largest similarity for sites within the vicinity.
The table list additional information for each location, however, exact geographical information has
been withheld at the request of the OSA. Furthermore, the references cited at the far right of the table
refer to professional or “grey literature” report which are available at either the OSA or SHPO
depending on the title. If additional information on a specific site is needed, it is recommended the
OSA be consulted and a visit scheduled. Most licensed archaeologists would be happy to facilitate
an introduction.
4.1.2 Alpha Sites
Besides the known sites in and surrounding the city, there are nearly 40 alpha sites within Hennepin
County. Alpha sites are locations which have been documented from either written account, area
maps, or oral tradition, but have never been formally investigated to see if they still contain intact
cultural deposits. Additionally, these sites do not have site numbers, they are only given lower case
letters for designation, and often do not appear on first blush examinations of archaeological reports,
investigations, etc. Many of these locations likely have little archaeological materials remaining
because they have been destroyed by continued development. Of the 40 or so alpha sites listed, only
a handful are found within a five-mile radius of Edina. None of these seven locations (21HEac, ae,
ai, aj, b, x, and z) fall within the city proper. The sites include a prehistoric camp site (b) in
Bloomington, two mound groups (x and z) near Lake Bde Maka Ska in Minneapolis, another lithic
scatter (ac) and projectile points (ae) also in Minneapolis.
4.2 State Historic Preservation Office
Another regulatory office within the state which provides both oversight and research materials for
archaeological work is the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
(www.mn.gov/admin/shpo). This office was created as part of the National Historic Preservation Act
(1966) and assists local entities in meeting the requirements of the act. Minnesota’s SHPO was
created by state statute in 1969. Similar to other agencies which are involved with the general
development process (such as the Army Corps of Engineers), SHPO reviews development projects
which fall under their purview and recommends archaeological survey in situations where they
believe archaeological resources are already present or potentially could be present and may be
impacted. The SHPO also has a National Register Archaeologist.
The SHPO maintains its own records of archaeological sites recorded in the state, and delineates
known sites on a series of topographic maps. Similar to the OSA, the SHPO is part of the Minnesota
Department of Administration and is committed to being an archaeological, historic, and preservation
resource within the state.
12
Table 1: Archaeological Sites within a Five-Mile Radius of Center of Edina.
13
Table 1: Archaeological Sites within a Five-Mile Radius of Center of Edina, continued.
14
Table 1: Archaeological Sites within a Five-Mile Radius of Center of Edina, continued.
15
Research at SHPO confirmed only one known archaeological site within the City. However, SHPO
research did identify numerous locally designated historic properties within the City, which were
outside of the scope of the existing project. In the past five years, only 38 projects have been reviewed
by SHPO as part of Section 106 (NHPA) review. These projects run the gamut from rehabilitation
projects, to lead abatement, communications project, local historic designations, park projects and
bridge projects. Only one of these projects, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the
Arden Park Restoration Project, has generated a request by SHPO to complete archaeological survey.
In the case of this project, a contract archaeologist reviewed soil cores taken as part of the EAW and
determined the area to have been significantly impacted/disturbed by previous modifications to the
landscape, and he recommended no further archaeological work. SHPO agreed with this finding.
Going back even further into SHPO records, only two projects have been recommended for
archaeology survey since 1990 (last 30 years).
4.3 Geomorphological Assessment
Archaeologists have long understood the importance of natural resources to the presence of
archaeological sites. Overwhelmingly, prehistoric sites are associated with bodies of water, high
areas overlooking resources (food, raw materials, etc.), or mobility corridors connecting resources.
Often locations where modern peoples have settled or desire to live, lay directly on top of the sites
where earlier peoples had the same intent. Understanding the environment which prehistoric peoples
lived in is a critical part of creating any predictive site model, especially in areas where modern,
urban settings have obscured the earlier landscape. NCC contracted with Michael Kolb, Ph.D., of
Strata Morph Geoexplortion, Inc. to complete an assessment of the potential for buried
archaeological deposits within the city. Dr. Kolb’s research was completed in March and a report
prepared and attached as Appendix B to this report.
Dr. Kolb documented the presence of multiple soil types which may contained buried archaeological
soils based on fluctuating water levels over the past 14,000 years. He specifically documented six
different soil series which may contain such soils and also provided a colored map. Generally, these
soils lie along Nine Mile Creek, with some soils along portions of Minnehaha Creek and associated
wetlands in both watersheds.
4.4 Government Land Office, Tyrgg Maps, and Topographic Maps
Similar to the above geomorphological research, there are a series of different historic maps of the
area which can provide insights into what the areas environment was like at the time of contact with
Native Americans, as well as provide direct evidence of Native American presence on the landscape.
The primary source among these maps are the original Government Land Office (GLO) maps. The
GLO was created in 1812 and oversaw the surveying, platting, and sale of public lands within the
western United States. Prior to sale, each section of land was carefully surveyed with local landscape
information (trees, wetlands, rivers, etc.) noted on the map, as well as existing trails, roads, and
settlements. Access of digital copies of GLO maps is available from www.glorecords.blm.gov.
Historians, foresters, archaeologists, and even attorneys have used this information to compile larger
maps for individual locations.
Here in Minnesota, the work of J. William Trygg stands out. Trygg developed a series of historical
maps based on the GLO maps creating the best representation we have of the pre Euro-American
environment within Minnesota, as well as historic Native American (and some early Euro-American
squatting and development) life in the forms of villages, sugar camps, fields, and other historic sites.
16
Copies of Trygg maps can still be purchased from the Trygg family and are available at
www.trygglandoffice.com. For this project, Trygg maps were closely examined to identify any
interesting landscape or culturally relevant information. Although no Native American villages or
other resources are readily apparent on his map, Trygg does identify a couple of historic houses (one
with fields) within the City as well as a loop of trails connecting a variety of waterways.
An Additional source of early mapping information are the earliest topographic maps for the area
produced by the United State Geological Survey (USGS). The best resource for examination of
historic topographic maps is USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer located at
www.historicalmaps.arcgis.com. From there you can view, overlay, and download all historic USGS
topographic maps. For Edina the earliest available USGS map is the 1896 1:62500 scale
“Minneapolis, MN” map. This map shows the area around Edina to be significantly wetter than today
with large areas of marshes in the southern and western portions of the region surrounding Nine Mile
Creek.
4.5 Aerial Photography and Modern Satellite Imagery
Similar to the above sources of landscape information, historic aerial photography as well as modern
satellite imagery are excellent ways to examine how the landscape has been modify by Euro-
American settlement in the last 100 years. Aerial photography for Minnesota is available at
Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online website located at lib.umn.edu. This is a service of
the John R. Borchert Map Library at the University of Minnesota and provides all available flyover
data beginning in the 1920s up through the early 2000s. For Edina, flyovers with initial coverage
beginning in 1937. Annually updated satellite imagery is available from a variety of sources such as
Google Earth. Typically, archaeologists use the satellite imagery found on the MnTopo page from
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. MnTopo is a web application for viewing, printing,
and downloading high-resolution satellite and LiDAR (a form of satellite imagery which cuts through
vegetation and shows minute changes in elevation) images. MnTopo is available at dnr.state.mn.us.
For this project, existing green spaces within the City of Edina were first identified using a modern
map provided by the City. Each location was then overlaid with earlier aerial photography to examine
the degree of disturbance which has occurred at each location. Generally, large swaths of the city
have been dramatically modified by the modern landscape (transportation corridors, large malls, and
general residential development. However, several locations, including golf courses, city parks, and
thin slivers of green space, still remain relatively intact and could contain prehistoric cultural
resources.
4.6 Edina Historical Society Consultation and Artifact Identification Day
Another primary form of data collection available to archaeologists is interviews of collectors
operating within the city. The Edina Historical Society was visited to identify any known
archaeological collections held within the city, as well as any known collectors. No Native American
artifacts are currently held by the Edina Historical Society, nor did they have any contact information
for area collectors. Based on this, it was decided an artifact identification day would be the best
course to identify materials which local residence have found over the years within the city limits.
The artifact day was promoted by both the city and historical society and held on Saturday, May 18th
from 10-12. Individuals brought in objects they had found in their yards, or while on vacation to
other parts of Minnesota and North America. Individuals had the opportunity to mark on a modern
city map where their properties where located, have their objects photographed, and their contact
17
information recorded. There was also a period for general discussion of locations within the city
where individuals thought there could be archaeological sites (both historic and prehistoric). More
than a dozen individuals attended the morning, many bringing found objects. While many were
interesting, none were clearly Native American in origin. However, multiple locations within the city
were identified as potentially locations to do future survey. Portions of this work were incorporated
into the model; however, most of this information could be used as part of future work.
4.7 Edina Reference Review
Edina has a large collection of available history books and historic records which have successfully
collected together much of the Euro-American settlement of the city. These excellent reference
volumes, including History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota by William Scott and Jeffrey Hess
(1981), The History of Edina, Minnesota by Paul Hesterman (1988), Chapters in the City History:
Edina by Deborah Morse-Kahn (1998) as well as The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District also by
Morse-Kahn (2009) document the various ethnic, religious, and social diverse Americans which have
come to call the city their collective home. These texts were reviewed at the start of the project to
identified known archaeological sites (such as the Edina Mill) as well as the generally understood
Native American presence on the landscape. As there were no specific Native American locations
identified within these volumes, they were used primarily to better understand the city’s
development. These types of materials are highly recommended for future researchers to better
understand historic sites and their political/historic contexts within Edina.
5.0 GIS DEVELOPMENT AND EDINA PREDICIVE MODEL
The GIS stage of the project combined the interpretations of several resources discussed above into
one cohesive predictive model. This involved the mapping of likely intact soils (Kolb 2019),
comparing historic aerial and modern satellite imagery, identifying pre-development water-based
resources from historic topographic mapping, and verifying states of disturbance using modern
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) GIS data as provided by the Hennepin
County Department of Environment and Energy (Hennepin County 2019). All GIS work discussed
here was completed in ArcMap 10.6, and all layers were drawn using projection NAD 83 Zone 15N.
All maps referenced in this section are included in Appendix B.
5.1 Probability Language Use Within the Model
A predictive model should not be thought of as a guarantee to predict the location of prehistoric
cultural resources. Instead, it should be understood as a valuable tool to help planners and
archaeologists augment their experience and knowledge, assist in avoiding costly project delays, and
help to minimize unanticipated discoveries. This report uses a series of terms to assist in this process:
little to no potential; low potential; moderate potential; and high potential. Moderate and high
potential areas should be considered locations where the best opportunity to recover Native American
cultural resources is present and some form of archaeological survey is warranted ahead of
development. Native Americans did not live in every available “best location” across the landscape.
The following narrative describes the process by which these terms and their associated locations
with the model were generated.
18
5.1.1 Little to No Potential: Archaeological sites likely not present
(survey not recommended).
The initial step was to identify the areas of Edina having likely experienced too much disturbance to
contain intact pre-contact archaeological features. These areas were located using modern satellite
imagery as provided by ESRI and consisted primarily of commercial or industrial zones.
Additionally, historic aerial imagery was compared with modern satellite imagery to identify areas
clearly shaped by human developments over time. These contained some areas which may not be
clearly disturbed in modern satellite imagery but were clearly far from the state they were in in the
1930s aerial imagery.
5.1.2 Moderate Potential: Archaeological sites could be present
(survey recommended).
Next, an 1894 topographic map of Hennepin County was clipped down to just the City of Edina and
georeferenced using the city’s borders. As this map was drawn before Euro-Americans began to
strongly impact the landscape, it can be assumed what is shown on the map closely resembles what
was available to pre-contact peoples. Of special interest to this model are local lakes, ponds, rivers,
streams, and wetlands. Water-based features like these provided numerous valuable resources to pre-
contact peoples, and therefore most intact archaeological features tend to be found near water bodies.
For this reason, the water-based features represented in the 1894 topographic map were drawn as
their own shapefiles to later be incorporated into the greater model. The wetlands were drawn as one
shapefile, the lakes and ponds another, and the rivers and streams yet another.
Depending on the precipitation of the season the wetland areas as depicted may be slightly different
season to season. During the winter, or in cases where the wetland shrinks between seasons, people
may camp further within the wetland areas to get closer to the current waterline and the rivers and
streams at the center of the wetland areas. For this reason, all wetland areas were considered to have
potential for intact pre-contact archaeological features. Additionally, while these wetlands must have
been filled in prior to modern development, if the water table beneath the construction fill is still high
this increases the likelihood for intact features.
Due to the factors above and considering the additional fact modern development may not only
destroy archaeological features but associated fill episodes may completely obscure their chances of
being identified, these wetland areas were considered the basis for the Moderate Potential layer. In
seasons of high precipitation, these wetland areas would be too saturated for camping, etc. Therefore,
a 150-foot buffer was added around all wetland areas to highlight a potential radius of activity. This
buffer was also added to the ponds, lakes, rivers and streams which did not sit entirely within the
wetlands and added to the layer.
19
5.1.3 High Potential: Best chance for Archaeological sites to be present
(survey recommended).
Next, the areas of high potential were addressed. This layer relied primarily on the Kolb 2019 report.
His report considered the locations of lacustrine soils within Edina which would have been frequently
layered and buried with new soils from the rivers along which they were deposited. These soils lined
up well within the river and wetland areas identified in the 1894 topographic map but were adapted
to the paths the rivers follow today. Kolb only included soils he deemed most likely to be intact
despite Edina’s high degree of development. Since these also lined up well with where pre-contact
archaeological features are likely to be found within the pre-developmental environment these soils
are considered the areas of highest potential. The map Kolb produced for his report was
georeferenced within ArcMap, and the areas of intact soils were drawn as polygon features.
5.1.4 Low Potential: Small possibility archaeological sites are present
(survey not recommended however developers should be prepared for unanticipated
discovery).
The areas which were not yet highlighted as being near enough to water-based features to have a
moderate to high potential and were not disturbed enough to have nearly no potential were considered
areas of low potential. While residential areas can involve intensive construction during their
development, intact archaeological features can still be identified in yards and successfully
recovered. For this reason, residential areas were not entirely discounted. The location of these areas
between bodies of water could contain potential for camps placed strategically to reach multiple
water-based resources, or contain items dropped during travel. Therefore, while the location of these
areas does not give high expectations, the potential for intact features is still present. All areas
between already drawn shapefiles for the high potential, moderate potential, and little to no potential
layers were filled in as a separate low potential shapefile.
The final steps were finishing touches. All polygons within single shapefile layers were merged
where they touched to help create a more seamless look. All polygons were lightly rounded using
the ‘Smooth’ feature to help diffuse the sharp angles created during the manual drawing process, and
the ‘Snapping’ editing tool was used during the drawing steps to ensure minimal gapping and slivers
between polygons. All overlapping polygons were then clipped from the larger layer to ensure colors
did not blend when layers were made to look transparent. Finally, the cohesive model was compared
to the latest version of MnModel published in February of 2019. MnModel is produced by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and is an attempt to create a statewide predictive model for
the locations of pre-1837 archaeological sites. Much like how the Moderate Potential layer was
created for the Edina model, MnModel uses an algorithm based nearly entirely on proximity to water-
based features (MNDOT 2019). The latest version of MnModel was overlaid with the cohesive Edina
model to check for accuracy. The models fit well, implying no important steps were missed in the
creation of the Edina-specific model. It is also clear the considerations the Edina model takes
regarding the effects of modern development allow for a more fine-tuned local accuracy and will be
more useful for Edina-specific projects moving forward.
20
The final map layouts provide views which help encompass and compare both the pre-development
and modern states of Edina by mapping the water-based features as recorded in the 1894 topographic
map, and these water features as they are today (as clipped from the aforementioned MLCCS GIS
data). Layouts also include an overlay with modern satellite imagery to give spatial context within
the model and an overlay with a LiDAR hillshade to highlight modern topographic or archaeological
features. The hillshade is lit from the northwest at a 30˚ altitude (the ideal altitude for highlighting
potential archaeological features). The LiDAR data was collected in 2011 and is provided by the
Minnesota IT Services Geospatial Information Office (MNIT 2011).
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE MODEL TESTING / USE
Now that extensive preliminary research (Phase Ia) has been completed, and a predictive model
established for the City of Edina, NCC has a series of recommendations for what “next steps” could
be implemented. These are only offered as guides for the HPC/City’s use – they are not project
requirements. The predictive model was the final deliverable for this particular project.
1) Testing the Model
The next step in predictive model development would be to test a variety of locations within
the city to test model accuracy. This would involve not only testing in moderate or high
potential areas, but also in areas with low or no potential. This information could then be
added to the model data to increase its overall value. Tests should also include a level of
random selection to increase validity.
This degree of model testing may not be cost effective for the city however, and given limited
funds, it may be more effective to test in moderate to high potential areas first to not only
increase public awareness and support for model efforts, but also (if sites are identified)
potentially document sites which could most immediately effected by future development.
Regardless of if sites are found, the model can still be improved with negative data and
locations can be archaeological “cleared” so future development could proceed from an
archaeological perspective.
It is recommended green spaces, especially those identified during the artifact identification
day (a hill along *** and location within ***) be the first locations for testing. Archaeological
survey should be completed by an archaeologist who is qualified to do Phase I archaeological
survey (currently licensed by the OSA). Again, it should be noted, the model is not a
guarantee of finding archaeological sites – but rather a guide to where to look for the most
likely locations to find cultural resources.
2) Using the Model to Assist the City and HPC with Future Recommendations
If the model is found to have a reasonable degree of reliability, then it could be implemented
as a first step the city, HPC, or similar bodies could use in determining if archaeological work
should be considered (for prehistoric site identification). Even is testing has not yet been
21
completed, it can still be used in its current form as a tool in determining the need for
archaeological survey. As future surveys are completed using the tool, the model will also be
tested (see above recommendation).
It is important to note archaeological survey may still not be warranted in high probability
areas, especially if a qualified archaeologist examines existing soil data (soil cores), historic
development records (demolition permits), or other available resources (grading plans, etc.)
and can show the city or HPC their reasoning for not completing a survey. This is a standard
process archaeologists use when projects are recommended by SHPO or others to show
additional work is not necessary. After which, SHPO or other agencies will either agree with
their findings, or disagree and still recommend additional survey.
3) Adding new Data to the Model
Finally, it is possible to continue adding new data to the model to increase its potential to
identify types of historic properties not initially included in the project. For example, if
historic farmsteads are identified as a potential resource to be included in a future model,
addition data (such as plat maps, aerial examination for farmsteads and fields, well head
locations) could be incorporated and new point locations for predicting farmsteads could be
added. It is important to caution, however, that although environmental drivers – which were
the core of this predictive model – are similar between prehistoric and historic land use
(people generally like to live in similar environments) historic development often occurs
along other avenues (ethic, political, etc.) which may not be easily modeled.
22
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, G. and A. Woolworth
1988 Through Dakota Eyes. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.
Anfinson, S. F.
1987 The Prehistory of the Prairie Lake Region in the Northeastern Plains. PhD
Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland
Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented to Elden Johnson, edited by
Guy Gibbon, pp. 135-166. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology
No. 4, Minneapolis.
1997 Southwestern Minnesota Archaeology: 12,000 years in the Prairie Lake Region.
St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.
2005 SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Minnesota Historical
Society, St. Paul, MN. http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/archsurvey.pdf
Arzigian, C.
2008 Minnesota Statewide Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Woodland
Tradition. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul.
Buhta, A. A., C. M. Johnson, E. C. Grimm, L. A. Hannus, and T. V. Gillen
2014 On the Periphery?: Archaeological Investigations of the Woodland Tradition in
West-Central Minnesota. Archaeological Contract Series 269. South Falls, South
Dakota. Archaeology Laboratory Augustana College.
Gibbon, G.
2012 Archaeology Minnesota: The Prehistory of the Upper Mississippi River Region.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Gibbon, G. and S. F. Anfinson
2008 Minnesota Archaeology: The First 13,000 Years. Publications in Anthropology,
No. 6. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy (Hennepin County)
2019 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. Hennepin County GIS. Website at
http://gis-hennepin.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/94d7d1d48b1b49cbbe0aaa
90bbcedac8_1?geometry=-95.319%2C44.675%2C-91.614%2C45.354
[Accessed on 30 April, 2019].
Hesterman, Paul
1988 The History of Edina, Minnesota. Edina: Burgess Publishing.
Johnson, E.
1988 Prehistoric Peoples of Minnesota. 3rd Edition. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical
Society.
23
Kolb, Michael
2019 An Assessment of the Potential for Deeply Buried Archaeological Deposits in the
City of Edina, Minnesota. SMG Inc.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)
2019 MnModel: Minnesota Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model. Website at
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel/implementation.html
[Accessed 25 April 2019].
Minnesota IT Services Geospatial Information Office (MNIT)
2019 LiDAR Elevation Data for Minnesota. Website at
http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/elevation/lidar.html
[Accessed 25 April 2019]
Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist
2017 Minnesota Archaeological Site Form. St. Paul: MNOSA.
Morse-Kahn, Deborah,
1998 Chapter in the City History: Edina. Edina: City of Edina, Minnesota.
2009 The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Edina: Nine Mile Creek Watershed
District.
Nienow, Jeremy L.
2004 Middle and Late Woodland Ceramic Analysis from 21HE210 and 21HE211, the
Halstead Bay Penisula on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. Minnesota Archaeologist,
Vol. 63 pgs. 29-42.
Scott, William and Jeffrey Hess
1981 History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota. Edina: City of Edina, Minnesota.
United States Dept. of Agriculture
2019 Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey.
http://www.websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Accessed June 23rd, 2018.
Winchell,
1911 Aborigines of Minnesota.
Wright, H. E.
1972 Quaternary History of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume,
edited by P.K. Sims and G. B. Morey. Minnesota Geological Survey, University of
Minnesota, St. Paul.
24
APPENDIX A
PROJECT CONTRACT AND LICENSE
25
26
27
28
29
30
APPENDIX B:
EDINA PREDICTIVE MAPS FOR PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
APPENDIX C:
SMG GEOMORPHOLOGICAL RERPORT
38
1
An Assessment of the Potential for Deeply Buried Archaeological Deposits in the City of Edina,
Minnesota
By
Michael F. Kolb, Ph.D. Strata Morph Geoexploration, Inc
March 2019
Prepared for
Nienow Cultural Consultants LLC
2
Introduction
The purpose of the assessment is to determine the potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits
in the City of Edina. Potential is a qualitative measure of the likelihood that a particular geologic
environment will contain archaeological deposits that are preserved in in primary context. Three
major geomorphic criteria are used to assess potential: (1) age of the deposits, (2) depositional
environment, and (3) post-depositional modifications (Hudak and Hajic 2002). Deeply buried is
defined in general terms as below the depth of the most commonly employed archaeological survey
techniques or about 0.5 m. Archaeological surveys can be conducted to greater depths after the areas
with potential for buried sites are identified. Archaeological deposits can be buried and preserved by
sedimentation or by anthropogenic processes during urbanization.
Methods
The following sources were used to make the assessment.
1) Geologic maps published by the Minnesota Geological Survey were used to determine
the nature of the landscape and deposits in and surrounding the proposed corridor.
2) USGS topographic maps (1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale) dating the 1960’s were used to
examine local and regional topography recorded prior to the heaviest urbanization.
3) Soil maps available on Web Soil Survey were used to determine soil types in areas of
Edina not to heavily urbanized
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.)
Geomorphic Setting
The pre-urban landscape in Edina is the result of processes associated with the last cycle of glaciation
and deglaciation between about 21,700 cal BP (18,000) and 14,800 cal BP (12,500 BP) years ago.
During this time frame the Superior glacial lobe advanced out of the Lake Superior basin, crossed
the Mississippi River into the Edina area, and deposited the St Croix moraine (Hobbs and Goebel
1982; Johnson and Hemstad 1998; Meyer 1985). With retreat of the Superior lobe the glacial ice of
the Des Moines lobe advanced down the Minnesota River valley into the Edina area. It was at its
maximum extent about the same time it was at its maximum extent in Iowa by 17,300 cal BP (14,000
B.P) (Ruhe 1969). The Grantsburg sublobe of the Des Moines lobe
3
advanced northeast over the St Croix Moraine, where Edina is located, through the Minneapolis- St.
Paul metropolitan area and into Wisconsin, also around 17,300 cal BP (14,000 years ago) (Johnson
and Hemstad 1998; Mooers 1992). During deglaciation the glacial ice stagnates and begins to melt.
This produces a rugged topography created by the combined effects of differential melting, deposit
thickness, and the action of meltwater. Landforms created by this process in the Edina area include
linear lowlands that are the former courses of melt water streams, kettles, and ice contact channels
(Mirror Lake for example) that now hold water, and numerous ice-contact landforms of various
shapes bounded by short steep slopes. Deposits mapped in Edina include till, outwash, and paludal
deposits (peat and muck) (Meyer 2007). By 14,800 cal BP (12,500 BP) the Edina area was
deglaciated and the postglacial period begins.
The post glacial period is characterized by warming climate and all the biological and hydrological
changes it entails. Soil formation (weathering) is dominate in higher landscape positions and
deposition is occurring in the lowland lakes and wetlands. The deposits in these lakes and wetland
record the environmental history of the last 14,000-15,000 years (Baker et al. 1998; Bradbury et al.
1993; Keen and Shane 1990) and may contain the archaeological remains of the Native peoples who
lived in the Edina area.
Potential for Deeply Buried Archaeological Deposits
In Edina landforms where deposits have accumulated over the last 14,000 years, the approximate
length of time people could have been in the area (Buhta et al. 2011), are lakes, wetlands, and stream
valleys. Lakes (open water) and wetlands are linked spatially because they often occur in the same
basin and temporally because lakes often evolve into wetland. Lakes have shoreline, nearshore, and
off shore lacustrine depositional environments. The position of these environments in the lake basins
change as lake levels fluctuate in response to Holocene climate and environmental change.
Archaeological deposits can be buried in lake sediment when people occupy the landscape around
the lake when water levels are low and, as the water rises, the site is inundated and eventually buried
by fine-grained lacustrine deposits. In many small inland lakes, the shoreline or nearshore
environment is low energy (limited wave energy) and/or has a wetland fringe. In these cases, the
archaeological deposits may be buried by paludal deposits. Many lowlands that are now wetlands
were initially lakes that through the process of paludification became wetlands (Heinselman 1970;
Ovenden 1990). Paludification occurs when organic deposits “grow” up basin margins as well as out
into the lake. Archaeological deposits resulting from occupations around the lake may be buried and
well preserved as is the case for archaeological deposits and mega-fauna from other locations in the
Midwest (Curry 2008; Hawley et al. 2013; Kolb et al. 2010; Overstreet and Kolb 2003; Stanley et al.
2002; Widga 2014; Yansa et al. 2006). For an informal discussion of mega-fauna and their
stratigraphic context in Minnesota see Mather (2009).
Archaeological deposits can also be buried along streams on floodplains. Larger named streams in
Edina (Nine Mile Creek, South Fork of Nine Mile Creek, Minnehaha Creek) appear to have poorly
developed narrow floodplains with thin alluvium. Despite these characterizations there is potential
for deeply buried archaeological deposits.
4
Soils
Landforms with potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits can be located geographically
(where urbanization has not obscured or modified the landscape surface) using soils maps available
on the internet or as layers in GIS programs. Due to urban development soils in most of the city could
not be mapped so the soils maps are not a comprehensive tool. Soil series formed in deposits with
potential for deeply buried archeological are shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. Archaeological
deposits can also be buried beneath fill or preserved at the surface, for example in yards or right-of-
ways in developed residential and industrial areas.
Table 1. Soil series with potential for buried archaeological sites (USDA n.d.)
Soil Series Deposits (thickness) Landform
Klossner organics (26 in; 66 cm+)/lacustrine wetland basin
Okojobi alluvium or lacustrine (56 in+;142 cm+) depressions on till
Suckercreek alluvium (80 in+; 203 cm+) floodplain
Medo organics (35 in; 89 cm)/outwash basin on outwash or till
Muskego organics (60 in+; 152 cm+) wetland or lake basin
Houghton organics (80 in+; 203 cm+) wetland or lake basin
5
Figure 1. Map of the soils with potential for deeply buried archaeological deposits in the City of
Edina. Note that soils could only be mapped in detail in the less urbanized part of the city.
Phase Ia Literature Review and Predictive Model, City of Edina, MN. Page - 6
References Cited
Baker, R. G., L. A. Gonzales, M. Raymo, E. A. Bettis, M. K. Reagan and J. A. Dorale
1998 Comparison of multiple proxy records of the Holocene environments in the midwestern
United States. Geology 26:1131-1134.
Bradbury, J. Platt and W. E. Dean
1993 Elk Lake, Minnesota: evidence for rapid climate change in the north-central United
States. Geological Society of America Special Paper 276.
Buhta, A. A., J. L. Hofman, E. C. Grimm, R. D. Mandel and L. A. Hannus
2011 Investigating the Earliest Human Occupation of Minnesota: A Multidisciplinary
Approach to Modeling Landform Suitability & Site Distribution Probability for the
State's Early Paleoindian Resources. Archeology Laboratory Augustana College
Archeological Contract Series 248.
Curry, B., B., ed.
2008 Deglacial history and paleoenvironments of northeastern Illinois 54th Midwest Friends of
the Pleistocene Field Conference. Illinois State Geological Survey Open File Report
2008-1.
Hawley, M. F., M. G. Hill and C. C. Widga
2013 New Deal Era Discovery and Investigation of Middle Holocene Bonebeds in the Upper
Midwest. SAA Archaeologcial Record 13:29-35.
Heinselman, M. L.
1970 Landscape evolution, peatland types, and the environment in the Lake Agissiz Peatlands
Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecological Monographs 40(2):235-261.
Hobbs, H. C. and J. E. Goebel
1982 Geologic Map of Minnesota Quaternary Geology Minnesota Geological Survey State
Map Series S-1.
Hudak, C. M. and E. R. Hajic
2002 Landscape Suitability Models for Geologically Buried Precontact Cultural Resources In
A Predictive Model of Precontact Archaeological Site Location in The State of Minnesota,
edited by G. J. Hudak, E. Hobbs, A. Brooks, A. Sersland, and C. Phillips (Minnesota
Department of Transportation, St Paul):12-11–12-63.
Johnson, M. D. and C. Hemstad
1998 Glacial Lake Grantsburg: A Short-Lived Lake Recording the Advance and Retreat of the
Grantsburg Sublobe. In Contributions to Quaternary Studies in Minnesota, Minnesota
Geological Survey Report of Investigations 49, edited by C.J.P. a. H.E. Wright, pp.49-60.
Keen, K. L. and L. C. K. Shane
1990 A Continuous Record of Holocene Eolian Activity and Vegetation Change at Lake Ann,
East-Central Minnesota. Geological Society of America Bulletin 102:1646- 1657.
Phase Ia Literature Review and Predictive Model, City of Edina, MN. Page - 7
Kolb, M. F., M. G. Hill and M. F. Hawley
2010 Preliminary Geomorphic and Stratigraphic Investiagtions at the Interstate Park Bison Site
(47Pk32), Interstate Park, Polk County, Wisconsin. Manuscript on file at the State
Historical Society of Wisconsin.
Mather, David
2009 A New Twist in Magafauna History. Minnesoata Conservtion Volunteer March- April
Meyer, G. N.
1985 Quaternary Geologic Map of the Minneapolis-St Paul Urban Area. In Minnesota
Geological Survey Miscellaneaous Map Series M-54.
Meyer, G. N.
2007 Surficial Geology of the Twin Cities Area, Minnesota. Minneaota Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Map Series Map M-178.
Mooers, H. D.
1992 Summary of the Late Glacial and Post-Glacial Landscape Development Along the
Minnesota River. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology Reports of Investigation Number
226.
Ovenden, L.
1990 Peat accumulation in northern wetlands. Quaternary Research 33:377-386.
Overstreet, D. F. and M. F. Kolb
2003 Geoarchaeological contexts for Late Pleistocene archaeological sites with human-
modified woolly mammoth remains in southeastern Wisconsin. Geoarchaeology 18:91-
114.
Ruhe, R. V.
1969 Quaternary Landscapes of Iowa. The Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Stanley, D. G., E. A. Bettis, III and D. J. Quade
2002 Geoarchaeological Investigations at Five Island Lake Vernon, Emmetsburg and Freedom
Townships, Palo Alto County, Iowa Bear Creek Archaeology Report #1030.
USDA
n.d. Natural Resources Conservation Services, Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.urce.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Widga, C. C.
2014 Middle Holocene Taphonomy and Paleozoology at the Prairie-Forest Border, the Itasca
Bison Site, MN. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39:3:251-279.
Phase Ia Literature Review and Predictive Model, City of Edina, MN. Page - 8
Yansa, C. H., D. F. Overstreet, M. F. Kolb and J. A. J. Clark
2006 Multiple Paleoindian Occupations of a Wetland Environment in Door Peninsula,
Wisconsin: Human Adaptive Response to Lake-Level Changes. Paper presented at the
Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, October 22-25, 2006.
Date: June 11, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Process for Landmark Designation Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Planner Bodeker and Consultant Vogel will go through the Landmark Designation Process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Landmark Designation Process
Edina Heritage Landmarks
Current Properties
HERITAGE PRESERVATION
BOARD
PROCESS TO ESTABLISH AN EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Following is the process for designating a property an Edina Heritage Landmark:
I. Contact the owner and ask them if they would be interested in having their
property designated an Edina Heritage Landmark.
2. With the consent of the owner, the HPC directs staff to prepare the necessary
heritage landmark nomination study which includes a plan of treatment for the
property. The landmark nomination study includes the following information*:
• Identifies and describes the property being nominated,
• Explains how the property meets one or more of the following Heritage
Landmark eligibility criteria:
I. Association with important events or patterns of events that reflect
significant broad patterns of local history.
2. Association with the lives of historically significant persons or groups
significant.
3. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style,
design, type or method of construction; or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
4. Important archeological data or the potential to yield important
archeological data.
• Makes the case for historic significance and integrity;
• The plan of treatment lays out a vision for the future of the preservation
resource and provides guidance for evaluating applications for Certificates of
Appropriateness.
3. The homeowner meets with the Planning Staff to discuss the nomination study to
ensure that they approve of the plan of treatment.
4. Once the nomination study and plan of treatment has been approved by the
property owner, the HPC will formally move the nomination. By statute, the
Minnesota Historical Society (SHPO) must be provided an opportunity to comment
on the nomination before they are acted on by the city (the review period is 60
days); city code also requires review by the Planning Commission.
When the review and comment period by SHPO is over, the nomination documents may
be revised to reflect agreed upon changes they recommend. The nomination is then heard
first by the Planning Commission because the action entails adding a heritage landmark
overlay zoning designation to the property. The Planning Commission provides their
opinion to the City Council who ultimately holds a public hearing to approve adding the
Edina Heritage Landmark to the property.
City Code: Chapter 36, Article IX. Edina Heritage Landmarks
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(2)
ARTICLE IX. - EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARKS
Sec. 36-713. - Purpose.
The zoning classification of Edina Heritage Landmark is established to promote the
preservation, protection and use of significant heritage resources in the city. Heritage landmarks
shall be nominated by the heritage preservation board and designated by council resolution.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(1))
Sec. 36-714. - Eligibility criteria.
The following criteria will guide the heritage preservation board and the council in evaluating
potential heritage landmark designations:
The quality of significance in history, architecture, archeology and culture
present in buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts that reflects:
Association with important events or patterns of events that reflect
significant broad patterns in local history;
Association with the lives of historically significant persons or groups
significant;
Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style,
design, period, type or method of construction; or that possess high
artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Important archeological data or the potential to yield important
archeological data.
The retention of specific aspects of historical integrity, including location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, that convey
significance as a heritage resource worthy of preservation.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(2))
Sec. 36-715. - Determination of eligibility.
Page 1 of 5Edina, MN Code of Ordinances
6/6/2019about:blank
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The heritage preservation board shall review the inventory of heritage resources and
evaluate the significance of all properties identified by survey. If it determines that a surveyed
heritage resource appears to meet at least one of the heritage landmark eligibility criteria, the
heritage preservation board may, by majority vote, issue a determination of eligibility for planning
purposes.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(3))
Sec. 36-716. - Nomination of a heritage landmark.
Nomination of a property to be considered for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark
shall be submitted to the council by the heritage preservation board. Each nomination shall be
accompanied by a heritage landmark nomination study prepared by the city planner. This study
shall:
Identify and describe in detail the heritage resource being nominated;
Explain how the property meets one or more of the heritage landmark
eligibility criteria;
Make the case for historical significance and integrity; and
Recommend a plan of treatment for the heritage resource, with guidelines for
design review and specific recommendations for preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration and reconstruction, as appropriate.
The study shall be accompanied by a map that clearly locates the property, a detailed
plan of the nominated heritage resource, and archival quality photographs that
document significant features of the building, site, structure, object or district.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(4))
Sec. 36-717. - State historic preservation office review.
The city planner shall submit all heritage landmark nominations to the state historic
preservation officer for review and comment within 60 days.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(5))
Sec. 36-718. - Planning commission review.
Page 2 of 5Edina, MN Code of Ordinances
6/6/2019about:blank
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
The city planner shall submit all heritage landmark nominations to the city planning
commission for review and recommendations prior to any council action.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(6))
Sec. 36-719. - Public hearing.
On receipt of the heritage landmark nomination documents and the comments of the state
historic preservation office and the city planning commission, the council shall hold a public
hearing to consider the proposed landmark designation.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(7))
Sec. 36-720. - City council designation.
The council may designate a property as an Edina Heritage Landmark by resolution.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(8))
Sec. 36-721. - Designation of heritage landmarks on zoning map.
The planning commission shall place all designated heritage landmarks on the official city
zoning map.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(9))
Sec. 36-722. - Review of permits.
To protect significant heritage resources, the heritage preservation board shall
review all applications for city permits for the following types of work in relation to
a designated heritage landmark:
Demolition of any building or structure, in whole or in part;
Moving a building or structure to another location;
Excavation of archeological features, grading or earth moving in areas
believed to contain significant buried heritage resources; and
New construction.
Page 3 of 5Edina, MN Code of Ordinances
6/6/2019about:blank
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
No city permits for the types of work described in subsection (a) of this section will
be issued without a certificate of appropriateness signed by the city planner and
approved by the heritage preservation board evidencing compliance with the
comprehensive heritage preservation plan. Applications for a certificate of
appropriateness shall be made on forms provided by the planning department and
shall be accompanied by the fee set forth in section 2-724. The application shall be
accompanied by plans and drawings to scale, which clearly illustrate, to the
satisfaction of the planner, the work to be undertaken if the permit is granted.
Certificates of appropriateness may be granted subject to conditions
Permit review decisions shall be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the comprehensive heritage preservation
plan and the heritage landmark preservation study, for each designated property.
The city planner and the heritage preservation board shall complete their review of
applications for city permits requiring certificates of appropriateness within 45
days of the date of application.
The city planner and the heritage preservation board may issue certificates of
appropriateness for work projects submitted voluntarily by owners of heritage
resources.
To ensure compliance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive heritage
preservation plan, the heritage preservation board shall review every application
for a preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance or rezoning, in relation to a
designated heritage landmark; and the city planning commission shall give the
heritage preservation board a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
projects before making its recommendation to the council.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(10))
Sec. 36-723. - Appeals.
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the heritage preservation board or an administrative
official may appeal such decision by filing a written appeal with the city clerk no later than ten
days after the decision of the heritage preservation board or the administrative official. If not so
filed, the right of appeal shall be deemed waived and the decision of the heritage preservation
Page 4 of 5Edina, MN Code of Ordinances
6/6/2019about:blank
board or administrative official shall be final. Upon receipt of the appeal, the city clerk shall
transmit a copy of said appeal to the heritage preservation board. The council shall hear and
decide all appeals in the manner provided by section 36-100.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(11))
Sec. 36-724. - Violation.
Violations of the provisions of this chapter or the conditions of approval granted thereunder
shall be a misdemeanor. This chapter may also be enforced by injunction, abatement or any other
appropriate remedy, in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(12))
Sec. 36-725. - Maintenance of heritage landmark properties.
Every owner or person in possession of a designated heritage landmark shall keep the
property in good repair.
(Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.20(13))
Secs. 36-726—36-748. - Reserved.
Page 5 of 5Edina, MN Code of Ordinances
6/6/2019about:blank
1 | P a g e
EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARKS
EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DISTRICT (EHLD) PROPERTIES: Address & Year
Designated
1. Grimes House - 4200 W. 44th Street - 1976
2. Minnehaha Grange Hall - Frank Tupa Park, 4918 Eden Avenue - 1977
3. Cahill School - Frank Tupa Park, 4918 Eden Avenue - 1977
4. Baird House - 4400 W. 50th Street - 1978
5. Peterson House - 5312 Interlachen Boulevard - 1987
6. Country Club District - NE Edina - 2003
7. Edina Theater Sign - 3911 W. 50th Street - 2006
8. Edina Mill Site - Dwight Williams Park, W. 50th Street - 2006
9. Browndale Bridge - Browndale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek - 2008
10. Oskam House - 6901 Dakota Trail - 2015
11. Wooddale Bridge - Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek - 2016
The properties listed above have been officially rezoned by the City Council upon nomination by
the HPB. Certificates of Appropriateness are required for demolition, moving a building, new
construction, and excavation.
Determined Eligible for Landmark Designation: (Heritage Award winners = *)
Eligibility for landmark designation places no restriction on the property owner, but would put
some limits on the government’s ability to do projects that impact the property.
By ordinance, the HPB has sole responsibility for nominating properties for designation as Edina
Heritage Landmarks. The first step in the nomination process is the HPB Determination of
Eligibility, which is a policy statement that in the opinion of the Board a given property meets
one or the Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria by being associated with an important historic
context and by retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.
The next step is to prepare a written nomination and a plan of treatment, which is prepared by
staff subject to the approval of the HPB. All authority for the designation of Heritage
Landmarks is vested in the City Council.
1. Erickson House - 4246 Scott Terrace - 1980
2. Odd Fellows Hall - 4388 France Avenue - 1980
3. St. Stephen the Martyr Episcopal Church* -, 4439 W. 50th Street - 1980
4. Simmons House - 4116 W. 44th Street - 1980
2 | P a g e
5. Leeskov House - 4410 Curve Avenue - 1980
6. Skone House - 4311 Eton Place - 1980
7. Morningside United Church of Christ* - 4201 Morningside Road – 1980
8. Onstad House - 4305 Morningside Road – 1980
9. Sly House* - 6128 Brookview Avenue – 1980
10. West Minneapolis Heights (NW Edina) – 1980
11. Wooddale Bridge - 5000 block of Wooddale Avenue - 2008 - EHLD 2016
12. Blackbourn House - 5015 Wooddale Lane - 2010
13. Morningside Bungalow Style Homes – @150 Homes - 2011
14. 4400 – 4412 France Ave. Commercial Building - 2012
15. Convention Grill* – 3912 Sunnyside Road - 2012
16. Southdale Center* – W. 66th St./France Ave./ W. 69th St./ York Ave. - 2012
17. Marri & Hendrik Oskam House - 6901 Dakota Trail - 2014 - EHLD 2015
18. Sara W. Moore House - 6909 Hillcrest Lane - 2014
19. Arthur Erickson House* - 5501 Londonderry Road - 2014
20. House, 4247 Grimes Avenue - 2014
21. Johnson House, 4300 France Avenue - 2014
22. Millpond Cascade, Minnehaha Creek (W of Hwy 100) - 2014
23. Schaefer House and Stable, 5117 Schaefer Road - 2014
24. Paul and Mary Carson House (“Maryhill”), 6001 Pine Grove Road - 2014
25. Claude D. Kimball House, 4520 W. 44th Street - 2014
26. Bruce A. Abrahamson House, 7205 Shannon Drive - 2014
Date: June 11, 2019 Agenda Item #: VIII.A.
To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Council Work Session Dates Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
September 17, 2019 5:30-Heritage Preservation Commission Joint Work Session
October 1, 2019- BC Annual Work Plan Meeting -Chair Presentations