Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020_10_13_Meeting
Agenda Heritage Preservation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Virtual Meeting This meeting will be held electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed live on the City’s YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001, Access code: 133 966 6980 Tuesday, October 13, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: September 8, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission V.Reports/Recommendations A.COA: 4510 Sunnyside Road B.COA: 4634 Edgebrook Place C.COA: 4600 Browndale Avenue- Request to determine that the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue no longer contributes to the Historical Signi3cance of the Country Club District and is eligible to be torn down VI.Correspondence And Petitions A.Correspondence-Atwood Station VII.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Preservation Planning VIII.Chair And Member Comments A.2020 Work Plan IX.Sta7 Comments X.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 ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: September 8, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the September 8, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting minutes. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description August 8, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, September 8, 2020 I. Call to Order Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Lonnquist, Pollock, Cundy, Birdman, Nymo, Everson, Hassenstab, Chair Schilling, and student members Lee and Pronley. Emily Bodeker, staff liaison, and preservation consultant, Robert Vogel were also in attendance. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Birdman seconded by Nymo to approve the meeting agenda as presented. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Cundy seconded by Pollock to approve the meeting minutes from the virtual August 17, 2020 meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Sketch Plans A. 4634 Edgebrook Place TJ Majdecki and Nate Wissink presented sketch plan drawings for a new house at 4634 Edgebrook Place. The Commission asked questions regarding the garden shed shown on the site plan, large window on the first-floor dining room, and second story faux balcony over the first-floor porch. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. 4100 W 76th Street Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Manager, gave some background on the affordable housing project located at 4100 W 76th Street. She gave some background on the project timeline and where the project is in the development process and SHPO and HUD review. She explained how the project will honor the cultural history of the former Flyte Time Studios. Motion by Lonnquist seconded by Birdman to express support of the proposed plans for memorializing the cultural history of 4100 W 76th Street including a plaque Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: explaining the cultural significance of the site/artifacts even though it is outside of the general purview of the Heritage Preservation Commission. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. 4630 Drexel Avenue Staff Liaison Bodeker presented the COA request for 4630 Drexel Avenue. The proposed COA request includes changes/additions to multiple street facing facades. Liaison Bodeker explained that the proposed project would also require a rear yard setback variance through the planning commission. Motion by Birdman seconded by Cundy to approve the COA request at 4630 Drexel Avenue with the following conditions: • Asphalt roofing is not an allowable roofing material • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. Approval is conditioned to the plans presented. All voted aye. The motion carried. C. 2021 HPC Work Plan Motion by Birdman seconded by Lonnquist to submit the proposed 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission work plan to City Council. All voted aye. The motion carried. D. Biographical Sketch-S.S. Thorpe Liaison Bodeker explained the Biographical sketch included in the packet was updated based on input the Heritage Preservation Commission received in June. Motion by Lonnquist seconded by Nymo to approve the Biographical Sketch of S.S. Thorpe. All voted aye. The motion carried. VII. Special Recognitions and Presentations A. Preservation Basics Preservation Consultant Vogel presented on the Basics of Preservation. The plan is to take 15 minutes in the upcoming meetings for a presentation from Consultant Vogel on different preservation topics. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: VIII. Chair and Member Comments: A. Lonnquist CCD Survey Summary Commissioner Lonnquist presented information she gathered on previous Country Club Surveys that have been completed. Consultant Vogel explained that the Council directed him to review whether or not a house in the Country Club District was contributing or a non-contributing resource when a COA application is submitted, so there isn’t a “list” of non-contributing resources in the district. IX. Staff Comments A. Preserve MN-State Preservation Conference Bodeker Shared information on the Preservation Conference that will take place virtually and is free to attend. X. Adjournment Motion by Birdman seconded by Nymo to adjourn the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at 9:01 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:COA: 4510 Sunnyside Road Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request as submitted for 4510 Sunnyside Road. INTRODUCTION: The subject property, 4510 Sunnyside Road, is located on the north side of Sunnyside Road, east of Browndale Avenue. The home, built in 1941, is a story and a half American Colonial Revival style home. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails a change to the existing gable on the front façade of the existing home and a small entry addition. The project also includes an interior remodel and addition off the back of the home. The proposed rear addition will not be visible from the front façade of the home. Link to Better Together ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Applicant Submittal Memo from Consultant Vogel Aerial Map October 13, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner COA: 4510 Sunnyside Road-Changes to Street Facing Facade Information / Background: The subject property, 4510 Sunnyside Road, is located on the north side of Sunnyside Road, east of Browndale Avenue. The home, built in 1941, is a story and a half American Colonial Revival style home. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails a change to the existing gable on the front façade of the existing home and a small entry addition. The project also includes an interior remodel and addition off the back of the home. The proposed rear addition will not be visible from the front façade of the home. Primary Issues: The proposed changes to the gable change the existing roofline and both the addition to the front entry and change to the dormer are visible from the street façade of the subject property which is why the proposed project requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. The proposed project meets the City’s zoning requirements. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: “I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for renovation of the house located at 4510 Sunnyside Road in the Country Club District. The subject property was built in 1941 and is therefore considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. When the district was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982, this house was classified as an example of the “American Colonial Revival” style. Most architectural historians would probably identify it as a specimen of Neocolonial or Minimal Traditional vernacular architecture, rather than an authentic example of the Period STAFF REPORT Page 2 Revival mode. Minimal Traditional and Neocolonial style homes built before 1945 comprise a small proportion of the historic housing in the Country Club District. The applicant plans to refinish the masonry exterior with a “German schmear or limewash” coating. This treatment has its origins in the folk house traditions of northwest Europe; painted or whitewashed brick houses are frequently seen in ethnic German-American communities and the tradition appears to be making a come-back with suburbanites. From an historic preservation perspective, coating the original brick and stone with a mixture of lime mortar and water would not be considered an adverse effect because if properly applied, the treatment would not damage or destroy the existing masonry. More importantly, the treatment is reversible. And in any case, the City of Edina does not require building permits for exterior painting, therefore a COA is not required for this kind of work. The plans submitted show construction of an addition, alteration the existing wood siding and the replacement of the small dormer on the street-facing façade with a larger gabled dormer. In my opinion, the changes should have minimal impact on the property’s historic character. No historically significant architectural features will be lost and the new “shake shingle” siding is compatible with the house’s original design. In my opinion, the design of the proposed new dormer is appropriate to the building and the streetscape. All of the important architectural character-defining features are to remain intact. Therefore, I recommend approval of the COA without conditions.” Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans for 4510 Sunnyside Road, also recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The information provided supporting the Certificate of Appropriateness is consistent with the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. • Edina’s Preservation consultant finds that issuance of a COA for the proposed plans is appropriate. Conditions for approval: • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. Sunnyside Road DESIGN GROUP Application for: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 4510 Sunnyside Road, Edina Minnesota. (Ernst and McNamara Residence) Applicant: Maggie Tarr (ph. 760.831.1007) EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The proposed project includes removing an existing dated addition, that is in a dilapidated state, and adding a new addition of the back of the home that ties in with the architectural style and materials of the residence. The addition will include a new Master Suite, Kitchen, where the existing old addition was. We will also be adding a Workshop off of the back of the Garage. A gable dormer added to the front of the home to match the same pitch of the front roof slope to create a better continuity for the front Elevation facing Sunnyside road. We are replacing materials that include new roof sheathing, replacing the shake shingle in a similar architectural style, and replacing all windows to match the existing windows that are divided lite and double hung. As the existing home has a mixture of stone causing the original addition stand out- we will be applying a German Schmear to the stone or Limewash to help create continuity. There are three materials used on the home- and the goal is to create it as a unified home without the appearance of multiple additions. The goal of the home is to create a residence that appears as it has always been there, and provide an efficient one level living space for Mike Ernst and Mary McNamara. Sincerely, Maggie Tarr 760.83 .10(17- maggieamargaretjanedesigngroup.corn PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5 7020 CITY OF EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA atamirAtworacvsArascam. _ J/Wgiaili) 0.04-4110110s.t 01.101111111/10k11111011191.111111Itimair dr. E 0 a Ernst & McNamara Residence 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 AT.0 Prnrincto•ri Plnnc Project Contacts Sheet Index General Scope of Work Architectural Designer: Structural Engineer: AT.0 Title Sheet Margaret Jane Design Group Complete Building Solutions See Survey Maggie Tarr 2900 Thomas Avenue South Suite 1501 Bruce Polaczyk, PE bruce@cbsmn.com SP1.0 Site Plan Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone: (763) 544-3355 A0.1 Existing Front Elevation maggie@margaretjanedesigngroup.com A0.2 Existing Lower Level & Main Level Plan Phone: 760-831-1007 Surveyor: A0.3 Existing Upper Level Plan Stonebrooke Engineering, Inc. Contractor: 12279 Nicollet Avenue, Burnsville, MN 55337 Telos Direct: 952.540.4845 Main: 952.402.9202 oposca ounaa Erik Olson http://www.stonebrookeengineering.com A1.0 Proposed Basement Floor Plan President, TELOS Aaron Mages A1.1 Proposed Main Floor Floor Plan www.telosmn.com Al .2 Proposed Upper Floor and Roof Plan 7148 Shady Oak Road, Minneapolis, MN 55344 erik@telosmn.com A2.0 Proposed Exterior Elevations Addition off the Rear of the Home for a New Master Suite, Kitchen, and Workshop. A gable dormer added to the front of the home to match the same pitch of the front roof slope to create a better continuity for the homes front Elevation. Add a German Schmear or Limewash to the existing Stone and Brick. There are three materials used on the home- and the goal is to create it as a unified home without the appearance of multiple additions. Replace the shake shingle siding with new shake shingle siding, along with windows that match the double hung, divided lites of the home. Outside of new Windows in Existing Locations, New Roof sheathing ontop of existing roof and New Roof details to Match the Architecture of the home. VW]] JO A.110 co I 1 rn (z) z C) -n 0 m rn z z .1N7A 1 Poiriqn ) O o ,0 ,o iv - _N. 4, N 1,) 0 0 N..) K.) o o co co iv k) v - IV iv 0 0 is, N3 o :c, - v iv 0 iv Ernst & McNamara Residence Margaret Jane Design Group www.margaretjanedesigngroup.com -HESE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE HOME CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF MARGARET JANE DESIGN GROUP LLC AND ARE PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT LAW ANY USE O F THESE PLANS IS STRICTLY UNAUTHORIZED PROHIBITED Copyna,1 ",- 2020 111111/4. ) • D • 0 000 0 4510 Sunnyside Road Edina, Minnesota Ernst & McNamara Residence A1.0 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1 /811=1 '-0" PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5. 2020 CITY OF EDINA Prnnricpri Plnnc Do we wont ,ithed Yid's? Or Conc. UNEXCAVATED INFrost f ootdos t ) So SSS O Washer er 0 DS 04)Wndw weT (N)Pindw 1E1 loc. Patch WE, Pone, ng Peuty Four cloton INIWncte in IF) Loc. Patch WOE Pcne,g (N)Yinde wet STORAGE Rponn 004 I onc STORAGE ROOM II 005 Conc. Fir LL TI 10°21 eo!oce Fut., Sher. Cob i 1E1 Loc MECHANICAL ROOM °°' I Rep.ace lam. Re R. Remove dropped Clg. Repo,' Fkonoce Basement Wo'. (MPS. Red. Clg. LL SHOP =1 MEDIA ROOM 0 Zt Cky 00 Scrape Clg. Paneled Wes TNI LnIS Ht. 101P.r. Wood) We? Coquet?) (MING) UNEXCAVATED /7 N)GOOf 11e VerRy Foundation Nldon Re se. 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 ti 0 0 m 06 3 So 0 06 3 C) 0 m IN3INiblVd30 ONINNVid 7, :. > 5 ) CD 0 0 -.o -.0 A A iJ is, 0 0 N) N, iv 0 0 co co ,,..1 --, k.) NJ 0 0 N, NJ .00.. o co 'V is.) 0 NJ Ernst & McNamara Residence Margaret Jane Design Group www.margaretjanedesigngroup.com THESE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE HOME CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF MARGARET JANE DESIGN GROUP LLC AND ARE PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT LAW ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE PLANS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED Copyright © 2020 ) "? • N) 4510 Sunnyside Road Edina, Minnesota C'g 08.2t Crown Moting Wood. Belt In e Cob. GUEST BATH 108 (E)Wncia T 43'd RIWnde alWndre (EIVIndw 7.90,4 KITCHEN 1 1051 C1980-24 Crown Mo'cfng rte lErrende DINING ROOM II 019 6 8-2f Crown Mordng Wood F., Arched Openng Spina Pt 08, Pt 9T LIBRARY =1 Clg 8 0-24' Crown MorcIng PoneedWo, Wood Pr O LIVING ROOM Clg e 13-4 Crown Mdcfng Wood P+ OWNER'S BEDROOM 1107 I C.98 8-2f Pen Bond Mo'cfng Wood R N N BREAKFAST NOOK z GARAGE lElPindre fE)Wnde 2-814.4 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 A0.3 Pvictinn Plnnc Ernst & McNamara Residence -0 0 0 0 a) 'al D c (>1.g C C JO CD Lo lEjAC SUN ROOM 1 103 I Gig Pone'ed Room lie FP 3,6' FP Montle A 4 (E)Wndee 7-0S-4 PLANNING DEPARTMEk! SEP 2 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA lErrendor (EIWnde EXISTING MAIN FLOOR SF: 2060 (INCLUDING GARAGE) EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1 /T=1.-0" C) •• 0 O O o N VNIC13 JO A110 C—f) m —10 bD I O N.) IN31AlitiVd3CI ONINNYld -5,7 > DD 0 ,o :,:, is) — .1:rs .1, NJ is) N..) N.) 00000 00000 co co is3 ND V — IV rs) is) N..) po — -.1 is, N.) Ernst & McNamara .....THESE Residence Margaret Jane Design Group www.margaretjanedesigngroup.com ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE HOME CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF MARGARET JANE DESIGN GROUP. LLC AND ARE PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT LAW ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE PLANS SS TRICTLY PROHIBITED Copyright @ 2020 ) • _I , 4510 Sunnyside Road Edina, Minnesota Ernst & McNamara Residence 4r• PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Prnnncari PlrIng U PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1 /8"=1'-0" VW min, I eqwn. in IE) loc. in IF) lac. Patch Wol Pcneng Polch Wof Pcnerng STOR. GE ROOM I 004 0 DS Do we wont Edshed Woes? Or Conc. UN)XCAVAIED (N)Frosl FoolWgs NI Rafe. Clg. 550 O Washer Dryer furnace MECHANICAL ROOM I 001 Replace lam. de W. Remove d'oPPed Repanl Nlwndo well INIWndes wet )Dr ) LL TI 002 fry), ^,^ Ch place fatur S hwr. Cabi Et I. (MING) UNEXCAVAIED Z=M, LL SHOP 003 Conc, Er MEDIA ROOM o 0W1 e.2, scrape Paneled was (NI IMIr Ht. IN)F1s. (Wood? Re? Cotoet?) STORAGE ROOM II 005 Conc. Flt Ver4y Foundatan M= am 215 Nprcin Re /Throughout FYN Verity Foundation 100 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 A1.0 7-0 (N}ConcPool Ratio [Included h Impervious Surface Coe) 327SF uhlure by Owner BUTLERS PANTRY 114 I oo Ire Shelvisg Purchased by Owner, will by Tetos LP L FOYER fol (Elwood Fk. Clg B Er-2c Crown Alecing INJElec.Hld (NITee Pr Remove Or Open Entry Reuse IBIDR ENTRY ED° 60 Pll (NiVinders lE) loc. Cup 1-21 Clown Moking Rees III Wood Pe (Reuse (El Montle lorMattle By Owner-, ssv Basement na -6- 11 Monfle A 1141Gos FF wen 114)3DR et (Et Loc. ( lock lobs. By Owner Snon, Bower et Attic Access GARAGE I 115 Og • Bra Refit. Pc 3bPe/ EPotsY 1 4 1/7 lElAsphcil Driveway POOL EQUIPMENT CONC.PAD WORKSHOP Owner's III? I lEprecek En. Conc.F1 hnioted a Foihed Bench Mei SO System Closet 120133 Skiing DR oak ode LAUNDRY INIW00 LJ Nffinclw 7,3-8 161Wndar 2-Ella-1 RJ 14. 24. (Wool rn p c 160SF 4664 Planing by Owner 12124,3',Wnders 3 218,5'.611/nd 16-1 1/21 MINN:MIME 0)( ' " !: ismommon = Bench Ie D I Ffloperina emove Carpel. Runner Handal le t Strined, Pdnt Treads & Inert frock Write Spades //l'oneled WorNe.‘ Uoss Enclosed Entry IConcStion Thts Space) riptYnder Wel Sone Veneer / Slone Cap ceol= EXISTING MAIN FLOOR SF: 2060 (INCLUDING GARAGE) LINEAR SQUARE FEET OF ADDITION EXISTING:1040 PERCENTAGE OF HOME MODIFIED: 49% C./ Goroge Or. ConErrn roe on Sire- (Nplecoder TROUGH DRAIN LJDr (Mildy ep Inch Wolf, Sh p DV 12 reo lOIN Byer enl En1 to Dc-vnsfo rs poi cel TBD Cono. • W rod re 3Tor ge \3 41 POOL (311,4.1E111? 13) il ne ljNjFconclation Ywar SO, PO 116 I B M =1 Cp it 2, Wood Pr oaIng Von Corti Below d. MUDROOM Wood L. OWNER'S BAT 1111 ------- ------ --- ------- ------ — -------- --- .... ..... helving Purchosed b own, MASTER WIC 08101 by Tabs I L 'JEN] kICAIH emove EJSItmer eproce E) o //Reuse pionty By lEjD PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/8"=1'-0" 16 Panee Rel. Freezer AnCque Moor WOE Bock Bar Colonel By Owner Add 74 301d Cab Mbar tide Mohan Stoop au BACK HALO. n Clg 8 INICraren Making PP FIr .17410pennrc— I Lit PPe^=-11 Reuse Ow et. III el. INJOtass Dr lEjSleps E/012 (411Wnch6s INIWnclw Box 46. ow I Garage (coulee Makert 17'r, By INIWndW [PONS Ht.Wndws ler Leaded GP0- Diornond Potion SUN ROOM emove Panel 164 1E) Brick I=1 Clg 6-2i" Contractor Poneted Room to Confirm INJHIA. Tien LIVING ROOM lit I____1 1___I IN)Wndw 0(E) loc. PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 20211 CITY OF EDINA IPJ Wncle In (E) lac (N)Wnotty Wet Stone Veneer w/ Stone Cop (NI kt IQ loc. KITCHEN OWNER'S SUITE 4 GIVE 10-I IN)Crown Moldng Wood Pr LIBRARY Crg g 1-2 Crown MoVng Poneted Wars ReFotE)Wood Fir Reprint Ponels in Block d0 E 6.4 0 a 0 0 2 z cc 1 2 ,, 0 .)C 9„,,,occp— •= p 0 OZ : C4 : i : 0 pt :69 C 0)'—t.'""PEILL1' 'fn D C • ,,w 8 u.,..... zB . 0) .6c . . : u LP- ti x . o _9 ( 2 • .1gs :0 ! ! ,i e F,s LY, ! 8 r5) 1120 Y.: I; P i 3 fr' ED. &,7, % Wj_:,,' 0 0 ' `n 2 .I ,,, f32,...R8g z • 8 § EL° 5 c_ -0 O 0 o ce 0 `• en) P C D • 0 (.1) C f) LLI 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 A 1 . 1 Prnr-in6pri Plnnc Ernst & McNamara Residence N)Gobre Root e,1nln Coen Cob. GUEST BEDROOM Wood fir Scrape Clot. Seenf Pt.p6 GUEST BEDROOM 103 1 Wood Hr Scrape Cgs. (E)Rubber Roof Pot Deck 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 A 1 .2 Prnnr-Kpri Plring Ernst & McNamara Residence D 0 ce 0 0 0 •(7).g C c . ( D O ) C C) .1-7") LLI Remove l E)Rebber Roof for (N)flo, Deck Remove (EA, for INI Wno, Potch Wok and Exter,or Sming ) GUEST BATH II 1 103 1 Rep!oce He on Fk and WO, Scrape CI 0 CLOSET toe Wood Fir Scrape Clge PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1 /8"=1'-0" I 111-11 )Finial 11111111111101111 II I II 1111 I I (N)Ridge 1TY I 1 I T H 14,1 11 Imlllmlll 1 mormonmon 1, L r I III ..d 11 M111 1111 !HY ' AiiallIF11111.1111111.1111111 .41111111111111111111111111111.1111111111111 41 1 1 LI I1 IT Jill I 1 Ij III 1.Ill10 11 11 LI 1 111 L1 Ur L1 LI 1 I 1 [1 II r LI 1 1 1 11 11Y IIIYI 1 I II LI 1 111 Li a ITIYULJ UL1 I IINUILII[11 YIY U 'LH 11 1111 U O uu uu 1 LJ I I I I f l I I iii 1 I I U I 1 U 1 I I LI U II II I if Ill II I I LI II IIiII II II L i I U I U II - LI Li. LI LI 1 II II NI Rid IU u 11 I 'Li I I II 1Y1111111 I I U I I I LT II 11 II 11 1 II LI I IIITIU LTI 111 III II U II ilk III -11 u 1 III (i008 .tRoo 1 1 1 I 11 I 1.08 (El Ridge ioRa oimo c iz tin+) ? > R ...A -o s) — .N. ka is.) 0 0 00000 co co i.) na ••••4 — is) ts) 0 0 po — --.J is) Ernst 8( McNamara Residence Margaret Jane Design Group www.margaretjanedesigngroup.com THESE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THE HOME CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF MARGARET JANE DESIGN GROUP LLC AND ARE PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT LAW. ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE PLANS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED Copyright @ 2020 D 1 . C.4) 8 81 '8 '8 0 8 4510 Sunnyside Road Edina, Minnesota IN30111:1Vd34 DNINNV1d C) 0 m Cf) m IND fV IV C.7 (N)Wndw 1E) Loc. INI•nrev Wel ih lIlIan. Expand Dep . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . ' Nit-lade Shake Shrvgle dSking Stagger Stacke YYYYYYYYNI YYYYYYYY-YYYYYYYYY ...4•1,11711•MIL 12 IrDcen'tedirag; IMO NNE I N MOB I N mP•m"Ill 22119111111111 I. I N I. ermanSchinere Line Wash 1E) Slate BrinIZI,E= INISenges over 11) Roof Option I: Rubber Shndes to look Pre slate 0OtiorCP3Vitotro'f'Prrutli•Phdi- A h. xii===•11k. ra====•1•11k. elM=====11N -..113111r _,.11111111111Er ....1101111110111r ..1141111111111111:::r ,11411Miillil • 11111111111111111111111111,' =rimilvin1111&_ „ow u 11 Am, '1 IIIA mom mos 5.'1' inosinms irszcanzai .H II ..... MNII=1= on t go. ap.=... E. rii4; mommm.. Mi—FM "11 M=R-,RIN IN MMININI M= IN =M ONE 12 M=I NN =MIMI= =1611.2:Jelet IIID EN1111-reN• ====7MININIIIINIIIIII=M1===M=1=== ==ME=MIIMIIM11=1==MENN=====NE ====MIIIMINNI==M1=====M==1 mmmmomimmrammommmmommEN ==MMININNIMIIMIN ======INION1111=141114411•11•2111111113 =IIMIPEMMmomms INfOR MERRIER 117n EGA • .101,11-16n msos T.ra.cat., dieteRTARTielMMffriiii. 8 asr -218„„—AN • ismiSk._ MMMMMM ....%=i-Wm1111111 'cm3:6MiLM-E.M•2 1,0=1":11.—.4N••NW PLANNING DEPARTMEN SEP 2 5 202(1 CITY OF EDINA Ernst & McNamara Residence D o o a) a)) 7 c C c D 0 c a b Lf") .42,YIN°°?! RO. ti .tUPPER LEVE} FLOOR . PLATE FIT. WINDOW RO. INISlinges over lE) Root Opton I: Robber Sling'es to look lee slate Option 2 Snake Sting'es Opfon limber:ale of Equal Asphoe )N)PdnfOd Ebve Detail • • • " " " • " • 7f`oAllE)*Cove befol & QgnIsittono10.j(Et ./ Co.umn t? co MAIN LEVEL FL00? TOP QF FOUNDATION b` NEM MMMMMMn INIGoroo Or in 10 Lon anal n lime Wash (El Scone • . • . .. • • . • • • • • . • • IN)Shades over IN) Root Option Rubber Slindes lo look Ike slate Oplion 2 Shale Shndet Option Timber:he of Food Asphalt t1.11;PER. LEVI f1.0E4R +WINDOW RO. ... MAIN LEVEL FLOOR . . •. ;IORPF.EOUNDATIOEI '12 n o u n .•.............ms UN II II 1111111111111111.au1ni11 111111011 UM 1111111 1 111111 1111111 111111111 11111 1 11111 1 •512 ENE miesomicao 111111 1111111 SIMI 111111 1111E10 111111111111111 •1111111 _. 11111111111111 imminilirminum Imminas iim II mu inininummicsi mil ming Au amiumummil memeeine 11111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 •••••mminnum•.•1..• 1 11111111111 1111 111 11111118111111 1111111111111111111111 111111111111111PW4 111111111111111.11 1111111111111111 111111111111111111 1111111111 11111111111 111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 ERWIMME NIncede Shake Shod° Eking Slogger Slacked 1111111 MEM •NE NISconc III Ell Jim MIN • MN -11 11 N)Fence w/ Conc. Slob or Pod Kelp V BD: Meta Ridge to Catch IN) Gable Darner- or Ande Gable Dormer dove, to 1E) (NISH-nolo, over 1E) Roof Option I: Rubber Stinges to look Ike tole Opron 2 Shake Slinges Option I Troberine of Squid Moho, Yth. (19113DIA !IMO LA VII 111111111k 1111111111111116 Mill..w.21511111% 111111111111.11k. VA= '4111111111111111111, -j 11111-1\ 11111111111111111. Agram•aimhalos, 11111111111111111A 14141g, . 91" I si 7, 1 ir LIM 111=1 MEM igigMashromm. 111 IV! I .M! gllIl En! Ems PI M11111114.-ar ---•=.411.1..0 Ar41;\ 12 , 411:11 . 1algatk now Ammo 1111:111'om 1 111 1 :111; 411114111M1114: ,.,,,„1111:1111971711.7111171:11111111111111. anted Meld Gutter 111_=11111.1510AN AJilt a•-‘1.171W—IlliirM A.r.• v /-/ik AIM NS- =ZIT Ailaarie 12 Nord° Shake stonctIldng Stagger r:;Hg NJGable Dame, front 011E) Dormer IN)Rool. Was. Sang. Fascia Freeze Bead Balt In Window Bo. Gable Vent weal SrUr,* Wash (E) Slate N)Pcinled Rd'ng .1111111111M (Foie 1E) Caumns Oil Panted Hade Pone' Be INC Wn ............ • . • • • • • • • • rrnon Sclonere or Lime Wash ID Stone gowndw kt [1) Loc. (N)Wnde Wel COL... Expand Dept crow Schelde a Lime Wash (E) Stone rTQP 511.B P QF FQOANG. PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 1 Pr=r-0" BO Meld Ridge to Catch IN) Goble Darner- a Angle Gable Darner down to 1E) Ridge email Schrnere Line Wash 111 Slone N)firid WINDOW RO. 1r a'olt=0°, Lima Wash )E) Slone 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 rP S3F $LAEL TQP QF fQ0ELNG. 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 1 /8"=1'-0" A2.0 Prnnncp.r1Flpstr-vtinnc 4-1 ... II gr. —5, III In1 v _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 2 5 2020 CITY OF EDINA Ernst & McNamara Residence -o 0 rY 0 0 Ow (7) C C D C 0 .f) INISIIWgWsover IN) Roof Option I: Rubber Divides to look Ike Vale OpEon 2 Shake SWndes Option I renberine of Equal AlPhol 7 ilsr)Pointed Eove Deto1 K Style Gutters ••PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION • • • • • • • • • • 1 /811= F-0" Germon Schmere or it,,. Woth 1E) Stone I 136 Mold F5dge to Catch (N) Gale Dormer. Ander Goble Dormer down to (E) FSdge... '411111111ip.... '411111111m._ '1111111111111.11.._ =I=11M1 —111110-00 APININWh. ) N Sconce IGC. +.=, 1•00•00. p=0 Ili .4- —.• --..--1-- (MY Drs. • n •140 •7.• ••- la — dill 11111111 11E1 01 1111111 III 1101 AIRE 111111111 11111111111' VI 111111•1 IIII rowMINVINISAIIINIS? 1111_ liriernsi.sserinT :2 I' PAIH1111,111M Nresr,00.01j007:e010 n NI 4‘1111 lb. Pilch Weds A11111111111E 1111111111 111111 4011 1 1111111.. monconi NE man .41111111111111111h. 11111111111 St ROI 41111111111 111111111111c. 111111111111d — 11111 AIM al 101 MN is mum inn '''RR ; FI. ;RF; il 1 I IIATIMIN 11111111111111111111111111 1. . 11111 111111111111111111111111101"- In. aiiiir'6----4.----1-n--ilinii um 111—=J1111111! -11131 III 1 111 111111111111 111111 MI 11111111 11111111111 11111 VIIII 1E11111 1 1111111011111 11111. All 1111111 111111111111 I 11111 OM 11111111 11111111111 111111 1111 111111111111111111111 I 111111 111111 111111 1111111111111 11111 111 1111111 11111111111 11111 111111 111111 11111111111 111111 1111 mm011111111 111111111111 111111 111111 IMIIMII !MN 1111 11111 1111 11111 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111 Al •M I ME -FF 1.! MIMI* moms 1111[ MN RN I MIR • • NUMM= MI II II II II INN MUM 1 1 II (NIStindel over 0.1) Roof Option I: Rubber Singes to lads Ike slot., Option 2 Shale Shbdes Opten Emberine of Nod Asphol INN MEM 16111 1111111111111 11111 11111 NMI MIN BEN II II 11111 MIN MEN (1.1)51,ndes over IN) Roof Option Rubber Shndes to look Ike Vale Option 2 Stroke Mingles Option 1 linberfne of Equal ARA., EXISTING MAIN FLOOR SF: 2060 (INCLUDING GARAGE) LINEAR SQUARE FEET OF ADDITION EXISTING:1040 PERCENTAGE OF HOME MODIFIED: 49% 41141111.. 41111111111. 411111.11,111.11p1111.. Ai in in . • [L. Ali no.. Arilifilii 1 CITNI IMEM1b16 1111111111 11 . ----- 111111111111.. -z. LIIIII 1111111111111111111k 4111111011111111tr""' 111111 11111111111k. 11111111111111 III wpm c411111111111111111111.,_ .. .. . n1111111111111 Fzr- ocki in Met • moungininam- Aimouniumm I, ...to On Fr OM 111111111 111111111111111111 m -1 11 iimmii -1-1-. ormomurs 1iniumnimmiumamien 11111111111U 1 11111111111111111"1111111111 '!1. 1111111111111 1 1111111111111 111111111111M 1111111111111HV 1 1114111111111.1111 II 11111111111111 ll 111111111111111 111111111111 .41t, Affill 1 111111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 1111111111111 11111 111111111111111 1 n g IN 1111111111111 11111111111r 11110111i 1 arm,' Schrnere Lime Wash (E) Stone INIShildes over IN) Root Option I: Rubber to look We slate Option 2 Shake Sling,' Opfon 2 Emberine of Equal Asphdt IVIS 11111111. 1111 1111..... 1111 111111111 HEM im.•••• •••• :I I •P:4. '74A F 11111'' 1111111 MI Ell 1111 Inn I I BEE NMI wflir Kcisr4red Epee lI 1 I Wo schmere Lime Wolff 1€1 stone 44/7 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR •, •. , TIOP QF FQUNpATION,;- . . . . . ••poyy, RO. 1.1;97rnIV to lch IF) 4E1 ow 1.= AS 11 xrrma ,.....in.;-W7....7,:::::**_.,•,•_•••_••..4.....••,74 4....r. 0Wr..4. ... 10.1...; WARMMINWhh. A1111 I I I I I I 1 I 1 11112r r IM•1111 111•11 .-..mmpW..w.._•.....-a.-ai .Mnkfk....-..o.... ..„. 7- , ,, "91 1' .11111 •=11M•m•I to= ...•212Mallao I pII42:V= Abs. I '4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 MCI= im.4%p ENE 514.111 11 11111111,11111 isimmins. 1111 11111111 II 1110111K 11111111111 11 11 11111111 1111111111111 II 11111111111' 111111111111111bi (N)Stingles over NI Roof Option It Rubber Wimples to look he sole OpEon 2 Shake StingWs Option ITimberfne of Equal Aspncit ,;,97CdSr4eedj07:rPekil 11 11 1111111 111111111111 III II 1111111 1111 1111111 1'11w11111 11111 1101111111111 giiii 111111111111111 111111 11111 L11111111111 111111111 11111 11111111111111111 '11111111 11111 11U1111111111111 111111111 11111 111111111111111 r I mum= Alllllllil ninimornmans mow n • ill • ill 111 ill no 111111 11111101 1111111111111111 nni min • . . . UPPER LEVEL FLOOR `,1 • PLATE I Tl +WINDOW RO. ... .. IN)SE ndes over 1E) Roof Option I: Rawer Singlet to look roe lee Option 1l mberine o1 Equd Alphas /n Nfiront of (El Damen VC.3190*.tErVelet ars'g., Bait in Window Ba .' GOble Vent 1.1 I.I 0 NNE I NI 1€1 I )V4 thus INN . • . • . • . • . • • - • . • . • • . • a /1 111/111 111111111111111 111111111111 1I1 1111 111 111 1111111 111 111111111111 11 11111111 111111111111 11111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111 11111111111111 „V= Abs. cint (El Columns N)Corsumns o match (El (N)Wndvi in (El Loc. (N)lindw Wel in (Elton. Expand Depth Area of Addtion i 'Z T:nPrMO TQP QF SLB • TQP QF FQOTIMG„ .• .• .• .• .• .• PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 1 /811=11-011 • .• .• .• • • .• .• .• .• .• .• .• 08.17.2020 08.21.2020 08.27.2020 09.14.2020 09.24.2020 A2.1 Prnr-w-scprri F I psn-s ficsnc TRH10-01-202045507Aaron J. MagesCOUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT BROWN SECTION, HENNEPIN CO., MNCERTIFICATE OF SURVEYLOT 4 & THE WESTERLY 20' OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1,11I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDERMY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DESCRIPTIONCHKBYDATEREV. NO.NAMELIC. NO.DATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNEDOFSHEET_LEGEND4510 SUNNYSIDE ROAD, EDINA, MNCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY™FEETSCALE01020MONUMENT FOUNDIRON PIPE MONUMENT SETWOOD HUB SETDENOTES DRAINAGE ARROWEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED ELEVATIONAS-BUILT ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURSEXISTING CONTOURSLIGHT POLEUTILITY POLEOVERHEAD UTILITY LINEDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREECONCRETE AREAAJMREVISED PER CITY COMMENTTRH10/1/20201 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: October 2, 2020 SUBJECT: COA for 4510 Sunnyside Road I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for renovation of the house located at 4510 Sunnyside Road in the Country Club District. The subject property was built in 1941 and is therefore considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. When the district was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982, this house was classified as an example of the “American Colonial Revival” style. Most architectural historians would probably identify it as a specimen of Neocolonial or Minimal Traditional vernacular architecture, rather than an authentic example of the Period Revival mode. Minimal Traditional and Neocolonial style homes built before 1945 comprise a small proportion of the historic housing in the Country Club District. The applicant plans to refinish the masonry exterior with a “German schmear or limewash” coating. This treatment has its origins in the folk house traditions of northwest Europe; painted or whitewashed brick houses are frequently seen in ethnic German-American communities and the tradition appears to be making a come-back with suburbanites. From an historic preservation perspective, coating the original brick and stone with a mixture of lime mortar and water would not be considered an adverse effect because if properly applied, the treatment would not damage or destroy the existing masonry. More importantly, the treatment is reversible. And in any case, the City of Edina does not require building permits for exterior painting, therefore a COA is not required for this kind of work. The plans submitted show construction of an addition, alteration the existing wood siding and the replacement of the small dormer on the street-facing façade with a larger gabled dormer. In my opinion, the changes should have minimal impact on the property’s historic character. No historically significant architectural features will be lost and the new “shake shingle” siding is compatible with the house’s original design. In my opinion, the design of the proposed new dormer is appropriate to the building and the streetscape. All of the important architectural character-defining features are to remain intact. Therefore, I recommend approval of the COA without conditions. Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 4510 Sunnyside Road October 8, 2020 1 in = 50 ft / Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:COA: 4634 Edgebrook Place Action, Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: The HPC should provide the applicant with feedback on the proposed plans, identifying any desired changes. The applicant will then take into consideration the information received when drafting final plans to be presented for approval at the November HPC meeting. INTRODUCTION: The review process for a replacement of a non-historic resource home in the Country Club District entails a 2- step process. The plans under consideration at this time are fulfilling the first step. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel has opined that the proposed home would not look out of place relative to its surroundings; and would not detract from the historic integrity of the adjacent properties or the district as a whole, particularly since the home would be classified as infill construction and not a replacement of a historic home. Staff recommends that the HPC provide the applicant with feedback on the proposed plans, identifying any desired changes. The applicant will then take into consideration the information received when drafting final plans to be presented for approval at the July HPC meeting. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage which meets the district’s plan of treatment criteria. The existing home is not classified as a historic resource since it was constructed after the District’s period of significance (1924- 1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPC review and approval. Link to Better Together ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Memo from Consultant Vogel Aerial Map Applicant Submittal October 13, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4634 Edgebrook Place-demolish existing home and construction of a new home and attached garage Information / Background: The subject property, 4634 Edgebrook Place, is located on the west and south side of Edgebrook Place. The existing home is a two-story residence that was built in 1951. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage which meets the district’s plan of treatment criteria. The existing home is not classified as a historic resource since it was constructed after the District’s period of significance (1924-1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPC review and approval. Plan Overview: The proposed replacement home is contemporary with colonial revival influence. The proposed home is a two-story home with a 3-car side load garage. The proposed height of the home is 32’8 1/2” and is compatible with the height of the existing home, as well as the homes on surrounding properties. The proposed building materials include white painted brick, with a stepped surface to add texture, cedar shingles, and white painted brick chimney with a stone cap and clay chimney cap. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: “I have reviewed the most recent COA application for construction of a new house at 4634 Edgebrook Place in the Country Club District. The HPC has already commented on this project as part of a site plan review. The site plan review addressed design issues relating to the proposed new construction, which the HPC found architecturally compatible with adjacent homes and the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed undertaking includes demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house. The existing house was constructed in 1951 and was identified as a Colonial style house when the district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. In my opinion, it is not an authentic specimen of the Colonial Revival style, and should be classified as an example of the Neocolonial house form, a late-20th century vernacular mode that is more closely related to the Minimal Traditional or Contractor Modern style. Neocolonial style homes were extremely popular with designers and contractors working in Edina after 1945. The subject property is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark and because it was built after the district’s period of historic significance, it is not considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. While a COA is not required for demolition of a house that has been evaluated as a non-contributing resource, a COA is required for all new homes constructed within the Country Club District. The district plan of treatment applies the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation to construction of new houses. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the proposed new home appears to be compatible with the architectural standards (size, massing, setbacks, etc.) contained in the original (1924-1944) Country Club deed restrictions. The overall design is contemporary but shows the influence of the Colonial Revival style. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards permit contemporary design in historic districts and over the years the HPC has generally viewed “post-modernist” design as appropriate for infill construction in the district. In my opinion, the façade is not replicative of historic homes and does not give a false sense of history; it should not have an adverse effect on the preservation values of nearby historic homes. I recommend approval of the COA with the condition that the new home should be clearly identified as a modern building by means of a plaque or inscription bearing the year of construction. This project provides an important opportunity for the HPC to conduct some useful archaeological work. The predictive model data compiled by Dr. Jeremy Nienow, the HPC’s archaeological consultant, identifies the area bordering Minnehaha Creek as having moderate potential for buried cultural resources associated with ancient Native Americans; the “Mill Pond” area adjoining the Country Club District has also been predicted to contain archaeological evidence of the earliest Euro-American occupation of the Edina Mills community (including Henry Brown’s original Browndale Farm). I believe it would be appropriate for the HPC to request the applicant’s permission to conduct a phase-one archaeological survey of the subject property prior to any construction activities. This investigation could be carried out as a “walk-over” inspection, perhaps coupled with small-scale “shovel-test” excavations, to recover artifacts and other cultural data that might otherwise be destroyed by development activities. The survey could be carried out within a very short timeframe (one or two days) and would not interfere with construction work.” STAFF REPORT Page 3 Staff Comments: The review process for a replacement of a non-historic resource home in the Country Club District entails a 2-step process. The plans under consideration at this time are fulfilling the first step. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel has opined that the proposed home would not look out of place relative to its surroundings; and would not detract from the historic integrity of the adjacent properties or the district as a whole, particularly since the home would be classified as infill construction and not a replacement of a historic home. Staff recommends that the HPC provide the applicant with feedback on the proposed plans, identifying any desired changes. The applicant will then take into consideration the information received when drafting final plans to be presented for approval at the November HPC meeting. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: October 2, 2020 SUBJECT: New COA for 4634 Edgebrook Place I have reviewed the most recent COA application for construction of a new house at 4634 Edgewood Place in the Country Club District. The HPC has already commented on this project as part of a site plan review. The site plan review addressed design issues relating to the proposed new construction, which the HPC found architecturally compatible with adjacent homes and the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed undertaking includes demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house. The existing house was constructed in 1951 and was identified as a Colonial style house when the district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. In my opinion, it is not an authentic specimen of the Colonial Revival style, and should be classified as an example of the Neocolonial house form, a late-20th century vernacular mode that is more closely related to the Minimal Traditional or Contractor Modern style. Neocolonial style homes were extremely popular with designers and contractors working in Edina after 1945. The subject property is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark and because it was built after the district’s period of historic significance, it is not considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. While a COA is not required for demolition of a house that has been evaluated as a non-contributing resource, a COA is required for all new homes constructed within the Country Club District. The district plan of treatment applies the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation to construction of new houses. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the proposed new home appears to be compatible with the architectural standards (size, massing, setbacks, etc.) contained in the original (1924-1944) Country Club deed restrictions. The overall design is contemporary but shows the influence of the Colonial Revival style. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards permit contemporary design in historic districts and over the years the HPC has generally viewed “post-modernist” design as appropriate for infill construction in the district. In my opinion, the façade is not replicative of historic homes and does not give a false sense of history; it should not have an adverse effect on the preservation values of nearby historic homes. I recommend approval of the COA with the condition that the new home should be clearly identified as a modern building by means of a plaque or inscription bearing the year of construction. This project provides an important opportunity for the HPC to conduct some useful archaeological work. The predictive model data compiled by Dr. Jeremy Nienow, the HPC’s archaeological consultant, identifies the area bordering Minnehaha Creek as having moderate potential for buried cultural resources associated with ancient Native Americans; the “Mill Pond” area adjoining the Country Club District has also been predicted to contain archaeological evidence of the earliest Euro-American occupation of the Edina Mills community (including 2 Henry Brown’s original Browndale Farm). I believe it would be appropriate for the HPC to request the applicant’s permission to conduct a phase-one archaeological survey of the subject property prior to any construction activities. This investigation could be carried out as a “walk- over” inspection, perhaps coupled with small-scale “shovel-test” excavations, to recover artifacts and other cultural data that might otherwise be destroyed by development activities. The survey could be carried out within a very short timeframe (one or two days) and would not interfere with construction work. Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 4634 Edgebrook Place April 29, 2020 1 in = 75 ft / 1 4634 Edgebrook Place Edina, Minnesota 2 Proposed Materials Main Home Façade: white painted brick, with stepped surface for textural composition Trim and Windows: Off white Roofing: Cedar Shingles Chimneys: white painted brick, with painted stone cap and clay chimney cap House Features Plate glass windows appear in the higher traffic gathering areas in this home. Inspiration for these types of windows were drawn from renowned Minnesota architect Edwin Lundie. In areas with large expanse of glazing, Lundie would sometimes opt out of using repetitive smaller windows in lieu of larger plate glass windows. See inspiration images below and adjacent. 3 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 4 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 5 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 6 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 7 Main Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Screen Porch Office Nook PowderAnte Front Porch FormalPowder FrontStoop Entry Living Room Stairs Dining Office Kitchen Mud Room SideStoop Pantry RearPowder Sun Room Garage 15'-0"17'-714"8'-5"26 30 7'-1"6'-6"6'-912"11'-0"5'-8"24" d. cubbiesLockers 4'-0"28 28 6'-1" 11'-1112"11'-0"8'-012"6'-512"9'-1112"13'-712" 23'-3"4'-6"10'-0" 4'-11"8'-1034"Down x R23'-134"34'-912"36 c.o.36 c.o.5'-0"6'-1" 30 c.o. 36 pocketdoor 36 c.o. 36 c.o.5'-0"Terrace 28 18'-4"4'-214" 3939 20'-6"31'-8"20'-6"13'-2"11'-6"8'-6"7'-0"Pair of28 doors 30 36 26 concealeddoor 28 8'-6"13'-0" 15'-11"27'-212"1'-8" flushhearth "Isokern"Magnum 42"woodburning f.p. 1'-8" flushhearth 50 opng"Isokern"Magnum 36"woodburning f.p. 28 10'-6"MainHall Tv Up 18 RPair of 30 pocket doors48" range w/ hood10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstrippingEqual Equal 5'-6"16'-134"Open to abv.& below2'-0"4'-0"Bar area OfficeAnte 6'-912"5'-914"36" frzr36" ref.36" sinkTrash /recycle D.w. GarageStorageDown 30 StackedW/D 30 9'-6"7'-534"3'-834"3'-734"GarageStairs 36 c.o. Prepsink 30 18" d. cabs54" Ø table 50 opng EqualEqual3'-6" x 10'-0" table5'-6"30" walloven4'-734"6'-2"4'-0" PowderAnte Rear 30 15'-712"28 dualaction 1'-8"flushhearth "Isokern"Magnum 42"w/ gas log Breakfast 12'-034"BooksSink Full hgt cab. bench ? removeanteroom ? removeanteroom ? 8 Upper Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” PrimaryBedroom Stairs Down 18 R4'-214" Open to below 2'-0"4'-0"PrimaryLounge PrimaryBath PrimaryClosetKing Kid's Loft UpperBed # 2 Queen Bed # 2Bath Bed # 3Closet 26 Laundry UpperBed # 1 QueenPrimaryBalcony W D 4'-10"Bookcase13'-0"7'-534"18'-7"15'-1112"8'-1034"10'-8"4'-0"7'-0"12'-8"15'-738"18'-7"13'-0"18'-0" 6'-934"1'-6"Hooks 1'-6"26 3'-6"5'-0" 6'-2" 18'-7" 11'-912"8'-4"12'-212"14'-3" Sink Free stand tub40 c.o. 3421 28 wndw ? omit wndw ? UpperBed # 3 1'-4" Bench Bed # 3Bath 24 24 1'-6"1'-6"1'-4"Bench Bed # 2Closet 26 13'-412" 7'-0"2'-0" Bench Bed # 1Closet 4'-10" Bed # 1Bath 1'-4" Bench 24 Hooks1'-6"5'-8"DeskDesk3'-6"9'-1112"12'-1112"Linen Deskf.p. flue 6'-1012" UpperBed Hall pocketdoors ? 26 26 pocketdoor 1'-6"26 4'-4"10'-312"6'-3"26 6'-6"± 7'-0" wall hgt ± 7'-0" wall hgt HooksHooks 26 28 40 c.o.5'-012"3'-6"3'-6"7'-3"3'-6"3'-6" Make-updesk Wndw seat Tv 7'-938"12'-0" 5'-612"3'-0"26 Queen UpperStorage Closet 26 26 pocketdoor ± 6'-6" wall hgt ± 6'-6" wall hgt 5'-112"7'-012" 6'-812" wndw ? 26 267'-2"7'-534"Full hgt cab. 9 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Front Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 32'-812"12 13 Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 10 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Left Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 11 Right Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 Back Elevation of the House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of typ.Main level subfloorMain level clg(9'-4 1/2")Top of typ.Upper level subfloorUpper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")1213 12 13Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")1213 13 Street Comparison Drawing - 4634 Edgebrook Pl 2021 Xref .\Site.dwg 1/8” = 1’0” 14 Aeriel view of Edgebrook Place and Brownlade Avenue - 4634 Edgebrook PlBrowndal e Ave .Browndale Ave.Edgebrook Pl.Ed gebro ok Pl. 4634 4638 4630 4626 4622 4618 4614 4610 15 House to the South - 4638 Edgebrook Place 16 Subject House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 17 House to the North - 4630 Edgebrook Pl 18 Neighborhood House - 4610, 4612, & 4614 Edgebrook Place Example of a home in the neighborhood that has larger plate glass windows. 19 Neighborhood House - 4618, 4622 & 4626 Edgebrook Place 20 Neighborhood House - 4616, 4620, & 4624 Browndale 21 Neighborhood House - 4628 & 4632 Browndale G2 CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB HOUSE FFE: 907.75 BFFE: 895.75 907.50 FFE AUTOCOURT LAWN WALK-OUT TERRACE O.H.W.L= 888.49 895.50 905.50 906.00 TOW 901.00 TOW 1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5% DN DN DN DNDN DN DN DN DN GARAGE FFE: 906.75 1.25%DN 897.00 TOS 899.25 TOS DN 901.50 TOS 903.75 TOS 907.50 TOS 907.50 TOS DN DN DN DN CB 905.50 BOS 904.00 BOS 905.50 BOS 906.67 BOS 906.75 905.50 TOS 895.00 BOS 905.00 BOW 905.50 905.50 905.50 905.50 895.25902.00 BOW 906.50 BOW 906.00906.75905.00 BOW 906.67 BOS 907.17 TOS 907.25 906.62 ME ME 906.62 906.62 BOS 907.12 TOS 907.25 906.75 906.75 906.75 906.50 906.50 907.25 ME ME 894.00 TOS 888.00 BOS 907.17 TOS 907.25 906.62 BOS 907.12 TOS 906.67 BOS 906.25 906.25 906.33 906.75 900.00 BOW 895.00 BOW 895.25 897.25 BOS 899.50 BOS 901.75 BOS 895.00 BOW 905.50 TOS 904.00 BOS 895.00 895.00 902.00 BOW 901.50 BOW 901.50 BOW 890 892 89 4 896 89 8 90 0 902 888 890 892 902904906 906 888 894 898900905 896 90 4 906MINNEHAHA CREEKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY L INE DRIVE PROPERTY LINE EDGEBROOK PLACE AC UPPER TERRACECB CB CB P.E. P.E. P.E. P.E. LAWN 907.00 TOW 2630282836 c.o.36 c.o.30 c.o.36 c.o.36 c.o.36 c.o.28Pair of28 doors303626concealeddoor2840 opng28Pair of 30pocket doors10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstr ipping 303036 c.o.3040 opng3028 dualaction39 BG G 1 7 QC 10 BG 16 BG 6 TM 1 TM 1 CC 12 TM 22 BG 58 BG 6 QC G 2 G 1 G 1 G 1 G 2 2 CV 14 BG 45 BG 3 4 2 2 21 1 3 MP 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 5 4 G 2 G 2 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK 30' FRONT Y A R D S E T B A C K SETBACK 10' S IDEYARD SETBACK FEMA 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E FEMA1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D LI N E10' SIDE YARD SETBACKG 1 G 1 G 1 G 1 G 1 100 BG 16 TO 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 710 11 8 8 8 10 10 10 L101 SITE PLAN 1"= 10'creation date:9/30/2020filepath:/Users/travisvanlierestudio/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/EDGEBROOK PLACE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/1. PERMIT-SET/L101.dwglast saved:travisvanlierestudio September 30, 2020 10:39 AM211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING CITY SIDEWALK - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 5.EXISTING STORM SEWER ACCESS. SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING RIP RAP SHORELINE The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2020 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. NOTE: N O T F O R CO N S TR U C T I O N license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T RA VIS VA N LIER E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 4 6 3 4 E D G E B R O O K P L A C E E D G E B R O O K P L A C ERESIDENCE Sheet: 9/30/2020 date:9/30/2020 AB Rev #Description Date 1 Issued for HPC review 09/25/2020 SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, STEP WITH GRADE 2.PROPOSED COVERED PORCH, SEE ARCH. DWGS. 3.EXISTING DOCK 4.PROPOSED RIP RAP SHORELINE 5.NEW CURB CUT PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS 6.PROPOSED CATCH BASINS 7.PROPOSED FRENCH DRAIN 8.PROPOSED POP UP EMITTER 9.PROPOSED FIREPLACE 10.PROPOSED FENCE 11.PROPOSED POTS PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE MP Quercus alba x Q. robur 'Crimschmidt 'CRIMSON SPIRE' COLUMNAR OAK 16 EA.3" CA. B&B CV Chionanthus virginicus WHITE FRINGE TREE 2 EA.3" CA. B&B CC Cercis canadensis Northern Strain Redbud 1 EA.5" CA. B&B SHRUBS KEY NAME QTY SIZE TO Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' 'TECHNY' ARBORVITAE 16 EA.3" CA. B&B HA Taxus cuspidata 'Capitata' 'CAPITATA' UPRIGHT YEW 18 EA.#20 CONT. TM Taxus x media ‘Taunton’ JAPANESE YEW TAUNTON 19 EA.#10 CONT. BG Buxus x ‘Glencoe’ CHICAGOLAND BOXWOO 214 EA. 24"HT. CONT. OR B&B PERENNIAL AREAS KEY NAME QTY SIZE WOODLAND SHADE GARDEN: HYBRID TRILLUMTrillium grandiflorum var. VIRGINIA BLUEBELLS- Mertensia virginica GOLDEN GROUNDSEL -Packera aurea LAVENDER MIST MEADOW RUE-Thalictrum rochebrunianum IRISH LUCK HOSTA- Hosta 'Irish Luck' AUTUMN FERN-Dryopteris erythrosora 937SQ.FT.#1 CONT. SUN BORDERS: ‘MONTROSE WHITE' CALAMINT-:Calamentha nepeta 'BLUE NOTE' BLUE EYED GRASS -Sisyrinchium angustifolium MILLENIUM ALLIUM -Allium 'Millenium 'SEPETEMBER SUN' HOSTA- Hosta 'September Sun' 691SQ.FT.#1 CONT. TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES KEY NAME QTY SIZE G1 SOD 1644SQ.YD. G2 NO MOW FESCUE SEED MIX 2349SQ.FT. TAG QTY SCALE: 1 inch = 0 10'20'5' 10 feet NSCALE:1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN1 NOTE: SEE SURVEY DRAWING FOR PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.C. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:COA: 4600 Browndale Avenue- Request to determine that the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue no longer contributes to the Historical Significance of the Country Club District and is eligible to be torn down Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Deny the applicant’s request, and finding that demolishing the existing structure would not be appropriate and that 4600 Browndale Avenue is a contributing preservation resource in the Country Club District. INTRODUCTION: The Country Club Plan of Treatment classifies houses built within 1924-1944 in the Country Club District as Heritage Preservation Resources. This is the period of time when the developer enforced rigid architectural standards on new home construction through restrictive covenants. T he Pan of Treatment states, “No Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved for the demolition, in whole or in part, of any heritage preservation resource in the district unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the district because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, or by inappropriate additions or alterations.” The application to the Heritage Preservation Commission includes a request for the HPC to determine that the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue no longer contributes to the Historical Significance of the Country Club District and therefore is eligible to be torn down. T he applicant states that the deterioration of the home, as well as some of its construction methodologies and siting challenges have created difficulties in the continued use and maintenance of the structure. Link to Better Together ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Aerial Map Applicant Submittal Memo from Consultant Vogel A Field Guide to American Houses-Tudor Memo from Building Official Country Club Plan of Treatment Inventory of COAs in CCD Edina Code Sec. 36-1348 Driveway Design Align Structural, Inc. Letter-October 12, 2020 October 13, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Request to determine that the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue no longer contributes to the Historical Significance of the Country Club District and is eligible to be torn down Information / Background: The subject property, 4600 Browndale Avenue is on the west side of Browndale Avenue, east of the Mill pond, south of Bridge Street. The home is a two-story Tudor Revival style home that was built in 1927 (according to the City’s assessing records). The Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed projects associated with this address that have included sketch plans submittals and a Certificate of Appropriateness request for changes to the front façade. A Certificate of Appropriateness for changes to the street facing façade (that also included an addition off the rear of the existing home) was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission February 11, 2020. The current application to the Heritage Preservation Commission includes a request for the HPC to determine that the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue no longer contributes to the historical significance of the Country Club District and therefore is eligible to be torn down. The applicant states that the deterioration of the home, as well as some of its construction methodologies and siting challenges have created difficulties in the continued use and maintenance of the structure. Primary Issues: The Country Club Plan of Treatment classifies houses built within 1924-1944 in the Country Club District as Heritage Preservation Resources. This is the period of time when the developer enforced rigid architectural standards on new home construction through restrictive covenants. The Pan of Treatment states, “No Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved for the demolition, in whole or in part, of any heritage preservation resource in the district unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the district because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, or by inappropriate additions or alterations.” STAFF REPORT Page 2 Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: (Full Memo Attached to Packet) “The Edina Heritage Landmarks program (as well as the National Register of Historic Places) recognizes seven aspects of historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Within this conceptual framework, properties either retain their historic integrity (i.e., convey their historic significance) or they do not. While properties lacking critical aspects of historic integrity cannot be considered heritage preservation resources, an individual historic building does not need to possess all seven aspects of integrity to qualify as a contributing resource. For homes in the Country Club District, historic integrity evaluations are based primarily on design (the combination of essential architectural features associated with a particular style), materials (the exterior physical elements), and feeling (a property’s aesthetic values). Interior spaces and landscape features are not evaluated for purposes of assessing heritage preservation value. Economic considerations are generally not part of the evaluation criteria applied by the HPC. I have carefully reviewed the information submitted with the COA application form; however, due to time constraints I was unable to conduct any kind of physical inspection or consult with one of my colleagues who is a qualified historic architect. It is my understanding that the city building official plans to examine the property and comment on the code issues referred to in the COA application. If he finds the house to be unsafe or unfit for habitation, I would be inclined to defer to his professional judgment. In general, the design issues and structural defects discussed in the applicant’s project narrative describe conditions common to old houses—for example, most of the deterioration appears to be the result of deferred maintenance rather than damage caused by untreated structural problems arising from poor design, faulty construction or inferior materials. I do not believe a strong case has been made for treating the house as structurally unstable or functionally obsolete. The brick wall system described in the narrative is commonly seen in early 20th century construction (though solid masonry walls are rare in the Country Club District) and a range of rehabilitation treatments exist to address the special problems inherent in these old-fashioned structural systems. Viewed from the perspective of current best practices in heritage preservation, the preferred treatment strategy for this property would be rehabilitation, which the city’s preservation ordinance (and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards) define as the processing of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values (emphasis added). In my professional opinion, based on the information available to me, in its present condition the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue appears to retain sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. Evaluated from the perspective of the district’s historic context, the house dates from the district’s period of historical significance, clearly shows the influence of the developer’s master plan, and is readily identifiable as a specimen of period revival style architecture. Although it does not represent an individually significant architectural resource in its own right and has been altered somewhat from its as-built appearance, the property retains historic integrity of the most important architectural character defining design features associated with the Tudor Revival style, as described in McAlester’s Field Guide to American Houses (1984), the standard reference work for architectural classification used by preservation professionals (see pp. 354-371)—steeply pitched roof, façade dominated by a prominent street-facing gable, decorative STAFF REPORT Page 3 half-timbering, massive chimney, and stucco wall cladding. Therefore, issuance of a COA for demolition would not be appropriate.” Building Official Memo: At the request of staff, the Building Official, David Fisher, visited the subject property and provided a memo of his findings. The memo is attached to the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting packet. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed request at 4600 Browndale Avenue, denying the applicant’s request, and finding that demolishing the existing structure would not be appropriate and that 4600 Browndale Avenue is a contributing preservation resource in the Country Club District. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • Edina’s Preservation consultant finds that issuance of a COA for demolition of the home would not be appropriate. • The house dates from the district’s period of historical significance. • The property shows the influence of the developer’s master plan. • The property is identifiable as a specimen of period revival style architecture. • The property retains historic integrity of the most important architectural character defining design features associated with the Tudor Revival style. Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates 2013, © WSB & Associates2013 4600 Browndale Ave February 6, 2020 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft / 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 / T 612.353.4920 / F 612.353.4932 / INFO@PKARCH.COM / WWW.PKARCH.COM September 25, 2020 REQUEST & PROJECT SUMMARY 4600 Browndale Ave, Edina MN 55424 Zoning/Description: · R1; Edina Heritage Landmark District: · Existing structure is designated as a Contributing Historic Resource · Structure was built in 1925 – English Cottage with Norman Influence, with significant addition completed in 1960. Request: - Removal of the existing structure as a Contributing Historic Resource due to deterioration, damage and prior additions and alterations that have compromised its historic value. Explanation of Request: The existing home has been classified as a Contributing Historic Resource since the original survey was completed for the Edina Heritage Landmark District. The deterioration of the home, as well as some of its construction methodologies and siting challenges, have created immense difficulties in the continued use and maintenance of the structure. In fact, the home has been empty for the past ten years after a number of failed attempts by various homeowners and architects to find a feasible solution for the property. Although originally purchased by the current homeowners for renovation in 2019, it has become apparent after working with two different architecture firms that renovation of the structure is not possible. The attached documents submitted will demonstrate the extent of the deterioration, and the difficulties that modern building codes, standards and needs have created for any continued use of the structure. In granting this request, the homeowners would then begin working with HPC in designing a new home through the COA process that is visually compatible with the historic architectural significance and character of the district and would again be a contributing resource to the district for the next century to come. 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 / T 612.353.4920 / F 612.353.4932 / INFO@PKARCH.COM / WWW.PKARCH.COM September 25, 2020 REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF HISTORIC RESOURCE 4600 Browndale Ave. Edina, MN 55424 ATTACHED DOCUMENTS The request is consistent with the intent of Edina’s Historic Country Club District Plan of Treatment and the process described within the New Home Certificate of Appropriateness Application Country Club District. The supportive documentation is as outlined below and supported by our other submitted application materials: 1) Subject property no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration: Deterioration (definition) : the action or process of becoming impaired or inferior in quality, functioning, or condition; a gradual decline, as in quality, serviceability, or vigor REQUIRED EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION & FINDINGS FOR REMOVAL: a) Siting of the existing home on the property has caused deterioration of function and serviceability: a. Reduction of the driveway width to 7’-6” between the existing home and fence/property line does not allow today-sized cars to navigate it in a practical and safe manner. (See attached visuals) NOTE: Prior proposals to move the garage to the south side of the property were not ultimately feasible due to the lack of adequate space for cars to turn into the garage. b. Existing home has no sidewalk connection from the front door to the public sidewalk or the street. Only access is from the narrow, low visibility unsafe driveway. Creating a very unsafe condition for families with smaller children at play. (See attached visuals) b) The structure’s exterior wall construction material--clay fire brick--has caused, and will continue to cause, deterioration in the ability to use or renovate the structure. The material is inferior in quality, function and serviceability to similar aged Contributing Historic Resources with wood framed construction and to today’s new home construction standards: a. The existing clay fire (hollow) brick walls have both the exterior stucco finish and interior plaster finish applied directly to the surface of the clay brick structure. Any modification to either finish causes the 90+ year old clay brick to crumble. i. This prevents the exterior walls from being insulated in any fashion, which according to virtually all codes (International Residential Code, MN Residential Code, MN Energy Code) would not be allowed or recommended. 1. Applying exterior insulation would be the only recommended path for minimally insulating the home. However, this would not be allowed by Plan of Treatment and would completely cover up the existing exterior façade. (See attached visuals) 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 / T 612.353.4920 / F 612.353.4932 / INFO@PKARCH.COM / WWW.PKARCH.COM 2. Applying interior insulation is not recommended under today’s increased knowledge of building science. Even if this was an acceptable path, it would require furring another wall inside the existing clay wall of around 6” to provide adequate insulation and wiring to code. This would reduce the already small rooms by 6”- 12” (sometimes in both directions) and reduce the amount of daylight by increasing an already deep wall section. (See attached visuals) 3. The financial cost of renovating the home would quickly outpace all other homes in the area and still would not provide the homeowners with a minimally insulated home by any standards. (See attached visuals) ii. The clay brick walls are structural and have floor framing, window headers and other structural components imbedded into the clay tile. Therefore any modification of said components would cause extensive damage to the existing walls. 1. Therefore all attempts at renovating the existing home in the preferred manner have been unsuccessful as an entirely new structural system has to be created within the existing walls. (See attached visuals) This condition would: a. Cause already small rooms to become smaller which is magnified by having to furr-in walls for insulation. b. Create structural safety concerns related to how the two systems will work as one. c. Has and will continue to cause damage to the existing exterior clay walls. 2. The financial cost of renovating the home would quickly outpace all other homes in the area and still would not provide the homeowners with adequately sized or daylit rooms. (See attached visuals) c) The existing siting, building construction and COA requirements have been deteriorating/taking the value out of the subject property for over 10 years and will continue to do so until it has little to no value. a. The subject property has sat vacant for approximately 10 years while repeated attempts have been made to make the existing structure viable and compliant with the COA and its process. (See attached visuals) i. 3 different homeowners and 3 different architects have attempted to renovate the subject property in the preferred manner and have been unsuccessful. b. The subject property has decreased in value by 64% while the rest of the district has increased in value by 7%. (See attached visuals) c. The subject property is in a highly sought after city, district and location along the Minnehaha creek and while most of the adjacent properties have seen renovations and revitalization due to this; this property remains untouched. 2) Subject property no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by damage: 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 / T 612.353.4920 / F 612.353.4932 / INFO@PKARCH.COM / WWW.PKARCH.COM REQUIRED EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION & FINDINGS FOR REMOVAL: a) Being unoccupied (and uninsulated) has caused a quickened rate of deterioration on both the outside and inside. (See attached visuals) a. With multiple owners not occupying it since it is not viable, the home has not received regular maintenance and upkeep allowing deteriorating conditions to magnify to damage. b. Already damaged areas are not being replaced so that that extent and level of the damage has and will only increase. c. With multiple owners having unsuccessful attempts at renovation, portions of the inside of the home have been removed and left unfinished. d. The lack of upkeep & maintenance has increased the chances of the subject property of becoming a fire hazard, potentially resulting in damage to the subject property and endangering the neighboring properties which are also historic resources. e. A long-vacant home may attract trespassers, illicit behavior and vandalism.. 3) Subject property no longer contributes to the historical significance of the District because its historic integrity has been compromised by inappropriate additions and alterations: REQUIRED EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION & FINDINGS FOR REMOVAL: a) Prescribed “windshield” surveys of the district properties do not accurately account for the inappropriate addition and subsequent exterior renovations on the creek-side of the subject property that have already affected the home’s historical significance and integrity. (See attached visuals) a. The contemporary flat roof addition can be seen from the street on in the south side yard. b. The contemporary flat roof addition can be seen from the heavily used recreation corridor of Minnehaha Creek. c. The subsequent renovation and addition of a contemporary deck can be seen from the heavily used recreation corridor of Minnehaha Creek. b) These additions have decreased the historic value of the structure as: a. They are inconsistent with the original design, material and construction quality of the original home. The additions and alterations have been significant enough to impact the architectural integrity of the original design. b. The additions and alterations completed in 1960 have created additional difficulties in any continued use and renovation of the existing structure, as they are of poor quality design and construction, are incompatible with the original architecture, and yet are now considered part of the contributing historic structure and must be maintained (per the maximum 50% alteration requirement). 4) Additional evidence, documentation, and findings for removal: a) The property and structure have unique features that make it an outlier from district visual standards rather than a contributing resource. 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 / T 612.353.4920 / F 612.353.4932 / INFO@PKARCH.COM / WWW.PKARCH.COM a. The property is one of only two that has a rear facing garage and large turnaround driveway in the rear yard along the creek. i. The other property has well over 1.5 times the driveway width that this property has. ii. The extensive impervious surface of the driveway does not allow slowing of runoff and harms the delicate Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. b. The property is one of very few that does not have sidewalk access from the front entry to the public sidewalk. c. The home only slightly fronts the street while the rest of the home angles at an odd angle away from the street and doesn’t correspond with adjacent homes in creating a uniform front yard setback. d. Being classified as English Cottage by the historic survey, it is oddly lacking many of the quaint characteristics of that style. (timbering, use of stone on the façade, chimney embellishment, brackets, stylized curving roof or wall forms, etc.) 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Overview Zoning/Description: • R1; Edina Heritage Landmark District: • Existing structure designated as a Contributing Historic Resource • Structure was built in 1925 – English Cottage with Norman Influence, with significant addition completed in 1960 Explanation of Request: The existing home has been classified as a Contributing Historic Resource since the original survey was completed for the Edina Heritage Landmark District. The deterioration of the home, as well as some of its construction methodologies and siting challenges, have created immense difficulties in the continued use and maintenance of the structure. In fact, the home has been empty for the past ten years after a number of failed attempts by various homeowners and architects to find a feasible solution for the property. Although originally purchased by the current homeowners for renovation in 2019, it has become apparent after working with two different architecture firms that renovation of the structure is not possible. The attached documents submitted will demonstrate the extent of the deterioration, and the difficulties that modern building codes, standards and needs have created for any continued use of the structure. In granting this request, the homeowners would then begin working with HPC in designing a new home through the COA process that is visually compatible with the historic architectural significance and visual character of the district and would, again be a contributing resource to the district for the next century to come. 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 RIS’S OBJECTIVES participants in an child-friendly, family- alkable neighborhood lent physical character potential of the house applicable constraints te and renovate to vability for family of 8, square-footage interior reconfiguration, ent of outdated al and electrical energy upgrades, etc. ccess issues including • Become active homeowners and neighbors in a cherished neighborhood known for its architectural character, strong neighborhood bonds, walkability and family focus. • Attempted to respectfully rehabilitate and renovate the home so that it can continue to be a contributing component in the strong architectural character of the neighborhood and meet the needs of today’s modern family as well as generations of families to come but were unsuccessful in the end. • Improve and strengthen the new home’s sense of entry and its connections to the neighborhood, street & sidewalk with an increased focus of improving safety and supervision of younger children playing and engaging the neighborhood. • Resolve current unsafe & deteriorated conditions and have functioning energy efficient systems so the new house can function into the future • Configure a new home so that a large family of eight can grow within the home for years to come. • Better utilize the access to the creek and the wonderful views & recreational opportunities it provides. INTRODUCTION Wyrobek Family Goals 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Defining the Historic District 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Defining the Historic District First Class neighborhood connection to the Minnehaha Creek Safe neighborhood Family neighborhood Community Improvement = Physical Growth 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 2020 CORNER VIEW OF LOT FROM EXISTING DRIVEWAY INTRODUCTION Existing Conditions PHOTO CA. 1926 PROPOSED ADDITION 2019 CA. 1937 1926 CORNER VIEW OF LOT 1980 ON AXIS WITH ENTRY 2020 PARALLEL FROM BROWNDALE 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Existing Conditions 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Existing Conditions 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Deterioration • Siting • Building Construction • Uninsulated • Integral Structure • Declining Property Value Damage • Unoccupied • Maintenance + Upkeep • Attempted Renovations Inappropriate Additions or Alterations • The Creek and the Windshield Survey • Restricted Garage Access • Nonconforming Style Outlier Rather than Complimentary Historic Resource • Connection to the Street • Connection to the Creek • Nonconforming Features within Style Classification EXPLANATION Overview 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 No sidewalk connection, access from street only from narrow, low visibility driveway Driveway does not allow for standard modern family cars to navigate in a practical and safe way Uninsulated north wing of the house, when properly updated to current code, interior area becomes too small Older flat roof addition to house that unsuccessfully tried to make garage more efficient but instead blocked creek views and made backyard garage less man- ageable EXPLANATION Deterioration - Siting 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Siting of the existing home on the property has caused deterioration of function and serviceability. • Reduction of the driveway width to 7’-6” between the existing home and fence/property line does not allow today-sized cars to navigate it in a practical and safe manner. • Existing home has no sidewalk connection from the front door to the public sidewalk or the street. Only access is from the narrow, low visibility unsafe driveway. Creating a very unsafe condition for families with smaller children at play. Deterioration (definition): the action or process of becoming impaired or inferior in quality, functioning, or condition (Webster’s Dictionary - September 2020) EXPLANATION Deterioration - Siting 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 EXPLANATION Deterioration - Siting 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 The subject property building construction, clay fire brick, has caused and will continue to cause deterioration in that it is inferior in quality, function and serviceability to both similar aged Contributing Historic Resources with wood framed construction and to today’s new home construction standards • The existing clay fire (hollow) brick walls have both the exterior stucco finish and interior plaster finish applied directly to the surface of the clay brick structure. Any modification to either finish, causes the 90+ year old clay brick to crumble. • The clay brick walls are structural and have floor framing, window headers and other structural components embedded into the clay tile. Therefore any modification of said components would cause extensive damage to the existing walls. EXPLANATION Deterioration - Building Construction 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Notes & Recommendations CLIENT: John Kraemer & Sons, Inc. PROJECT: Wyrobek Building Knowledge was asked to assess whether the solid masonry walls at this project were good candidates for interior insulation and air sealing improvements. The desire to improve the energy efficiency and comfort level of the structure from the interior is being driven by a desire to maintain the aesthetic of the façade for historical preservation purposes. The primary concern with insulating masonry buildings in cold climates is the possibility of causing freeze-thaw damage of the hollow clay tile structure and/or exterior cladding. You also risk accelerating the decay of wood or steel structural beams encapsulated by the masonry. This is because interior insulation stops the energy flow that works to dry the masonry throughout the winter and reduces drying to the interior during the summer, thus allowing moisture to accumulate in the masonry. An additional durability risk is that flashing issues and bulk water entry may not be seen if the interior surfaces are covered with insulation. It is for these reasons that I typically recommend not insulating solid masonry walls on the interior. It is the choice that provides the least risk to accelerated structural and façade decay, as it allows the wall system to stay warm and dry throughout our extended winters. It is a choice to pay an energy penalty to ensure the long-term structural integrity of a building, but it does sacrifice energy efficiency and the comfort of the homeowners. The building could also be insulated from the exterior, but that would cover the façade and defeat the purpose of this exercise. If preserving the aesthetic is of utmost importance, that leaves you with the choice to either leave the existing wall assemblies uninsulated or replace them with a modern, durable, energy efficient, comfortable wall system that matches the desired aesthetic. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments or concerns. Regards, Pat O’Malley Building Knowledge 612-597-4260 To Whom it May Concern: Our company, along with Peterssen/Keller Architecture, have been planning and coordinating an expansive remodel project at 4600 Browndale Ave. for our clients, Kris & Nico Wyrobek. Upon inspection we found that the home was originally constructed with clay tile walls. This factor causes significant concerns regarding the structure of the home and future performance. Clay tile walls are only structural under compression. Existing floor joist framing and opening headers are buried into the clay and mortar structure as originally built. Therefore, any new truss or joist systems will have to be supported separately and alongside the existing exterior walls and require its own footing. The exterior stucco and interior plaster are applied directly to the clay tile system. The tiles are hollow. Therefore, the applied stucco and plaster are fully bonded to the substructure. Because of this, any attempt to remove existing finish surfaces will only destroy the structure. Further, new electrical cannot be installed in the walls as currently built. All exterior walls will need to be furred out and drywalled leading to significant cost implications for our clients. This will also change the dynamics of the wall by adding another air space that will not circulate air the same way as open spaces do. Lastly, demolishing some exterior walls and not others creates a challenge in tying old to new in a safe, efficient and structurally sound way. These walls were not meant to come apart in pieces and tie into new building systems. The material is unpredictable and fragile once it is disturbed. In conclusion, after inspecting this home our opinion is that the clay tile construction of this home raises significant issues, concerns, and overwhelming cost to our clients. These circumstances are over and above any typical renovation. Sincerely, John R. Kraemer, Vice President John Kraemer & Sons, Inc. 4906 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 EXPLANATION Deterioration - Building Construction 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 EXPLANATION Deterioration - Building Construction Existing Floor Plan Floor Plan with Properly Insulated Walls Bedroom Area: 152 sq ft Bath Area: 49 sq ft Bedroom Area: 140 sq ft Bath Area: 40 sq ft Average Single Family Home bedroom in US: 219 sq ft Stair landing not legally wide enough 2’-5” W/C space not to code by width 28” Further decreased bedroom size Stair landing not legally wide enough 1’-11” Issues with radiators would call for full system overhaul Shower width becomes unusable Uninsulated Clay Tile walls 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 The existing siting, building construction and COA requirements have been deteriorating/taking the value out of the subject property for over 10 years and will continue to do so until it has little to no value. • The subject property has sat vacant for approximately 10 years while repeated attempts have been made to make the existing structure viable and compliant with the COA and its process. • 3 different homeowners and 3 different architects have attempted to renovate the subject property in the preferred manner and have been unsuccessful. • The subject property is in a highly sought after city, district and location along the Minnehaha creek and while most of the adjacent properties have seen renovations and revitalization due to this; this property remains untouched. EXPLANATION Deterioration - Value 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 OWNERSHIP TIMELINE • 1927 : House Built • 1960’s : Contemporary addition added • 1978 : House Sold $266,000 • 1980 : Country Club District added to NRHS • 2000 - Renovated Addition added to contemporary element • 2004 Renovated • 2008: Renovated • 2011: Renovated • 2011 – House never reoccupied • 5/2015: Put on Market $2,650,000 • 2016: Price Change $1,695,000 • 2017: Sold $1,625,000 • 2017/2018 - Attempted Renovation • 9/2018: Listed for Rent $8,000/month • 12/2018: Price for Rent Reduced $6,500/month • 9/2018: Listed for Rent $6,500/month • 9/2019: Sold $1,625,000 • 9/2019 – 5/2020 – Attempted Renovation • 5/2020 – 9/2020 – Attempted Renovation w/ new architect • 9/2020: Estimated Value $1,618,600 64% DECREASE IN HOUSE VALUE SINCE 2015 COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT HAD 7% INCREASE OVERALL SINCE 2015 (excerpt from Zillow Home Value Market Overview for Country Club - September 2020) Median Value of Homes in Country Club District Over Time EXPLANATION Deterioration - Value 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 Damage: Unoccupation, Renovation, Clay Tile • home has not received regular maintenance and upkeep allowing deteriorating conditions to magnify to damage. • already damaged areas are not being replaced so the extent and level of damage has and will only increase • current and previous owners unsuccessful attempts at renovation, portions inside the home have been demoed and left unfinished • being unoccupied increases the chances of illicit behavior within the home and purposeful damage to the home and possibly neighboring homes. EXPLANATION Damage 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 OWNERSHIP TIMELINE • 1927 : House Built • 1960’s : Contemporary addition added • 1978 : House Sold $266,000 • 1980 : Country Club District added to NRHS • 2000 - Renovated Addition added to contemporary element • 2004 Renovated • 2008: Renovated • 2011: Renovated • 2011 – House never reoccupied • 5/2015: Put on Market $2,650,000 • 2016: Price Change $1,695,000 • 2017: Sold $1,625,000 • 2017/2018 - Attempted Renovation • 9/2018: Listed for Rent $8,000/month • 12/2018: Price for Rent Reduced $6,500/month • 9/2018: Listed for Rent $6,500/month • 9/2019: Sold $1,625,000 • 9/2019 – 5/2020 – Attempted Renovation • 5/2020 – 9/2020 – Attempted Renovation w/ new architect • 9/2020: Estimated Value $1,618,600 HOUSE UNOCCUPIED FROM LATE 2011 - 2020 EXPLANATION Damage (Hye-Sung Han, The Impact of Abandoned Properties on Nearby Property Values, 2013) Impact of abandoned properies over time 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 EXPLANATION Inappropriate Additions or Alterations Hard to use and unusual rear yard tuck-under garage and large drive- way/turnaround that dominates the backyard + seen from creek Older flat roof addition to house that unsuccessfully tried to make garage more efficient and capture views of creek. Addition not fitting with original style of house. “Modernistic” addition visible from both street and creek 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 “Modernistic” Addition + Exterior Renovations • Windshield surveys don’t accurately represent the impact of addition • Can be seen from the street on in the south side yard. • Can be seen from the heavily used recreation corridor of Minnehaha Creek • Subsequent renovation and addition of a contemporary deck can be seen from the Creek as well. • Additions have decreased the historic value of the structure as: • Inconsistent with the original design, material and construction quality of the original home. • Additions and alterations completed in 1960 have created additional difficulties in any continued use and renovation of the existing structure, as they are of poor quality design and construction, are incompatible with the original architecture, and yet are now considered part of the contributing historic structure and must be maintained (per the maximum 50% alteration requirement). EXPLANATION Inappropriate Additions or Alterations 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 One of the few houses with no sidewalk connection from street to front entry Parallel to Browndale and ap-prox. front yard set back line Existing 10’9” driveway re- duced to 7’6” wide, well below standard width as it passes house North wing of house does not align with either block face Hard to use and unusual rear yard tuck-under garage and large drive- way/turnaround that dominates the backyard + seen from creek Parallel t o B r i d g e a n d a p p r o x . front y a r d s e t b a c k l i n e Addition not fitting with original style of house but has high visibility from the public creek + visibility from the road. Addition would not fit today’s neighbor- hood design standards Many of the historic features on the front of the home do not match the definition of the style in the National Register of Historic Places document EXPLANATION Outlier to Neighborhood 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 The home as it exists today is an outlier rather than contributing historical resource to the neighborhood • Home has no sidewalk from front entry to public sidewalk unlike most of its counterparts. • Home only slightly fronts the street (Browndale) while the rest of the home angles oddly away and doesn’t correspond with the adjacent homes in creating a uniform front yard setback. • One of only two homes that has a rear facing garage and large turnaround driveway in the rear yard along the creek. (The other has a much wider access.) • Being classified as English Cottage by the historic survey, it is oddly lacking many of the quaint characteristics of that style (timbering, use of stone on façade, chimney embellishment, brackets, curving wall or roof forms, etc.) EXPLANATION Outlier to Neighborhood 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 EXPLANATION Outlier to Neighborhood Homes Without Entry Sidewalk Connection Homes With Rear Facing Garage Doors 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 ENGLISH COTTAGE WITH NORMAN INFLUENCE: The English cottage style, popular throughout the district from 1924 to 1931, is characterized by a height of two stories; use of stone, brick or stucco as the principal construction material; steep triangular gables projecting above a gable of hip roof, and usually not continuous with the plane of the wall; extensive use of decorative brick or stone around semicircular door and garden gate openings, on the foundation and front steps; impressive chimneys, usually decorated with brick or stone, frequently the chimney is placed on the front façade; and use of “mock” half timbering. (excerpt from National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form - July 1980) DOOR AND ENTRY WAY NON-CONFORMING LACK OF EXTENSIVE DECORATIVE STONE/BRICK LACK OF EXTENSIVE DECORATIVE STONE/BRICK EXPLANATION Outlier to Neighborhood 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 SUMMARY Precedents of Change (Examples of Heritage Resource Homes in the CCD with Changes to Front Facade - March 11,2014) 4600 Browndale Avenue - Certificate of Appropriateness PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 The existing home has been classified as a Contributing Historic Resource since the original survey was completed for the Edina Heritage Landmark District. The deterioration of the home, as well as some of its construction methodologies and siting challenges, have created immense difficulties in the continued use and maintenance of the structure. In fact, the home has been empty for the past ten years after a number of failed attempts by various homeowners and architects to find a feasible solution for the property. Although originally purchased by the current homeowners for renovation in 2019, it has become apparent after working with two different architecture firms that renovation of the structure is not possible. The attached documents submitted will demonstrate the extent of the deterioration, and the difficulties that modern building codes, standards and needs have created for any continued use of the structure. In granting this request, the homeowners would then begin working with HPC in designing a new home through the COA process that is visually compatible with the historic architectural significance and visual character of the district and would, again be a contributing resource to the district for the next century to come. Thank you. SUMMARY Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker FROM: Robert Vogel DATE: October 5, 2020 SUBJECT: COA for Demolition of Existing House at 4600 Browndale Avenue I have reviewed the COA application for demolition of the existing house at 4600 Browndale Avenue in the Country Club District. The subject property is a two story residence built in 1925 or 1929, with additions built in 1963 and 2000. In the 1982 National Register of Historic Places nomination form the house is classified as an example of the “Norman/English Cottage” style and evaluated as possessing “pivotal” significance in comparison with other historic homes in the district. The property has subsequently been re-evaluated as a contributing heritage preservation resource and classified as an example of the Tudor Revival style. The history of this property is not particularly well documented—different year-built dates are given in city records and the name of the original builder is not recorded. Like most of the historic homes in the district, it is not an architect-designed, “high-style” (i.e., academically authentic) example of the Tudor style; instead, it derives its architectural history value from being a common vernacular suburban house form designed and constructed by an unknown local builder for an individual owner. In its local context, the stylistic classification “Tudor” encompasses a fairly wide range of vernacular house forms embellished with ornamental details borrowed from various Anglo-American, English, French and “Mediterranean” period revival styles. The Tudor style is one of the predominant house forms in the Country Club neighborhood, comprising approximately 40% of the district’s historic housing inventory. The applicant is requesting a re-evaluation of the property’s historic significance and integrity. For purposes and design review, I have treated this as a COA for demolition of the existing house. Ordinarily, the HPC does not act on COAs for tear-downs without approving the design of the replacement house—since the current design review regulations went into effect over twenty years ago, no COA has been issued it for demolition without an approved design for the new construction. No plans for a replacement house were submitted with the COA application presently under review. To qualify as a contributing heritage preservation resource in the Country Club District, a property must meet at least one of the Edina Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria by being associated with an important historic context and retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its heritage preservation value. The Country Club District derives its historic significance from being a unified entity composed of over 500 individual properties, not all of which possess individual significance. The heritage resource value of the district as a whole is the product of its association with the subdivision master plan developed by Samuel S. Thorpe and the distinctive built environment that evolved between 1924 and 1944. One of the important characteristics of the historic district is the predominance of homes built in what architectural historians have termed the “period revival” styles (Colonial Revival, Tudor, etc.). In order to be considered a contributing heritage resource, an individual house must be shown to add to the Page 2 of 3 district’s historic character, even if it is not individually significant for its architectural design or construction values. The Country Club District contains homes built during its period of historic significance (1924- 1944) which have been evaluated as non-contributing resources because they lack individual distinction or have lost historic integrity of those physical features necessary to contribute to the historical and architectural values of the district as a whole. While surveys of the district have generated various lists of non-contributing properties, there is no authoritative inventory available for use in the design review (COA) process, with the result that individual properties have been re-evaluated on a case by case basis. This policy has been in place since 2008 and appears to work satisfactorily when applied to tear-down projects. The Edina Heritage Landmarks program (as well as the National Register of Historic Places) recognizes seven aspects of historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Within this conceptual framework, properties either retain their historic integrity (i.e., convey their historic significance) or they do not. While properties lacking critical aspects of historic integrity cannot be considered heritage preservation resources, an individual historic building does not need to possess all seven aspects of integrity to qualify as a contributing resource. For homes in the Country Club District, historic integrity evaluations are based primarily on design (the combination of essential architectural features associated with a particular style), materials (the exterior physical elements), and feeling (a property’s aesthetic values). Interior spaces and landscape features are not evaluated for purposes of assessing heritage preservation value. Economic considerations are generally not part of the evaluation criteria applied by the HPC. I have carefully reviewed the information submitted with the COA application form; however, due to time constraints I was unable to conduct any kind of physical inspection or consult with one of my colleagues who is a qualified historic architect. It is my understanding that the city building official plans to examine the property and comment on the code issues referred to in the COA application. If he finds the house to be unsafe or unfit for habitation, I would be inclined to defer to his professional judgment. In general, the design issues and structural defects discussed in the applicant’s project narrative describe conditions common to old houses—for example, most of the deterioration appears to be the result of deferred maintenance rather than damage caused by untreated structural problems arising from poor design, faulty construction or inferior materials. I do not believe a strong case has been made for treating the house as structurally unstable or functionally obsolete. The brick wall system described in the narrative is commonly seen in early 20th century construction (though solid masonry walls are rare in the Country Club District) and a range of rehabilitation treatments exist to address the special problems inherent in these old-fashioned structural systems. Viewed from the perspective of current best practices in heritage preservation, the preferred treatment strategy for this property would be rehabilitation, which the city’s preservation ordinance (and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards) define as the processing of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values (emphasis added). Page 3 of 3 In my professional opinion, based on the information available to me, in its present condition the house at 4600 Browndale Avenue appears to retain sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. Evaluated from the perspective of the district’s historic context, the house dates from the district’s period of historical significance, clearly shows the influence of the developer’s master plan, and is readily identifiable as a specimen of period revival style architecture. Although it does not represent an individually significant architectural resource in its own right and has been altered somewhat from its as-built appearance, the property retains historic integrity of the most important architectural character defining design features associated with the Tudor Revival style, as described in McAlester’s Field Guide to American Houses (1984), the standard reference work for architectural classification used by preservation professionals (see pp. 354-371)—steeply pitched roof, façade dominated by a prominent street-facing gable, decorative half-timbering, massive chimney, and stucco wall cladding. Therefore, issuance of a COA for demolition would not be appropriate. decorative half- timbering present on about half of examples ECLECTIC HOUSES Tudor 1890-1940 steeply Pitched roof, usually side-gabled (lr,, commonly or front-gabled) massive chimneys, commonly crowned by decorative chimney pots facade dominated by one or more prominent cross gables, usually steeply pitched tall, narrow windows, common in multiple group, and with multi- pane glazing pages 36o-a FALSE THATCHED ROOF pages 362-5 pages 366-7 page 368 PARAPETED GABLES TIFYING FEATURES Steeply pitched roof, usually side-gabled (less commonly hipped or front-gabled ); fa- cade dominated by one or more prominent cross gables, usually steeply pitched; decora- tive (i.e., not structural) half-timbering present on about half of examples; tall, narrow windows, usually in multiple groups and with multi-pane glazing; massive chimneys, commonly crowned by decorative chimney pots. pRINCIPSA ixLpSriUncl3ipTaYl subtypes can be distinguished: STucco WALL CLADDING—A relatively small percentage of Tudor houses have stucco walls. These are most common on modest examples built before the widespread adoption of brick and stone veneering techniques in the 192os. In the early decades of the century wood-frame houses could be most easily disguised as masonry by applying stucco clad- ding over the wooden studs; many early Tudor houses used this technique, both with and without false half-timbering. BRICK WALL CLADDING—This is the most common Tudor subtype. Walls of solid brick ma- sonry were sometimes used on landmark examples early in this century, but brick be- came the preferred wall finish for even the most modest Tudor cottages after masonry veneering became widespread in the 192os. Brick first-story walls are commonly con- trasted with stone, stucco, or wooden claddings on principal gables or upper stories. False half-timbering occurs on about half the houses in this style, with infilling of stucco or brick between the timbers and, quite often, elaborate decorative patterns in the arrange- ment of timbers or brick. STONE WALL CLADDING Stone trim is common on Tudor houses of all subtypes but only a relatively small proportion have stone as the principal wall material. Like the ones just described, these were principally large landmark houses before 1920. During the 1920S and '3os, modest, stone-veneered cottages appeared. In this subtype, brick, stucco, or wooden trim is frequent on gables or second stories, as is false half-timbering. WOODEN WALL CLADDING Earlier American styles based on English Medieval precedents (Gothic Revival, Stick, Queen Anne) were executed predominantly in wood, whereas principal walls with wooden cladding are uncommon on Tudor houses. Modest examples are occasionally seen with weatherboard or shingled walls; stuccoed gables with half-tim- bering may be added above. STUCCO WALL CLADDING BRICK WALL CLADDING STONE WALL CLADDING WOODEN WALL CLADDING page 369 pages 370-I 355 PRINCIPAL SUBTYPES Eclectic Houses: Tudor FALSE THATCHED ROOF—This rare but very distinctive subtype attempts to mimic with modern materials the picturesque thatched roofs of rural England. Typically, composi- tion roofing materials are rolled around eaves and rakes to suggest a thick layering of thatch. The original composition materials frequently had irregular surface textures, also suggesting thatch, but these have usually been replaced by later coverings with regular shingled patterns. Such roofs were occasionally used on Tudor houses of all types, from modest cottages to grand landmarks. PARAPETED GABLES—This distinctive subtype is based on the more formal English building traditions of Late Medieval times. In these, the walls of the characteristic front-facing gables rise in a parapet above the roof behind. In side-gabled examples the principal gables are usually similarly parapeted. Shaped Flemish gables are common as are flat- roofed towers and bays having castellated parapets. Elaborate facade detailing of Gothic or Renaissance inspiration is quite common; false half-timbering is unusual. This Jaco- bethan style, as it has been called, was common in architect-designed landmarks built from about 1895 to 1915, particularly in the northeastern states. After World War I, less formal, more picturesque early English models dominated architectural fashion, although scattered parapeted landmarks continued to be built through the 193os. VARIANTS AND DETAILS The Tudor style is loosely based on a variety of early English building traditions ranging from simple folk houses to Late Medieval palaces. Most houses in this style emphasize high-pitched, gabled roofs and elaborated chimneys of Medieval origin, but decorative detailing may draw from Renaissance or even the modern Craftsman traditions. GABLES—Parapeted gables are characteristic of one distinctive subtype, as noted above. When gables are not parapeted, there is usually a slight overhang of the gable roof; plain or decorated vergeboards may be present. Overlapping gables with eave lines of varying height are common. HALF-TIMBERING—Decorative (i.e., false) half-timbering, mimicking Medieval infilled tim- ber framing (see page 40), is a common detail. Many different designs and patterns are found; most have stucco infilling between the timbers, but brick, often arranged in deco- rative patterns, is also used. CHIMNEYS Large, elaborated chimneys are favorite Tudor details; these are commonly placed in prominent locations on the front or side of the house. The lower part of the chimney may be decorated with complex masonry or stone patterns and the top com- monly has a separate chimney pot for each flue. Multiple shafts of the chimney itself, rep- resenting the number of flues contained within, are also used. DOORWAYS—These are favorite places for adding Renaissance detailing. Small tabs of cut stone may project into surrounding brickwork, giving a quoin-like effect. Simple round- arched doorways with heavy board-and-batten doors are also common. Tudor (flattened pointed) arches are often used in door surrounds or entry porches. WINDows—Windows are typically casements of wood or metal, although more traditional double-hung sash windows are also common. Windows are frequently grouped into strings of three or more, which are most commonly located on or below the main gable or 356 gboars, frequently half-timbered pr , icAL rinnon Akin NMI with single dominant front gable front gable GABLE DETAILS front MEdilorOm gaOerFobnlVeYARIAT ONS PLACEMENT May have more than one front end nternal CHIMNEYS MI RIM WA& multiple front gables LOCATION TYPICAL ELABORATIONS chimney pots, round or octagonal, sometimes decorated multiple shafts representing flues for different fireplaces, usually fake patterned brickwork or stonework chimney is usually very tall •••..111 4IP 4.4r- lb. • b. \-irovo i111111111111111 amminum111111111MINNIIIIIE .11111111 0. in gable in second story combination in fi st s ory rare HALF-TIMBERING TYPICAL PATTERNS infill usually stucco, but occasionally brick AIL. A1111111116. 41111111", Al plain, occasionally half-timbered —00 parapeted, never half-timbered false thatched, occasionally half-timbered Eclectic Houses: Tudor on one- or two-story bays; small transoms are sometimes present above the main win- dows. Stone mullions may divide casements and transoms in high-style examples. OTHER DETAILS—Use of a variety of wall materials is common, both for different vertical units and for different stories; patterned brickwork and stonework is common. Upper stories and gables may overhang lower stories. Castellated parapets are sometimes pres- ent. Front-facade porches are generally either small entry porches or are absent entirely. Side porches are frequent. I at. tr I( DUO DOD DM OM entry porches OCCURRENCE This dominant style of domestic building was used for a large proportion of early 2oth- century suburban houses throughout the country. It was particularly fashionable during the 192os and early '3os when only the Colonial Revival rivaled it in popularity as a ver- nacular style. COMMENTS The popular name for the style is historically imprecise, since relatively few examples closely mimic the architectural characteristics of Tudor (early 16th-century) England. Instead, the style is loosely based on a variety of late Medieval English prototypes, rang- ing from thatch-roofed folk cottages to grand manor houses. These traditions are freely mixed in their American Eclectic expressions but are united by an emphasis on steeply pitched, front-facing gables which, although absent on many English prototypes, are al- most universally present as a dominant facade element in Tudor houses. About half have ornamental false half-timbering, a characteristic they share with some examples of the earlier Stick and Queen Anne styles, which also drew heavily on Medieval English prece- dent. Unlike these styles, which were usually executed with wooden (board or shingle) wall cladding, most Tudor houses have stucco, masonry, or masonry-veneered walls. The earliest American houses in the style date from the late 19th century. These tended to be architect-designed landmarks which, like the first American Queen Anne houses built twenty years earlier, rather closely copied English models. Many were pat- terned after late Medieval buildings with Renaissance detailing that were popular during the reigns of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and James I (5603-25), the Elizabethan and Jaco- bean eras of English history. Architectural historians have proposed the contracted term "Jacobethan" style for these early Tudor landmarks. Most fall into the parapeted gable subtype described above. The uncommon Tudor landmarks of the Jacobethan type were joined in the decades from 1900 to 5920 by less pretentious Tudor houses which superimposed steep gables, half-timbering, or other typical detailing upon otherwise symmetrical facades (most commonly with full front gables). These modest early examples, unlike most Tudor houses, tend to have walls clad with weatherboard, shingles, or stucco (applied over wooden lath), thus avoiding the expense of solid masonry construction. Still relatively uncommon before World War I, the style expanded explosively in popularity during the 1920S and '3os as masonry veneering techniques allowed even the most modest examples to mimic closely the brick and stone exteriors seen on English prototypes. They show endless variations in overall shape and roof form and are most conveniently subdivided on the basis of their dominant facade materials (brick, stone, stucco, or wood). The style quickly faded from fashion in the late 593os but has become popular in somewhat modi- fied form during the Neoeclectic movement of the 197os and '8os. ' oriel semi-hexagonal one- anddouble-hung casement two-story bays steeply pitched gable dormers cast stone mullions cast stone transoms overlapping gables varied eave-line heights overhanging gables and second stories DOOM 000 000 battlements cast stone trim end porches frequently under main roof of house multiple materials patterned stonework or brickwork TYPICAL ELABORATIONS MOH 001100 000000 358 .STRAPWORK Eclectic Houses: Tudor 3 STUCCO WALL CLADDING 1. Lexington, Kentucky; 192os. 2. Ashtabula, Ohio; 191os. Note the wall dormers, an unusual Tudor feature, the brick tabbed door surround, the quoins and the chimney de- tailing. 3. Louisville, Kentucky; 19ios. Such examples, with the dominant front gable capped by a hip, suggest Continental, rather than British, precedents. They were sometimes referred to as Germanic Cottages by eclectic build- ers. 4. Cleveland, Ohio; 192os. This example retains the original roof of rough-cut slate. Note the unusually low eave line and the massive front chimneys. 5. Montgomery, Alabama; 19 os. Many early Tudor houses were sym- metrical or nearly so, as in this example. 6. Americus, Georgia; 192os. 7. Louisville, Kentucky; 191os. Wymond House. This landmark exam- ple has wood-shingle walls above the rough-finished stucco of the first story. Note the multiple groups of casement windows and the shed dormer to the left, contrasting with the hipped dormers on the right. 8. Pittsford, New York; 1920S. Note the decorated vergeboards in the gables and the second-story overhang above the entry. 2 4 7 360 Tudor 361 Eclectic Houses: Tudor BRICK WALL CLADDING 1. Chevy Chase, Maryland; 193os. The stone of the gabled wing con- trasts with the brick walls of the rest of house (see Figure 5 below). 2. Durham, North Carolina; 193os. A late example with relatively little decorative detailing. 3. Hartford, Connecticut, 19 os. A brick lower story with wood- shingled walls above. The symmetrical form seen here is common in pre- 1920 examples, but rare after. 4. St. Louis, Missouri; 192os. 5. Raleigh, North Carolina; 19205. In placing houses into Tudor sub- types we have used the dominant first-story wall material as the principal criterion. Other materials are commonly used on upper stories (or portions thereof) and for dominant design elements, such as the entry, front gable, or chimney. This unusual example has about equal proportions of brick, stone, and wood on the front facade. Brick slightly dominates the first story as well as the side and back walls not seen in the photograph. 6. Kansas City, Missouri; 19205. Here a brick chimney, entry area, and foundation walls are used with rough-stuccoed gables and upper story. 7. Toledo, Ohio; 292os. A landmark example with multiple gables and chimneys and a Renaissance-inspired door surround. 8. Cleveland, Ohio; 19205. Note the finely detailed entry gable with very tall leaded glass windows, vergeboard, and decorative paneling. The curved roof line over the bay window is a distinctive but relatively rare Tudor feature. 362 Tudor Tudor 363 Eclectic Houses: Tudor I0 1 9 ids • 12 HH ai gicK WALL CLADDING (cont.) 9 Hartford, Connecticut; 1910s. la Mendon, Utah; ca. 1935. I. Dallas, Texas; 192os. Note the open entry porch beneath an upper- itory room. This reflects a common Medieval building practice and is also Itt, in some Postmedieval English and Gothic Revival examples. 12. St. Louis, Missouri; 1920S. Note that brick, rather than the more nal stucco, is used here as fill in the decorative half-timbering (see also F pre 15). 13. Salisbury, North Carolina; 19 ,os. An early, symmetrical example with exposed rafters (see Figure 14). pi. Louisville, Kentucky; 191os. Open eaves with exposed rafters, seen 'lac and in Figure 13, indicate a house with Craftsman influence. These Were generally built before about 1915. The early date of this example is onfirmed by the symmetrical form. Such elaborate half-timbered effects ire also rare on later examples. 15, Cleveland, Ohio; 1920s. A landmark example with multiple rows of coement windows. 16. Hartford, Connecticut; 1910s. Tudor 365 Eclectic Houses: Tudor 3 1 366 Tudor Tudor 367 STONE WALL CLADDING 1. Lexington, Kentucky; 193os. Note how the distinctive form (side- gabled roof with the facade dominated by a prominent, steep cross gable and a massive chimney) marks this as a Tudor house even with little addi- tional detailing. 2. Lexington, Kentucky; 192os. 3. Louisville, Kentucky; 1920S. Note the pair of unusually tall and steeply pitched gables. 4. Durham, North Carolina; 193os. 5. Durham, North Carolina; 1920S. The Tudor arch of the doorway is also seen in Figure 3. 6. Dallas, Texas; 1920S. Note the oriel window above the entry. Brick is used for window surrounds and in a decorative diamond pattern in the main gable. 7. Cleveland, Ohio; remodeled 1924. S. Weringen House; Philip L. Small, architect. This landmark example has a three-story bay window with castellations above and an irregular slate roof. 4 5 Eclectic Houses: Tudor WOODEN WALL CLADDING I. Taylor, Texas; 193os. The arched extension of the front-gabled wall extending beyond the main house to the right is called an "arcaded wing wall." This is a feature found on both Tudor and Spanish Eclectic houses (see also Figure 3). 2. Kansas City, Missouri; 193os. An unusually tall and steeply pitched front-gabled roof forms the principal facade. Note the pedimented entry; varying interpretations of classical doorways were added to Tudor house forms in the 193os. 3. Ste. Genevieve, Missouri; 1920S. It is easy to identify the simple side-gabled form in this example and to see how the addition of the gabled entry, massive front chimney, and dominant front gable converts it to Tudor styling. 4. St. Louis, Missouri; 192os. 5. Buffalo, New York; 19los. An early symmetrical example with a full front-gabled roof. Note the open eaves with exposed rafters, borrowed from contemporaneous Craftsman houses. Decorative half-timbering, seen here and in Figure 4, is uncommon on Tudor houses with only wooden wall cladding. ILP THATCHED ROOF portland, Oregon; 1920S. This steeply pitched roof with curved dor- o l curved gable roof gives a convincing imitation of thatch. The pg material is probably a replacement of the original. st. Louis, Missouri; 192os. The tightly wrapped roof edge seen here less common and less convincing than the more gently rolled edge of the voler examples shown. Note the undulating texture of the-original compo- o n roofing material, visible on the left gable. 4, Cleveland, Ohio; 192os. False-thatched-roof examples are more likely hoe symmetrical facades than other Tudor subtypes (see also figures 4 yd 5), The original roofing material has probably been replaced here and Figure 4. Cleveland, Ohio; 1920s. 4 Cedarhurst, New York; 19 os. This atypical example lacks the front- licing gable usually found on Tudor houses. The trellised front entry shows some Craftsman influence. The original composition roofing is own; note the textured pattern which closely simulates thatch. Tudor 369 2 7 -twit iiielwaity,'svivivrjas11 Eclectic Houses: Tudor PARAPETED GABLES 1. Richmond, Virginia; 191os. This finely detailed example was de- signed for a relatively narrow urban lot. 2. Chicago, Illinois; 19oz. Goodyear House; W. C. Zimmerman, archi- tect. 3. Cleveland, Ohio; 19ios. An unusual interpretation with flat roof and castellations all around. 4. St. Louis, Missouri; 191os. Note the shaped Flemish gables and tabbed window and door surrounds. 5. Concord, North Carolina; 1920S. Both figures 5 and 6 are symmetri- cal interpretations. 6. Buffalo, New York; 191os. Albright House. The multiple chimneys with paired flues and the lines of casement windows with stone ransoms are features seen in many examples of this subtype. 7. Tuxedo Park, New York; 19tos. Mitchell House. Note the flat-roofed tower with castellations, shaped Flemish gables and the Renaissance- influenced door surround with columns and pediment. 3 4 370 Tudor Tudor 371 October 5, 2020 Cary Teague, Community Development Director David Fisher, Chief Building Official 4600 Browndale Ave – Historical Home Built in the 1927 on the National Historical Register and within the City of Edina Landmark Historical District Information / Background: A request was made for me to do a housing inspection of 4600 Browndale Ave. This is an existing home that was built in 1927 and its located in the City’s Historical Landmark District. One question that is always difficult to answer is, “What is the life expectancy of a single-family-home?” In this case the home is almost 100 years old and has been vacant for the last ten years. Here are the items I found that permits were issued for: - 2020 Demo permit was issued for an interior remodel - 2017 Roofing permit to replace the cedar shakes - 2011 Mechanical permit to replace the boiler - 2008 Sewer & water permit to repair the sewer - 2004 Plumbing permit was issued with no inspections - 2004 Permit to replace the kitchen cabinets - 1999 AC was installed - 1994 Chimney was repaired - 1964 Permit for addition to existing garage – no inspection record - 1953 Permit for a water connection For a home this age and size there are not many records of improvements or maintenance of the home. On October 2, 2020, I did a walk-through of the home. I found the following: - A musty damp smell throughout the home - Most of the basement was finished, but I found an area under the stairs that had signs of mold - The kitchen has been demoed and had exposed plumbing – possibly for the future remodel - Plumbing that is not code compliant – old style drum traps, may have S traps and under-sized water pipe STAFF REPORT Page 2 - The home appeared to have 200 AMP electrical service with mix of green field, BX and romex wiring. With the size of this home being around 8,000 square-feet the size of the electrical service may be undersized and in need of an upgrade. - Most of the windows were single pane glass with an exterior storm window – this style of windows are very drafty and not very energy efficient. - The front steps vary more than one inch & are a hazard under the building code and need to be repaired or replaced - There is some concern about the cantilevered balcony in the rear of the home being safe - The step in the rear needs to be replaced and a handrail is needed - All the fireplaces need to be certified for use before using them Reading through the architect’s findings, I agree with the report. It would be very difficult to make this home energy efficient without rebuilding walls. In addition, I recommended to the homeowner and the architect to obtain a Minnesota licensed professional engineer to look at the home to see if there are any structural issues with the home. Everything was covered so I could not see inside of the walls. Conclusion What is the life expectancy of a single-family-home? There is no standard answer to this question therefore these decisions need to made case by case bases. I tried to lay out the facts of the deficiencies of the home so an informed decision can be made. Historical vs new are tough descensions to make. 1 EDINA’S HISTORIC COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT PLAN OF TREATMENT PLANNING OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the Country Club Heritage Landmark District is preservation of the existing historic house facades and streetscapes. Certificates of Appropriateness from the Heritage Preservation Board will be required for demolition, moving buildings, and new construction within the district. In fulfillment of this responsibility, the City has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the basis for the Board’s design review decisions. The preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the Country Club District is rehabilitation, which is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices. They are regulatory only with respect to Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition and new construction; for work that is not subject to design review, they are advisory. The standards for rehabilitation are: a) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. b) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. c) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. d) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. e) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. f) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. g) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. h) Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. i) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 2 j) New additions and adjacent new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS A Certificate of Appropriateness will be required before any City permit is issued for the demolition and new construction of any principal dwelling or detached garage within the district boundaries. Definitions: Demolition - For purposes of design review and compliance with City Code §850.20 subd. 10, demolition shall mean the physical alteration of a building that requires a city permit and where: (a) 50% or more of the surface area of all exterior walls, in the aggregate, are removed; or (b) 50% or more of the principal roof structure is removed, changing its shape, pitch, or height; or (c) A front porch, side porch, vestibule, dormer, chimney, attached garage, or porte-cochere is removed or destroyed. This definition does not include removal of existing siding, roofing, trim, fascia, soffit, eave moldings, windows, and doors. Heritage Preservation Resource or Historic Building – Any building, site, structure, or object that has been so designated by the Heritage Preservation Board on the basis of its historic associations or historic architectural qualities which add to the significance of the district as a whole. Heritage preservation resources may lack individual distinction but must possess historic significance and integrity of those features necessary to convey their heritage preservation value. An updated inventory of heritage preservation resources in the Country Club District is maintained by the City Planner. Heritage preservation resources include those homes built from 1924 – 1944, the period when the developer enforced rigid architectural standards on new home construction through restrictive covenants. No Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved for the demolition, in whole or in part, of any heritage preservation resource in the district unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the district because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, or by inappropriate additions or alterations. Except in extraordinary circumstances involving threats to public health or safety, no Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued for the demolition of an existing heritage preservation resource in the district without an approved design plan for new construction. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES New home construction will be limited to existing residential lots and their design will be compatible with the original (1924-1944) Country Club District deed restrictions relating to architecture. The following guidelines generally reflect the principles of the deed restrictions and will be applied by the Heritage Preservation Board to design review of plans for new houses: Size, Scale & Massing - New homes should be compatible in size, scale, massing, orientation, setback, color, and texture with historic buildings in the district constructed prior to 1945. Facades should be architecturally similar to existing historic homes and visually relate to the historic facades of nearby homes; radically contrasting façade designs will not be allowed. Entrances, porches, and other projections should relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes and respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street. Roof forms should be consistent with typical roof forms 3 of existing historic homes in terms of pitch, orientation, and complexity. New homes should be constructed to a height compatible with existing adjacent historic homes, and the maximum height of new construction should be within 10% of the average height of existing homes on adjacent lots, or the average of the block measured from the original surface grade to the highest part of the roof. Exterior Finishes - Traditional materials and exterior finishes (horizontal lap siding, stucco, brick, false half-timbering, wood shakes, stone) are recommended for use on facades which are visible from the street. The use of non-traditional materials (such as Hardi-Plank siding and steel roofing) should be considered on a case-by-case basis; imitative wood or masonry finishes should duplicate the size, shape, color, and texture of materials historically used in the District. Aluminum and vinyl siding are not appropriate for street facades. Accessory Mechanical Equipment - Mechanical equipment, solar panels, air conditioners, satellite dishes, and antennae should be concealed whenever possible or placed in an inconspicuous location so as not to intrude or detract from historic facades and streetscapes. Decks & Accessory Structures - Contemporary designs are acceptable for decks and accessory structures so long as they are not visible from the street. Landscaping Elements - Landscaping such as retaining walls, planters, fences, planting beds, and walkways, should be visually compatible with the historic character of the district in size, scale, material, texture, and color. Retaining walls should follow the grade of the lot and blend with the historic streetscape. Impervious Surfaces - Construction of large areas of impervious surface for driveways, patios, and off-street parking should be discouraged in favor of permeable pavement systems and other “green” alternatives to solid concrete, brick, or bituminous paving. Building Code Requirements - Building code requirements should be complied with in such a manner that the architectural character of the new home is compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. Year Built Identification - New homes should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription (to be placed on an exterior surface) bearing the year of construction. GARAGES Modernistic designs for new detached garages will be discouraged. New detached garages should match the architectural style of the house on the same lot as well as the historic character of the neighborhood. The following guidelines will be applied to design review of plans for new garages: The new garage should be subordinate to the house. The preferred placement is at the rear of the lot or set back from the front of the house to minimize the visual impact on adjacent homes and streetscapes. Front facing attached garages are discouraged. No new detached garage should be taller, longer, or wider than the house on the same lot. The roofline should have a maximum height within 10% of the average height of existing detached garages on adjacent lots, or the average of the block. Undecorated exterior walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. New garages should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription (to be placed on an exterior surface) bearing the year of construction. 4 DRIVEWAYS Driveways should be compatible in width and material with historic driveways in the district and should be designed in such a manner that they do not radically change, obscure, or destroy the historic character-defining spatial organization and landscape features of residential lots, yards, and streetscapes. New curb-cuts should be avoided whenever possible. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The City will develop and implement plans for the preservation, maintenance, and replacement of all public infrastructure within the district, including streets, trees, sidewalks, street lighting, signs, parks, and open space areas that give the neighborhood its distinguishing character. The distinguishing original qualities and historic character of the district will not be damaged or destroyed as a result of any undertaking funded or assisted by the City. The removal or alteration of any historic building or landscape feature should be avoided whenever possible. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE The City will promote voluntary compliance with historic preservation standards for the rehabilitation of individual historic properties by encouraging repairs, additions, or alterations which make possible an efficient contemporary use of older homes in the district while preserving those features that are historically and architecturally significant. Although not ordinarily subject to Certificates of Appropriateness, small additions or minor alterations should be done in such a manner that they do not destroy historically significant architectural features. New additions should be differentiated from historic architecture and designed to be compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property. NATURAL DISASTERS When historic properties are impacted by man-made or natural disasters, every reasonable effort will be made to avoid total loss. If demolition must occur, historic buildings should be recorded so that a body of information about them (photographs, drawings, and written data) will be preserved for the benefit of the public. DISTRICT RE-SURVEY The City will arrange for a re-survey of the Edina Country Club District every ten years to document changes in the appearance and historic integrity of historic properties; to revise the list of heritage preservation resources and non-heritage preservation resources present within the district boundaries; and to revise the district plan of treatment as needed. The next re-survey will take place circa 2017. Resolution No. 2008-41 Adopted: 4-15-2008 December 11, 2019 Page 1 COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS BY STREET ARDEN AVENUE: 23 4505 H-10-1 Decertify Heritage Resource- Denied 4505 H-14-2 New Street Facing Facades & New Detached Garage - Build New 4505 H-15-3 Changes to COA H-14-2 4506 H-04-5 Move Existing Garage 4508 H-04-1 Move Existing Garage 4513 H-15-7 New Detached Garage 4517 H-04-4 New Detached Garage 4519 H-10-2 New Detached Garage & Front Entry Portico 4523 H-05-7 Move Detached Garage 4528 H-09-3 New Detached Garage 4609 H-07-3 New Detached Garage 4611 H-09-7 New Detached Garage & Front Entry Portico 4612 H-14-1 New Detached Garage & Front Entry Canopy 4621 H-13-6 Change to Street Facing Façade 4624 H-04-2 New Detached Garage 4625 H-14-5 New Detached Garage 4629 H-14-8 New Detached Garage & Front Entry Canopy 4900 H-19-2 Changes to Street Facing Facades 4905 H-16-4 New Detached Garage 4907 H-11-8 New Front Entry Canopy 4910 H-03-7 New Detached Garage 4912 H-07-4 New Detached Garage 4920 H-17-1 Change to Street Facing Facade BRUCE AVENUE: 22 4506 H-03-8 New Detached Garage 4511 H-11-9 New Detached Garage/Addition 4513 H-15-1 Change to Front Entry/2nd Story Addition 4515 H-16-1 New Detached Garage 4519 H-16-6 New Detached Garage 4531 H-19-4 Changes to front facing façade 4524 H-12-3 Demolish House (non-heritage resource) – Build New 4601 H-16-3 New Detached Garage 4602 H-09-2 Demolish House (non-heritage resource) – Build New 4604 H-05-1 New Detached Garage 4607 H-17-2 New Detached Garage 4608 H-06-2 Demolish House (non- heritage resource) – Build New 4608 H-06-8 Revisions to Plan approved with H-06-2 4609 H-09-4 New Front Entry Portico 4623 H-10-3 New Detached Garage 4624 H-12-4 Demolish House (non-heritage resource) - Build New 4626 H-07-9 New Detached Garage December 11, 2019 Page 2 4629 H-08-2 New Detached Garage- VOID 4901 H-12-6 Change to Street Facing Façade - VOID 4901 H-14-11 Changes to Street Facing Façade 4902 H-15-8 New Detached Garage 4903 H-04-11 New Detached Garage CASCO AVENUE: 21 4501 H-10-4 Remove Detached Garage/New Attached – corner lot 4505 H-17-5 Changes to Front Entry 4512 H-08-8 New Detached Garage/Front Façade 4512 H-10-5 New Detached Garage/Front Portico – change from H-08-8 4523 H-07-6 New Detached Garage 4526 H-06-6 New Detached Garage 4527 H-06-1 New Detached Garage 4530 H-16-7 New Detached Garage 4600 H-11-5 Change to Street Façade 4601 H-14-6 New Detached Garage & Change to Street Façade 4601 H-15-4 Changes to COA H-14-6 4608 H-16-8 Demolish House (non-heritage resource)- Build New 4615 H-05-4 New Detached Garage 4622 H-07-5 New Detached Garage 4623 H-11-1 New Detached Garage/Addition 4625 H-09-8 New Detached Garage 4627 H-13-1 New Detached Garage 4628 H-01-11 New Detached Garage 4629 H-17-6 New Detached Garage 4631 H-07-2 New Detached Garage 4634 H-09-1 New Detached Garage DREXEL AVENUE: 22 4504 H-13-2 New Detached Garage 4506 H-14-3 New Detached Garage 4507 H-06-4 Demolish Detached Garage/Construct New 4512 H-06-3 Demolish Detached Garage/Construct Attached Garage 4517 H-08-13 New Detached Garage 4517 H-18-4 Changes to Front Façade (dormers) 4518 H-18-1 New Detached Garage 4524 H-14-10 New Detached Garage 4526 H-04-7 New Detached Garage 4600 H-15-10 Change to Street Facing Façade 4601 H-05-8 Demolish House – Build New – corner lot 4610 H-18-3 Demolish and Replace Attached Garage 4619 H-04-10 New Detached Garage 4620 H-04-8 Demolish Detached Garage – Construct Attached Garage 4622 H-06-5 Demolish House – Build New 4622 H-08-1 Change in COA #H-06-5 4622 H-08-3 New Construction December 11, 2019 Page 3 4623 H-08-12 New Detached Garage 4624 H-06-7 New Detached Garage 4625 H-03-4 New Detached Garage 4630 H-19-1 Changes to Street Facing Facades 4633 H-08-7 New Detached garage - VOID WOODDALE AVENUE: 16 4501 H-03-3 Demolish Detached Garage - Construct Attached Garage -VOID 4501 H-03-6 Demolish House – Build New – corner lot 4508 H-07-7 New Detached Garage 4608 H-17-4 New Front Entry Canopy 4512 H-07-8 New Detached Garage 4600 H-09-5 New Detached Garage – corner lot 4601 H-12-5 Change to Street Facing Façade 4602 H-15-5 New Detached Garage - changes 5/10/16 4605 H-07-1 New Detached Garage 4607 H-11-6 Move Detached Garage/Change to Street Facing Façade 4608 H-17-4 New Front Entry Canopy 4615 H-08-14 Demolish Home/Garage to Build New 4615 H-09-6 Change side to James Hardie Artisan Lap 4623 H-15-11 New Front Entry Portico 4624 H-13-7 Change to Street Facing Facade 4625 H-03-5 Demolish Detached Garage – Construct Attached Garage EDINA BOULEVARD: 4 4511 H-08-11 New Detached Garage -VOID 4515 H-03-2 New Detached Garage 4600 H-08-4 New Detached Garage – corner lot 4621 H-11-7 Change to Street Facing Façade – Variance Required MOORLAND AVENUE: 8 4513 H-08-5 New Detached Garage 4602 H-04-3 New Detached Garage 4603 H-05-3 New Detached Garage 4603 H-18-2 Changes to Front Entry 4607 H-05-2 New Detached Garage 4619 H-03-1 Demolish House – Build New 4620 H-12-2 New Detached Garage/Addition 4624 H-10-7 New Home - See 4408 Country Club Rd. BROWNDALE AVENUE: 14 4405 H-03-9 New Detached Garage – corner lot 4511 H-14-7 Changes to Street Facing Façade - Denied 4511 H-14-9 Changes to Street Facing Facade 4515 H-13-3 New Detached Garage – corner lot 4601 H-14-4 New Front Entry Overhang December 11, 2019 Page 4 4602 H-17-7 Change to Street Facing Façade-New Addition 4603 H-12-1 New Front Entry Canopy 4604 H-18-5 Changes/Addition to Front Façade 4604 H-19-3 Update to H-18-5-Changes/Addition to Front Facade 4610 H-16-2 Change to Street Facing Garage 4621 H-15-9 Change to Street Facing Façade & New Detached Garage 4624 H-13-4 Change to Street Facing Façade (Edenbrook Pl) 4627 H-08-10 Demo. Hot Tub House 4632 H-17-3 Change to Street Facing Façade (Edenbrook Pl) EDGEBROOK PLACE: 1 4622 H-17-8 Changes to Front Entry SUNNYSIDE ROAD: 5 4504 H-15-2 New Front Entry Portico 4600 H-04-06 New Detached Garage 4805 H-11-4 Change to Street Facade 4901 H-10-6 Demolish House (non-heritage resource) – Build New 4916 H-13-09 Change to Street Facade COUNTRY CLUB ROAD: 3 4229 H-16-5 New Front Entry Portico/Side street façade change 4401 H-13-5 Change to Street Facing Façade (add garage stall/MBR) 4408 H-10-7 Demolish House (non heritage resource) – Build New NEW ADDRESS: 4624 MOORLAND AVE. RIGHT OF WAY – CITY PROJECTS: 5 HWY 100 – WESTERN BOUNDARY H-04-09 Sound Wall From Creek North to W. 44th St. RECONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT SEWER, WATER AND STREETS H-05-6 Conceptual Plan Approved RECONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT SEWER, WATER & STREETS H-07-10 Traffic calming improvements RECONSTRUCTION STREETS & CROSSWALKS H-08-6 Traffic Calming deleted – crosswalk changes only COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS H-15-6 Allow 7 area I.D. signs at main entrances to District NEW HOMES: 12 2003 4619 Moorland Avenue 2005 4601 Drexel Avenue 2006 4501 Wooddale Avenue December 11, 2019 Page 5 2006 4608 Bruce Avenue 2008 4615 Wooddale Avenue 2009 4602 Bruce Avenue 2010 4901 Sunnyside Road 4408 Country Club Road (changed to 4624 Moorland Avenue) 2012 4524 Bruce Avenue 4624 Bruce Avenue 2014 4505 Arden Avenue 2016 4608 Casco Avenue COA’S BY STREET: Arden Avenue = 23 Bruce Avenue = 21 Casco Avenue = 21 Drexel Avenue = 22 Country Club Road = 3 Wooddale Avenue = 16 Edina Boulevard = 4 Moorland Avenue = 8 Browndale Avenue = 14 Sunnyside Road = 5 Edgebrook Place = 1 Right of Way - City = 5 Total = 143 COA’S BY YEAR: 2003 9 2004 11 2005 8 2006 8 2007 10 2008 14 2009 9 2010 7 2011 9 2012 6 2013 8 2014 11 2015 11 2016 8 2017 8 2018 5 2019 4 146 10/8/2020 Edina, MN Code of Ordinances 1/1 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Sec. 36-1348. - Driveway design. Driveway width regulations are as follows: In all zoning districts except R-1 and R-2 districts (back of curb to back of curb): Maximum Minimum One-way 20 feet 12 feet Two-way 30 feet 24 feet There are no minimum widths in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Maximum driveway width at street curb: 30 feet exclusive of returns as measured along the curb line of the street. Minimum distance between driveways in all districts except R-1 and R-2: 20 feet between ends or returns as measured along the curb line of the street. Minimum distance of driveway from street intersections: 50 feet between ends or returns of the driveway and the returns of the intersection as measured along the curb line of the street. Minimum distance between end of the driveway return and side lot line in all districts except R-1 and R-2: ten feet. A permit must be obtained for curb cuts pursuant to article IV, division 2 of chapter 24. (Code 1970; Code 1992, § 850.08(6)D) 1 | P a g e ALIGN Structural, Inc. 241 CLEVELAND AVENUE SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55105-1255 t 651.698.0164 | f 651.698.0165 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Peterssen/Keller Architecture October 12, 2020 1610 West Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55408 Attn: Ashley Vanden Bosch Re: 4600 Browndale Avenue- Structural opinion regarding proposed remodel/addition Edina, MN Project #20297 Ms. Vanden Bosch, At your request I have reviewed the existing framing of the referenced residence in light of the proposed remodeling/addition that is being contemplated by the new Owners. You had asked me if there are existing structural conditions that make new work on the home extraordinarily difficult. Based on my limited visual observations of the existing framing conditions of the home the biggest structural concern I have for any potential remodeling/addition efforts are the existing clay tile walls that appear to make up all of the exterior walls of the home. Having clay tile as the main structural component of the exterior walls raises the following concerns: 1. Creating new openings in existing clay tile walls raises issues for the any new lintels at those locations. These issues include the following: A. The new concentrated loads at the lintel bearing conditions would require reinforcing of the existing clay tile at those locations. It is extremely difficult to determine the actual capacity of the clay tile itself as manufacturing of older clay tile varied greatly, and determining the material properties of the clay tile is basically an estimation based on historic texts and design experience with the material. B. One could add wood or steel elements at any new lintel bearing conditions, but the existing clay tile system that would remain adjacent to these supports are prone to trapping moisture and this can lead to rapid deterioration of the new lintel support materials. C. The weight of the clay tile and the extreme deflection criteria for lintels supporting masonry wall elements create situations where very large structural members will be required at new openings. These conditions can lead to the need for steel members at the openings. Like in Item 1.B, the strong potential for trapping moisture in clay tile walls can lead to rapid deterioration of the new lintel material. 2 | P a g e 2. Structural clay tile does a good job supporting compression loading, but the tensile capacity of an unreinforced clay tile system is extremely limited. Using clay tile in exterior walls definitely requires the walls to resist lateral loads, and I have significant questions regarding any existing clay tile exterior wall system having the capacity to support lateral loads dictated by modern building codes. 3. Clay tile walls are prone to trapping moisture and can lead to deterioration of the clay tile itself and other building materials around it. This is a relatively old residence and I would want any Owner to have the option to remodel the home in manner that will work well for many years to come. The first step to creating a “healthy house” scenario that will be structurally viable for the long term would be to completely remove and replace the clay tile walls. 4. It is difficult to determine the existing condition of older clay tile. Even when clay tile walls are opened up during remodeling efforts, I would not be able to tell if the existing clay tile is in sound condition. Again, the lack of consistent/documented history of clay tile material properties makes it extremely difficult to re-use existing clay tile as critical structural elements. Please contact me if you need any additional structural input regarding the existing residence and the design of your proposed remodeling/addition. Respectfully Submitted, Richard W. Johnson, PE, Principal Minnesota Registration #23406 Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Correspondence-Atwood Station Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: See attached correspondence. ATTACHMENTS: Description Correspondence 1 Emily Bodeker From:Emily Bodeker Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:06 PM To:Jane Lonnquist Subject:FW: Atwood Station Attachments:Video.mov Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0462 | Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. | Edina, MN 55424 EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 9:52 PM To: Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Atwood Station EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hey Emily my name's Ted I’m eleven years old and While working on a documentary about the Dan Patch Electric lines I discovered an a Abandoned train station located in Edina industrial park near Twin Cities produces warehouse I did some more research and found out that the station was not just a maintenance of way shed it was a station for the 100 year old Electric passenger line that used to speed from Minneapolis to Northfield twice a day the Dan patch electric lines this building is almost 100 years old and it’s quite small it currently has barely any vandalism (God bless the buckthorn) due to the fact it’s surrounded by “bushes” i’m interested in finding a way to preserve this building before it’s torn down or vandalized beyond repair it’s history is crucial due to the fact that almost all the other small stations on the Dan patch i’ve been either demolished or vandalized beyond recognition. so please help me I’m a child, I’m not good at writing emails and we’re in a pandemic I feel it’s crucial that we get this building on a registry of historical buildings and/or perhaps move it to a park such as Arneson acres near the historical society. 2 3 Thanks -Ted Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant Item Activity: Subject:Preservation Planning Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: The topic for this month’s Heritage Preservation Commission training session is “Preservation Planning.” My presentation will focus on historic contexts, which are often referred to as the cornerstone of heritage preservation planning. Historic contexts are defined as a system for organizing information about historical patterns and trends by which a specific preservation resource is understood. The concept, which is fundamental to the disciplines of history, architectural history and archaeology, allows preservation planners to identify and evaluate the significance of heritage resources. Most heritage preservation planning documents contain some kind of historic context statement based upon a theme or property type, with defined geographical and chronological boundaries. The Edina heritage preservation program has produced over a dozen major historic context studies since 1980. One of the most important duties of the HPC is to refine, modify, add to and elaborate on these context statements as more information becomes available. A very good description of how historic contexts are used in making historic preservation decisions can be found in the National Register Bulletin, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (pages 14-16, 28-30 and passim), a copy of which has already been provided to HP C members in digital format. I am also providing a copy of the National Park Service Historic Preservation P lanning Program handout on standards and guidelines for preservation planning and a one-page outline of the local historic contexts developed as part of Edina’s comprehensive preservation plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo from Consultant Vogel Edina Historic Contexts Outline Standards in Preservation Planning TO: Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: October 5, 2020 SUBJECT: HPC Training for October 13 Meeting The topic for this month’s Heritage Preservation Commission training session is “Preservation Planning.” My presentation will focus on historic contexts, which are often referred to as the cornerstone of heritage preservation planning. Historic contexts are defined as a system for organizing information about historical patterns and trends by which a specific preservation resource is understood. The concept, which is fundamental to the disciplines of history, architectural history and archaeology, allows preservation planners to identify and evaluate the significance of heritage resources. Most heritage preservation planning documents contain some kind of historic context statement based upon a theme or property type, with defined geographical and chronological boundaries. The Edina heritage preservation program has produced over a dozen major historic context studies since 1980. One of the most important duties of the HPC is to refine, modify, add to and elaborate on these context statements as more information becomes available. A very good description of how historic contexts are used in making historic preservation decisions can be found in the National Register Bulletin, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (pages 14-16, 28-30 and passim), a copy of which has already been provided to HPC members in digital format. I am also providing a copy of the National Park Service Historic Preservation Planning Program handout on standards and guidelines for preservation planning and a one-page outline of the local historic contexts developed as part of Edina’s comprehensive preservation plan. EDINA HISTORIC CONTEXTS OUTLINE TIER 1 STUDY UNITS (CITY-WIDE) • American Indian Cultural Traditions, 10,000 BC to AD 1862 • Agriculture and Rural Life, 1851 to 1959 • Suburbanization, 1885 to 1975 TIER 2 STUDY UNITS (GEOGRAPHIC AREA/THEMATIC) • Edina Mills, 1857 to 1932 • Morningside, 1905 to 1966 • Country Club District, 1924 to 1944) • Southdale, 1952 to 1975 • Country Clubs and Parks, 1909 to 50 years before the present • Minnehaha Creek, 10,000 BC to 50 years before the present • Postwar Residential Neighborhoods, 1945 to 1975 • Midcentury Modern Architecture and Landscapes, 1934 to 1975 • Edina’s Recent Past, 1975 to present TIER 3 STUDY UNITS (PROPERTY TYPE) • Morningside Bungalows, 1905 to 1930 STUDY UNITS “UNDER CONSTRUCTION” • Churches, 1900s to 1970s • Cold War Fallout Shelters, 1950s to 1960s • West Minneapolis Heights, 1883 to 1975 • Federal Relief Construction in Edina, 1933 to 1942 • American Foursquare Houses, 1890s to 1920s • 50th and France, 1930s to 1970s Historic Preservation Planning The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning NOTE: These Standards and Guidelines are one part of Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, which appeared in the Federal Register, September 29, 1983 (48FR44716). The entire set of The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines is available at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm. Preservation planning is a process that organizes preservation activities (identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties) in a logical sequence. The Standards for Planning discuss the relationship among these activities while the remaining activity standards consider how each activity should be carried out. The Professional Qualifications Standards discuss the education and experience required to carry out various activities. The Standards for Planning outline a process that determines when an area should be examined for historic properties, whether an identified property is significant, and how a significant property should be treated. Preservation planning is based on the following principles: • Important historic properties cannot be replaced if they are destroyed. Preservation planning provides for conservative use of these properties, preserving them in place and avoiding harm when possible and altering or destroying properties only when necessary. • If planning for the preservation of historic properties is to have positive effects, it must begin before the identification of all significant properties has been completed. To make responsible decisions about historic properties, existing information must be used to the maximum extent and new information must be acquired as needed. • Preservation planning includes public participation. The planning process should provide a forum for open discussion of preservation issues. Public involvement is most meaningful when it is used to assist in defining values of properties and preservation planning issues, rather than when it is limited to review of decisions already made. Early and continuing public participation is essential to the broad acceptance of preservation planning decisions. Preservation planning can occur at several levels or scales: in a project area; in a community; in a State as a whole; or in scattered or contiguous landholdings of a Federal National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Historic Preservation Planning Program Washington, DC 2 agency. Depending upon the scale, the planning process will involve different segments of the public and professional communities and the resulting plan will vary in detail. For example, a State preservation plan will likely have more general recommendations than a plan for a project area or a community. The planning process described in these Standards is flexible enough to be used at all levels while providing a common structure which promotes coordination and minimizes duplication of effort. The Guidelines for Preservation Planning contain additional information about how to integrate various levels of planning. STANDARD I. Preservation Planning Establishes Historic Contexts Decisions about the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties are most reliably made when the relationship of individual properties to other similar properties is understood. Information about historic properties representing aspects of history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture must be collected and organized to define these relationships. This organizational framework is called a "historic context." The historic context organizes information based on a cultural theme and its geographical and chronological limits. Contexts describe the significant broad patterns of development in an area that may be represented by historic properties. The development of historic contexts is the foundation for decisions about identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties. Go to Guidelines STANDARD II. Preservation Planning Uses Historic Contexts to Develop Goals and Priorities for the Identification, Evaluation, Registration and Treatment of Historic Properties A series of preservation goals is systematically developed for each historic context to ensure that the range of properties representing the important aspects of each historic context is identified, evaluated and treated. Then priorities are set for all goals identified for each historic context. The goals with assigned priorities established for each historic context are integrated to produce a comprehensive and consistent set of goals and priorities for all historic contexts in the geographical area of a planning effort. The goals for each historic context may change as new information becomes available. The overall set of goals and priorities are then altered in response to the changes in the goals and priorities for the individual historic contexts. 3 Activities undertaken to meet the goals must be designed to deliver a usable product within a reasonable period of time. The scope of activity must be defined so the work can be completed with available budgeted program resources. Go to Guidelines STANDARD III. The Results of Preservation Planning Are Made Available for Integration Into Broader Planning Processes Preservation of historic properties is one element of larger planning processes. Planning results, including goals and priorities, information about historic properties, and any planning documents, must be transmitted in a usable form to those responsible for other planning activities. Federally mandated historic preservation planning is most successfully integrated into project management planning at an early stage. Elsewhere, this integration is achieved by making the results of preservation planning available to other governmental planning bodies and to private interests whose activities affect historic properties. Go to Guidelines 4 The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Preservation Planning These Guidelines link the Standards for Preservation Planning with more specific guidance and technical information. They describe one approach to meeting the Standards for Preservation Planning. Agencies, organizations or individuals proposing to approach planning differently may wish to review their approaches with the National Park Service. Managing the Planning Process The preservation planning process must include an explicit approach to implementation, a provision for review and revision of all elements, and a mechanism for resolving conflicts within the overall set of preservation goals and between this set of goals and other land use planning goals. It is recommended that the process and its products be described in public documents. Implementing the Process The planning process is a continuous cycle. To establish and maintain such a process, however, the process must be divided into manageable segments that can be performed, within a defined period, such as a fiscal year or budget cycle. One means of achieving this is to define a period of time during which all the preliminary steps in the planning process will be completed. These preliminary steps would include setting a schedule for subsequent activities. Review and Revision Planning is a dynamic process. It is expected that the content of the historic contexts described in Standard I and the goals and priorities described in Standard II will be altered based on new information obtained as planning proceeds. The incorporation of this information is essential to improve the content of the plan and to keep it up-to-date and useful. New information must be reviewed regularly and systematically, and the plan revised accordingly. Public Participation The success of the preservation planning process depends on how well it solicits and integrates the views of various groups. The planning process is directed first toward resolving conflicts in goals for historic preservation, and second toward resolving conflicts between historic preservation goals and other land use planning goals. Public participation is integral to this approach and includes at least the following actions: 1. Involving historians, architectural historians, archeologists, folklorists and persons from related disciplines to define, review and revise the historic contexts, goals and priorities; 2. Involving interested individuals, organizations and communities in the planning area in identifying the kinds of historic properties that may exist and suitable protective measures; 3. Involving prospective users of the preservation plan in defining issues, goals and priorities; 5 4. Providing for coordination with other planning efforts at local, State, regional and national levels, as appropriate; and 5. Creating mechanisms for identifying and resolving conflicts about historic preservation issues. The development of historic contexts, for example, should be based on the professional input of all disciplines involved in preservation and not be limited to a single discipline. For prehistoric archeology, for example, data from fields such as geology, geomorphology and geography may also be needed. The individuals and organizations to be involved will depend, in part, on those present or interested in the planning area. Documents Resulting from the Planning Process In most cases, the planning process produces documents that explain how the process works and that discuss the historic contexts and related goals and priorities. While the process can operate in the absence of these documents, planning documents are important because they are the most effective means of communicating the process and its recommendations to others. Planning documents also record decisions about historic properties. As various parts of the planning process are reviewed and revised to reflect current information, related documents must also be updated. Planning documents should be created in a form that can be easily revised. It is also recommended that the format language and organization of any documents or other materials (visual aids, etc.) containing preservation planning information meet the needs of prospective users. Developing Historic Contexts General Approach Available information about historic properties must be divided into manageable units before it can be useful for planning purposes. Major decisions about identifying, evaluating, registering and treating historic properties are most reliably made in the context of other related properties. A historic context is an organizational format that groups information about related historic properties, based on a theme, geographic limits and chronological period. A single historic context describes one or more aspects of the historic development of an area, considering history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture and identifies the significant patterns that individual historic properties represent, for example, Coal Mining in Northeastern Pennsylvania between 1860 and 1930. A set of historic contexts is a comprehensive summary of all aspects of the history of the area. The historic context is the cornerstone of the planning process. The goal of preservation planning is to identify, evaluate, register and treat the full range of properties representing each historic context, rather than only one or two types of properties. Identification activities are organized to ensure that research and survey activities include properties representing all aspects of the historic context. Evaluation uses the historic context as the framework within which to apply the criteria for evaluation to specific properties or 6 property types. Decisions about treatment of properties are made with the goal of treating the range of properties in the context. The use of historic contexts in organizing major preservation activities ensures that those activities result in the preservation of the wide variety of properties that represent our history, rather than only a small, biased sample of properties. Historic contexts, as theoretical constructs, are linked to actual historic properties through the concept of property type. Property types permit the development of plans for identification, evaluation and treatment even in the absence of complete knowledge of individual properties. Like the historic context, property types are artificial constructs which may be revised as necessary. Historic contexts can be developed at a variety of scales appropriate for local, State and regional planning. Give the probability of historic contexts overlapping in an area, it is important to coordinate the development and use of contexts at all levels. Generally, the State Historic Preservation Office possesses the most complete body of information about historic properties and, in practice, is in the best position perform this function. The development of historic contexts generally results in documents that describe the prehistoric processes or patterns that define the context. Each of the contexts selected should be developed to the point of identifying important property types to be useful in later preservation decision-making. The amount of detail included in these summaries will vary depending on the level (local, State, regional, or national) at which the contexts are developed and on their intended uses. For most planning purposes, a synopsis of the written description of the historic context is sufficient. Creating a Historic Context Generally, historic contexts should not be constructed so broadly as to include all property types under a single historic context or so narrowly as to contain only one property type per historic context. The following procedures should be followed in creating a historic context. 1. Identify the concept, time period and geographical limits for the historic context Existing information, concepts, theories, models and descriptions should be used as the basis for defining historic contexts. Biases in primary and secondary sources should be identified and accounted for when existing information is used in defining historic contexts. The identification and description of historic contexts should incorporate contributions from all disciplines involved in historic preservation. The chronological period and geographical area of each historic context should be defined after the conceptual basis is established. However, there may be exceptions, especially in defining prehistoric contexts where drainage systems or physiographic regions often are outlined first. The geographical boundaries for historic contexts should not be based upon contemporary political, project or other contemporary boundaries if those boundaries do not coincide with historical boundaries. For example, boundaries for prehistoric contexts will have little relationship to contemporary city, county or State boundaries. 7 2. Assemble the existing information about the historic context a. Collecting information: Several kinds of information are needed to construct a preservation plan. Information about the history of the area encompassed by the historic context must be collected, including any information about historic properties that have already been identified. Existing survey or inventory entries are an important source of information about historic properties. Other sources may include literature on prehistory, history, architecture and the environment; social and environmental impact assessments; county and State land use plans; architectural and folklife studies and oral histories; ethnographic research; State historic inventories and registers; technical reports prepared for Section 106 or other assessments of historic properties; and direct consultation with individuals and organized groups. In addition, organizations and groups that may have important roles in defining historic contexts and values should be identified. In most cases a range of knowledgeable professionals drawn from the preservation, planning and academic communities will be available to assist in defining contexts and in identifying sources of information. In other cases, however, development of historic contexts may occur in areas whose history or prehistory has not been extensively studied. In these situations, broad general historic contexts should be initially identified using available literature and expertise, with the expectation that the contexts will be revised and subdivided in the future as primary source research and field survey are conducted. It is also important to identify such sources of information as existing planning data, which is needed to establish goals for identification, evaluation and treatment, and to identify factors that will affect attainment of those goals. The same approach for obtaining information is not necessarily desirable for all historic contexts. Information should not be gathered without first considering its relative importance to the historic context, the cost and time involved, and the expertise required to obtain it. In many cases, for example, published sources may be used in writing initial definitions of historic contexts; archival research or field work may be needed for subsequent activities. b. Assessing information: All information should be reviewed to identify bias in historic perspective, methodological approach, or area of coverage. For example, field surveys for archeological sites may have ignored historic archeological sites, or county land use plans may have emphasized only development goals. 8 3. Synthesize information The information collection and analysis results in a written narrative of the historic context. This narrative provides a detailed synthesis of the data that have been collected and analyzed. The narrative covers the history of the area from the chosen perspective and identifies important patterns, events, persons or cultural values. In the process of identifying the important patterns, one should consider: • Trends in area settlement and development, if relevant; • Aesthetic and artistic values embodied in architecture, construction technology or craftsmanship; • Research values or problems relevant to the historic context; social and physical sciences and humanities; and cultural interests of local communities; and • Intangible cultural values of ethnic groups and native American peoples. 4. Define property types A property type is a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics. Property types link the ideas incorporated in the theoretical historic context with actual historic properties that illustrate those ideas. Property types defined for each historic context should be directly related to the conceptual basis of the historic context. Property types defined for the historic context "Coal Mining in Northeastern Pennsylvania, 1860-1930" might include coal extraction and processing complexes; railroad and canal transportation systems; commercial districts; mine workers' housing; churches, social clubs and other community facilities reflecting the ethnic origins of workers; and residences and other properties associated with mine owners and other industrialists. a. Identify property types: The narrative should discuss the kinds of properties expected within the geographical limits of the context and group them into those property types most useful in representing important historic trends. Generally, property types should be defined after the historic context has been defined. Property types in common usage ("Queen Anne House,""mill buildings" or "stratified sites") should not be adopted without first verifying their relevance to the historic contexts being used. b. Characterize the locational patterns of property types: Generalizations about where particular types of properties are likely to be found can serve as a guide for identification and treatment. Generalizations about the distribution of archeological properties are frequently used. The distribution of other historic properties often can be estimated based on recognizable historical, environmental or cultural factors that determined their location. Locational patterns of property types should be based upon models that have an explicit theoretical or historical basis and can be tested in the field. The model may be the product of historical research and analysis ("Prior to widespread use of steam power, mills were located on rivers and streams able to produce water power" or "plantation houses in the Mississippi Black Belt were located on sandy clay knolls"), or it may result from sampling techniques. Often the results of statistically valid sample surveys can be used to describe the locational patterns of a representative portion of properties belonging to a particular property type. Other surveys can also 9 provide a basis for suggesting locational patterns if a diversity of historic properties was recorded and a variety of environmental zones was inspected. It is likely that the identification of locational patterns will come from a combination of these sources. Expected or predicted locational patterns of property types should be developed with a provision made for their verification. c. Characterize the current condition of property types: The expected condition of property types should be evaluated to assist in the development of identification, evaluation and treatment strategies, and to help define physical integrity thresholds for various property types. The following should be assessed for each property type: 1. Inherent characteristics of a property type that either contribute to or detract from its physical preservation. For example, a property type commonly constructed of fragile materials is more likely to be deteriorated than a property type constructed of durable materials; structures whose historic function or design limits the potential for alternative uses (water towers) are less likely to be reused than structures whose design allows a wider variety of other uses (commercial buildings or warehouses). 2. Aspects of the social and natural environment that may affect the preservation or visibility of the property type. For example, community values placed on certain types of properties (churches, historic cemeteries) may result in their maintenance while the need to reuse valuable materials may stimulate the disappearance of properties like abandoned houses and barns. 3. It may be most efficient to estimate the condition of property types based on professional knowledge of existing properties and field test these estimates using a small sample of properties representative of each type. 5. Identify information needs Filling gaps in information is an important element of the preservation plan designed for each historic context. Statements of the information needed should be as specific as possible, focusing on the information needed, the historic context and property types it applies to, and why the information is needed to perform identification, evaluation, or treatment activities. Developing Goals for a Historic Context Developing Goals A goal is a statement of preferred preservation activities, which is generally stated in terms of property types. The purpose of establishing preservation goals is to set forth a "best case" version of how properties in the historic context should be identified, evaluated, registered and treated. Preservation goals should be oriented toward the greatest possible protection of properties in the historic context and should be based on the principle that properties should be preserved in place if possible, through affirmative treatments like rehabilitation, stabilization or restoration. Generally, goals will be specific to the historic context and will 10 often be phrased in terms of property types. Some of these goals will be related to information needs previously identified for the historic context. Collectively, the goals for a historic context should be a coherent statement of program direction covering all aspects of the context. For each goal, a statement should be prepared identifying: 1. The goal, including the context and property types to which the goal applies and the geographical area in which they are located; 2. The activities required to achieve the goal; 3. The most appropriate methods or strategies for carrying out the activities; 4. A schedule within which the activities should be completed; and 5. The amount of effort required to accomplish the goal, as well as a way to evaluate progress toward its accomplishment. Setting priorities for goals Once goals have been developed they need to be ranked in importance. Ranking involves examining each goal in light of a number of factors. 1. General social, economic, political and environmental conditions and trends affecting (positively and negatively) the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of property types in the historic context. Some property types in the historic context may be more directly threatened by deterioration, land development patterns, contemporary use patterns, or public perceptions of their value, and such property types should be given priority consideration. 2. Major cost or technical considerations affecting the identification, evaluation and treatment of property types in the historic context. The identification or treatment of some property types may be technically possible but the cost prohibitive; or techniques may not currently be perfected (for example, the identification of submerged sites or objects, or the evaluation of sites containing material for which dating techniques are still being developed). 3. Identification, evaluation, registration and treatment activities previously carried out for property types in the historic context. If a number of properties representing one aspect of a historic context have been recorded or preserved, treatment of additional members of that property type may receive lower priority than treatment of a property type for which no examples have yet been recorded or preserved. This approach ensures that the focus of recording or preserving all elements of the historic context is retained, rather than limiting activities to preserving properties representing only some aspects of the context. The result of considering the goals in light of these concerns will be a list of refined goals ranked in order of priority. 11 Integrating Individual Contexts - Creating the Preservation Plan When historic contexts overlap geographically, competing goals and priorities must be integrated for effective preservation planning. The ranking of goals for each historic context must be reconciled to ensure that recommendations for one context do not contradict those for another. This important step results in an overall set of priorities for several historic contexts and a list of the activities to be performed to achieve the ranked goals. When applied to a specific geographical area, this is the preservation plan for that area. It is expected that in many instances historic contexts will overlap geographically. Overlapping contexts are likely to occur in two combinations—those that were defined at the same scale (i.e., textile development in Smithtown 1850-1910 and Civil War in Smithtown 1855-1870) and those defined at different scales (i.e., Civil War in Smithtown and Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley). The contexts may share the same property types, although the shared property types will probably have different levels of importance, or they may group the same properties into different property types, reflecting either a different scale of analysis or a different historical perspective. As previously noted, many of the goals that are formulated for a historic context will focus on the property types defined for that context. Thus it is critical that the integration of goals include the explicit consideration of the potential for shared property type membership by individual properties. For example, when the same property types are used by two contexts, reconciling the goals will require weighing the level of importance assigned to each property type. The degree to which integration of historic contexts must involve reconciling property types may be limited by the coordinated development of historic contexts used at various levels. Integration with Management Frameworks Preservation goals and priorities are adapted to land units through integration with other planning concerns. This integration must involve the resolution of conflicts that arise when competing resources occupy the same land base. Successful resolution of these conflicts can often be achieved through judicious combination of inventory, evaluation and treatment activities. Since historic properties are irreplaceable, these activities should be heavily weighted to discourage the destruction of significant properties and to be compatible with the primary land use. Date: October 13, 2020 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:2020 Work Plan Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Initiative 2: Invite owners of determined eligible properties to designate their properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and recommend to P lanning Commission and City Council. Google Doc-provided by Committee ATTACHMENTS: Description Eligible Landmark Outreach Eligible Heritage Landmark Property Outreach Committee - Jane Lonnquist, Rachel Pollack and Mark Hassenstab 2021 Work Plan: Educate owners and designate properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks. 2020 Work Plan: Invite owners of determined eligible properties to designate their properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and recommend to Planning Commission and City Council. Resources on City Code, Process, Inventory: City Code Chapter 36, Article IX- Edina Heritage Landmarks Heritage Preservation Comp Plan Chapter Map of Landmark and Eligible Properties 2012 article on past process Proposed tasks to accomplish in 2020. 1) Clarify current inventory of eligible properties. - How/when is this updated? - Is a property removed from “active” status if the owner isn’t interested? - 22 on map, 24 on Exhibit A in HPC notebook, 79 mentioned in Comp. Plan - where is the appendix referenced in Comprehensive Plan that lists them? - Where is information on eligibility study kept? Useful for prioritizing outreach? - Current staff/consultant process/records of outreach? 2) Gather information to share with eligible property owners. Possible resources: - FAQ from State Hist. Pres. Office - Income-generating properties eligible for 20% federal tax credit if on Nat’l Register of Historic Places, SHPO can help with this process - Other economic and environmental data - https://www.rethos.org/who-we-are - Current Edina outreach information? - Outreach information used by other cities? - Sample Plan of Treatment for a current Edina Landmark Property (non CCD)