Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_6_9_MeetingAgenda Heritage Preservation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Virtual Meeting Tuesday, June 9, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: May 12, 2020 V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Reports/Recommendations A.COA: 4521 Arden Avenue B.COA: 4634 Edgebrook Place C.2020 Work Plan D.Biographical Sketch-S. S. Thorpe VII.Chair And Member Comments A.Garden Arch VIII.Sta2 Comments IX.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli6cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: May 12, 2020 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the May 12, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission minutes. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: May 12, 2020 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, May 12, 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, Cundy, Birdman,Widmoyer, Nymo, Everson, Hassenstab, Chair Schilling. Emily Bodeker, staff liaison, and Robert Vogel, Preservation Consultant, were also in attendance. Commissioner Pollock joined the meeting at 8:13 pm. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Lonnquist seconded by Birdman to approve the meeting agenda as submitted. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Birdman seconded by Nymo to approve the meeting minutes from March 10, 2020. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations A. Sketch Plan- 4634 Edgebrook Place TJ Majdecki and Nate Wissink presented sketch plan drawings for a new house at 4634 Edgebrook Place. Staff Liaison Bodeker explained that the house on the subject property was built in 1950, outside the period of significance in the Country Club District and is able to be torn down with a COA application. The Commission asked questions regarding the street facing garage and the design decisions behind the garage placement. The Commission commented on the level of detail and expressed the importance of the details and building materials. Bodeker explained that if the applicant chooses to move forward with the project, a formal COA application would be required and surrounding properties would be notified. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: VI. Reports/Recommendations A. COA: 4504 Arden Avenue Liaison Bodeker presented the Certificate of Appropriateness request for a new detached garage at 4504 Arden Avenue. The property owners, Tom and Erica Stark were in attendance to ask questions. Motion by Birdman seconded by Nymo to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage at 4504 Arden Avenue with the following conditions: • The required setback for the garage is 3 feet including the eaves and overhang. The survey will be updated with the building permit to verify the garage meets the required setbacks. • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. • A date-built plaque is required to be installed on the new garage All voted aye. The motion carried. B. 2020 Heritage Preservation Award The Commission reviewed the three applications that were received for the 2020 Heritage Preservation Award. The three nominations were 4610 Browndale Avenue, Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, and 6450 York. The Commission discussed the possibility of changing information on the award nomination form next year to consider referring to properties by address instead of naming properties by property owner. Motion by Birdman seconded by Hassenstab to award the 2020 Heritage Preservation Award to 4610 Browndale Avenue. Commissioner Nymo recused herself. All voted Aye. The motion carried. C. 2020 Work Plan Chair Schilling informed the Commission that she had been working with staff and created a virtual walking tour that covers the same route as the route she was planning for the walking tour celebrating preservation month originally scheduled in May. Commissioner Pollock joined the webex meeting. VII. Chair and Member Comments: None. VIII. Staff Comments: None. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: IX. Adjournment Motion by Birdman seconded by Nymo to adjourn the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:COA: 4521 Arden Avenue Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the certificate of appropriateness as requested. INTRODUCTION: The subject property, 4521 Arden Avenue, is located on the east side of Arden Avenue, between Bridge Street and Sunnyside Road. The home is a two-story residence that was built in 1928. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4521 Arden Avenue. The property owners of the subject property are proposing to tear down their existing garage detached garaged and replace it with a new 22’x22’ garage. The project also includes grading and raising the elevation of the garage floor to address stormwater concerns. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Applicant Submittal Aerial Map Consultant Vogel Memo June 9, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4521 Arden Avenue- new detached garage Information / Background: The subject property, 4521 Arden Avenue, is located on the east side of Arden Avenue, between Bridge Street and Sunnyside Road. The home is a two-story residence that was built in 1928. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4521 Arden Avenue. The property owners of the subject property are proposing to tear down their existing garage detached garaged and replace it with a new 22’x22’ garage. The project also includes grading and raising the elevation of the garage floor to address stormwater concerns. Primary Issues: The Country Club District Plan of Treatment allows for the demolition and construction of a new garage with a Certificate of Appropriateness which is the reason for the COA application. Garages should match the architectural style of the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. New garages should be subordinate to the house and should be placed in the rear of the lot to minimize the visual impact on adjacent homes and streetscapes. The plan of treatment also suggests that undecorated exterior walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed garage is located in the southeast corner of the subject property and meets the required side and rear yard setbacks. Based on the zoning requirements, the garage is allowed to be up to 18 feet in height, measured from average existing grade. The proposed garage is shown at 17’ 8 1/2” from proposed grade. Staff has discussed this with the applicant who will make the required changes to the drawings to comply with the 18’ height requirement. The proposed garage height is compatible with the surrounding garages. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The proposed garage will match the stucco exterior of the existing home. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: “I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4521 Arden Avenue in the Fairway section of the Country Club District. The subject property is a two-story residence built in 1928. The house appears to have been altered from its as-built appearance and is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation. However, because it dates from the district’s period of historic significance it is considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the house’s street-facing façade. Demolition of non-historic accessory structures is an appropriate undertaking in the Edina Country Club District. The district plan of treatment contains design guidelines for the construction of new detached garages. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, no significant historic features will be destroyed or damaged as part of this project. The new garage will be visually compatible with the house in size, scale, materials, and texture. The roof shape and exterior stucco finish match the architectural character of the house and its placement at the rear of the lot should minimize its visual effect on adjacent homes and streetscapes. In my opinion, the historic character of the house and the district as a whole will be enhanced. The district plan of treatment recommends against construction of new accessory buildings with undecorated walls longer than 16 feet on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. The plans show the east elevation as a blank surface except for a vent in the upper gable wall. In lieu of adding some kind of non-functional structural element, I would suggest using landscaping to soften the visual impact of such a large expanse of stucco—a simple garden trellis or lattice would probably suffice. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions.” Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans for 4521 Arden Avenue, also recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness is consistent with the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Conditions for approval: • The maximum height for the garage is 18’ and is measured from average existing grade. • A landscaping element such as a garden trellis or lattice is required on the east elevation to break up the building wall. STAFF REPORT Page 3 • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. • A date-built plaque is required to be installed on the new garage When we purchased our home in 2013 we were drawn to the unique and charming aesthetics of the houses in the Country Club neighborhood. As we realized we needed to replace our deteriorating detached garage, which we believe to be a 1928 original, we knew it was important the new garage fit into the character of our house and neighborhood. To that end, we hired architect Meriwether Felt to design a garage that would tie into the feel of our home by incorporating elements such as the use of a stucco exterior and similar roof angles. We also knew that we didn’t want the garage to be a dominate feature for our lot or to be obtrusive for the neighbors/neighborhood so the new garage is designed size is 22x22 feet, two feet wider than the existing garage. While the new garage has a pitched roof, replacing the existing flat roof, design elements have been added to minimize the height resulting in a structure that is in between the heights of our immediate neighbors to the north and south (neighbors across the street and behind have attached garages). We are also proposing to move the garage away from the house towards the back lot line which is similar to our neighbors. While we are looking forward to having a more aesthetically pleasing garage, our bigger concern/push to undertake this project was to address significant drainage issues in our back yard. Our property is the low point of the surrounding properties and as such there are times during heavy rain events when water has no place to go. We became acutely aware of this in March 2019 when there was persistent rainfall when the ground was frozen. As a result, the garage had significant flooding and pooling of water in the back portion of the yard and driveway which posed a risk of water damage in the house. The flooding has caused damage to the garage frame and has hastened our need to replace the structure. In preparation for this project, we applied for the City of Edina’s Residential Stormwater Evaluation to identify the best way to manage the stormwater on our property and to take corrective action when planning for a new garage structure. As reported in the attached evaluation, one of the recommendations which we are following is to elevate the garage slab to above the peak flood level. We are working with our landscape company to finalize the elevation, but it will be raised between 7.3” to 9” from the current garage elevation. We will also be following the other recommendations by lowering the high point of our driveway and working with our neighbors to manage the rainwater from gutter downspouts. TECHNICAL MEMO To: Mr. Ross Bintner From: Rebecca Carlson, P.E. (MN) Date: August 1, 2019 Subject: Draft – 2019 Residential Stormwater Evaluation 4521 Arden Avenue Background: City of Edina residential property owners can apply to the Residential Stormwater Assistance Grant for technical assistance on flooding, clean water and drainage issues that affect their property. These grants entail a site investigation, and written report on a specific private drainage or flood issue to assist residential property owners in understanding flooding and drainage issues that affect their property and support community capacity for addressing private stormwater issues. Methods: The City of Edina built and maintains a computer model which predicts flooding in the City and tracks information on stormwater infrastructure like manholes, catch basins, and storm sewers. These data were used along with survey data collected on site, site photos, and an interview with the residents to diagnose the problem and develop solutions. The attached property fact sheet identifies the scope of the problem and potential solutions which may alleviate some or all of the flooding and estimates costs for each solution. The resident, at their cost, can chose the to implement the alternative they select. 4521 Arden Avenue Problem statement: Runoff from rainfall events and heavy snowmelt in 2019 cause pooling of stormwater in the rear yard and garage and have resulted in property damage to residents detached garage with repeated exposure to standing water as well as to a neighboring basement. A neighboring retaining wall blocks drainage to the north, and a high spot in the steep driveway blocks runoff and keeps it near the garage and home. Photo 1. Looking west from rear yard, yellow starts indicate flooding Flooding The rear yard which floods is the low spot which collects drainage from the property to the north, as well as 0.4 acres draining from the east. Figure 2. Drainage area (UPDATE WITH REVISED FIGURE) Roof drainage from a downspout from the property to the north contributes. Approximately 730 square feet of rooftop drain to the downspout (this should be verified by accessing the property to the north which was not visible from the road or the rear yard). In the two-year rainfall event, this contributes about 1,300 gallons (or 16 bathtubs) of runoff in the area near the basement flooding. Photo 1. Rear yard low spot, retaining wall to the north The 100-year 24-hour peak elevation in the rear yard is modeled as 895.0, with the crest of the driveway acting as the overflow (894.70). Modeling indicates flooding even with the 2-year 24-hour rainfall event. Because the drainage sources and issues are different, multiple alternatives were developed. Landowners may choose to implement some, or all. They are described below. Alternatives: 1. Route the drain spout on the north parcel to the front yard, west of the high spot in the driveway. This could be done through an extended surface downspout or by burying the downspout. Costs will vary depending on alternative selected from <$30 for a 10’ length of 2”x3” downspout extender with fittings, to a few hundred dollars if the line is buried. Photo 2. Proposed downspout reroute 2. Install a 6” drain in the rear yard and run it under the new drive on the north or south edge of the property. Tile installation is generally $30-150/ lineal foot (depending on installation). For either redirect of flow, approximately 150 lineal feet of tile is required ($11,250 assuming $75/lineal foot). In cases where buried drain lines clog, they can require costly maintenance and may not be effective in large snow melt events. Consider heat tape or heat insulation, and keeping the inlet and the driveway clear of snow to improve the efficacy in snow melt. Installing under concrete can increase the costs of repairs. 3. The residents have contemplated changes to the landscaping including replacement of the garage and driveway. Considerations for future improvements are listed below: a. If the garage is replaced, elevate the garage slab and low floor entries should be elevated above the peak flood level when it is reinstalled. Raise the low floor elevation to the crest of the driveway or above (existing crest is 894.7, the existing LFE was 894.2). b. Lower the crest elevation of the driveway to match the low spot in the rear yard (to 894.2, the existing driveway crest is 894.7. Concrete driveway installed is approximately $10 per square foot. The driveway is about 450 square feet as is, for a cost of $4,500, not including grading. The large tree in the rear yard, and root damage is a consideration. The tree may need to be removed, or may be lost if the driveway is Proposed Downspout reroute- currently drains east of highpoint in drive, pools near garage replaced. Tree removal will add $1,200- $3,000 to the cost of the driveway. The cost does not include adding a step to the doorways for the home to accommodate elevation change. If the crest of the driveway is lowered, some regarding and fill in the rear yard is recommended to remove low spot. c. Even with these changes, consider a drain for the low spot in the rear yard to accommodate drainage from the area tributary to the low spot. Alternative Description Estimate of Relative Cost Benefit Considerations 1 Reroute roof drain on nome to the north to front yard $50- $500 1,300 gallons in 2 year event re- routed (16 bathtubs)Neighbor cooperation needed 2 6" drain tile at low spot in rear yard ($75/lf)$11,250 Accomodates flows up to 100 24 hour year event. Temporary innundation will still occur, however the duration will be lower provided the line is clear. Limited benefit in winter unless heat-lined 3 Lower Driveway Crest .5'$4,500 The elevation of the flood will be reduced proportional to the elevation of reducing the driveway elevation.Better performance in snow fall LUNDGREN RESIDENCE 4521 ARDEN AVENUE EDINA MN 55424 MERIWETHER INC ARCHITECT 612.850.1670 COA Application Edina HPC 5.22.2020 EXISTING FRONT OF HOME EXISTING GARAGE LUNDGREN RESIDENCE4521 ARDEN AVENUE EDINA MN 55424MERIWETHER INC ARCHITECT 612.850.1670COA Application Edina HPC5.22.20204517 ArdenApproximately 24’ Tall4519 ArdenApproximately 21’ Tall4518 Arden15’-8” Tall4523 Arden 12’-8” TallNEIGHBORING GARAGES Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 4521 Arden Ave June 3, 2020 1 in = 75 ft / MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker FROM; Robert Vogel DATE: May 28, 2020 SUBJECT: COA for 4521 Arden Avenue I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4521 Arden Avenue in the Fairway section of the Country Club District. The subject property is a two-story residence built in 1928. The house appears to have been altered from its as-built appearance and is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation. However, because it dates from the district’s period of historic significance it is considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the house’s street-facing façade. Demolition of non-historic accessory structures is an appropriate undertaking in the Edina Country Club District. The district plan of treatment contains design guidelines for the construction of new detached garages. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, no significant historic features will be destroyed or damaged as part of this project. The new garage will be visually compatible with the house in size, scale, materials, and texture. The roof shape and exterior stucco finish match the architectural character of the house and its placement at the rear of the lot should minimize its visual effect on adjacent homes and streetscapes. In my opinion, the historic character of the house and the district as a whole will be enhanced. The district plan of treatment recommends against construction of new accessory buildings with undecorated walls longer than 16 feet on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. The plans show the east elevation as a blank surface except for a vent in the upper gable wall. In lieu of adding some kind of non-functional structural element, I would suggest using landscaping to soften the visual impact of such a large expanse of stucco—a simple garden trellis or lattice would probably suffice. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.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 July 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. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Applicant Submittal Aerial Map Consultant Vogel Memo June 9, 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 a “New Classical Revival Style” home that is a story and a half with a front loading attached two car garage. The proposed height of the home is 31’ 7” 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 texture, copper flashing, and slate roof tiles. The proposed chimneys will be white painted brick with a stone cap and clay chimney cap. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: “I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to the COA application for construction of a new house at 4634 Edgebrook Place in the Country Club District. The existing house at this location is a two-story residence in the Minimal Traditional style that was built in 1951. In the Country Club District National Register registration form this property is listed as an example of the “American Colonial Revival” style, built in 1931 and evaluated as “complementary”; in the context of the Edina Heritage Landmark designation, the property is categorized as non-contributing due to the fact that it was actually built after the district’s period of historical significance. It does not meet the eligibility criteria for individual designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark, therefore it is not considered a heritage preservation resource. While demolition of non-historic, non-contributing homes in the Country Club District does not require a COA, the design of new homes (infill development) is subject to review by the HPC. The design guidelines for new construction are set forth in the district plan of treatment. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation treat new construction as an appropriate undertaking in National Register historic districts when the new development is designed to be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and architectural character of the neighborhood’s built environment. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the proposed new house appears to meet the standards for rehabilitation and the design guidelines for new homes contained in the district plan of treatment. No historically or architecturally significant heritage preservation resources will be damaged or destroyed. In my opinion, the proposed new house will be compatible with the size, color, material and character of the neighborhood’s built environment; most importantly, the new construction preserves the distinctive spatial relationship between the house and Minnehaha Creek, an important historic landscape in its own right. The height of the new house appears to be compatible with that of other homes along Edgebrook Place. The application makes a good case for a front-loading, street-facing attached garage in this particular situation. The proposed attached garage will be differentiated from and visually subordinate to the house. The proposed replacement home is a good example of what some architectural historians refer to as the “Post-Modern” movement, an important trend in North American home building since the 1980s. The design is generally consistent with the architectural standards contained in the original Country Club District deed restrictions with respect to size, scale, massing, and setback. Its architectural character interprets various traditional and modern design elements—the overall impression could be described as the “New Classical Revival” style. The façade borrows from both the Tudor and Colonial revival aesthetic systems with its painted brick masonry wall cladding, prominent front facing gables with steeply pitched roofs, elaborate chimneys, dormers and casement windows. The designers have not attempted to create an earlier appearance—no informed observer would mistake this neo-eclectic confection for a midcentury period revival style house. Current best practices for heritage resource management do not discourage contemporary design for new home construction in historic residential districts—design review guidelines emphasize compatibility with respect to features, materials, size, scale and massing over attempting to “match” historic architecture. The proposed new house exemplifies this approach. STAFF REPORT Page 3 The COA application does not include a detailed landscape plan. The district plan of treatment encourages landscaping that is visually compatible with the historic character of the district. The new landscaping should be designed to complement the historic character of the Edgebrook Place streetscape. The landscape architecture should also be compatible with the historic character of Minnehaha Creek. The building site was historically part of the Edina Mills community, one of the earliest nodes of Euro-American settlement in what is now Edina. The site also occupies part of the historic “Browndale Farm” property owned by Henry F. Brown (1843-1912), a prominent Minneapolis lumberman, mill owner, real estate developer and philanthropist. Archaeological evidence of the farm may be present; the area bordering Minnehaha Creek has also been identified by the HPC as likely to yield important data relating to the presence of ancient Native Americans in Edina. I would strongly encourage the property owner to arrange for an archaeological survey of the areas that may be disturbed by excavation or grading prior to construction. Any archaeological data recovered should be collected, analyzed and properly recorded by qualified professionals. I recommend approval of the COA based on the plans presented (including the revisions to the garage plan). The new house should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription to be placed on an exterior surface bearing the year the house was built. Because the existing house is part of the National Register historic district created in 1980, we will need to inform the State Historic Preservation Office of its demolition and replacement at the time the new home is permitted.” 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 July HPC meeting. City of Edina Planning Department 4801 W 50th St. Edina MN, 55424 RE: Narrative Summary - Application of Certificate of Appropriateness, 4634 Edgebrook Place Dear City of Edina Heritage Preservation Commission and City of Edina Officials, In conjunction with the applicant, William L. and Anastasia Hoeft, Streeter Custom Builder, architect Murphy & Co. Design, and landscape architect Travis Van Liere Studio are planning a new residence at 4634 Edgebrook Place. The new architecturally designed Classic English Cottage would replace the 1951 two story home that currently exists on the site. Over the past several months, the design team and applicant have worked diligently to design a one and a half story English Cottage that fits the character and scale of the vintage of homes from 1924 to 1944 as protected in the Plan of Treatment. The application attached provides renderings and drawings that reveal authentic detailing on chimneys and other exterior elements, in kind exterior materials including white brick and copper accents, and a fitting comparison of the scale of the new residence comparing it to the old residence as well as adjacent residences. As part of the Heritage Preservation Commission review process, we introduced the residence at sketch plan review took into account the comments of the commissioners as part of our updated plan set including setting back the breezeway from the corner of the house to delineate it more from the house form itself. Also as noted during the sketch plan review meeting, we are submitting for a two car front facing garage (similar to the existing garage on the property except ours is disengaged from the main house form to reduce scale) given that Edgebrook Place is a one way street with the pattern on the block being front facing garages instead of side load garages. Additionally, the properties across the street from Edgebrook (that front Browndale) are serviced with driveways and garages serviced off of Edgebrook. Finally, a sideload garage would increase impervious surface with a larger driveway and the topography of the property at Edgebrook slopes significantly to the creek making that an additional challenge. With the above in mind, we are excited about the opportunity to bring a new residence that we believe fits seamlessly within the framework of the Country Club neighborhood and continues to carry on the character and charm the applicants so appreciate about the neighborhood. With appreciation for your review, Nate Wissink, Vice President 1 4634 Edgebrook Place Edina, Minnesota 2 Proposed Materials Main Home Façade: white painted brick, with stepped surface for textural composition Fascia Color: Sherwin Williams Pure White (SW 7005) or client selected alternative in same color range Flashing: copper at all chimneys and exposed surfaces, colored aluminum at all roof areas and valleys to match roofing material color in close proximity Roofing: Davinci Slate Tiles, or selected alternative to match in kind Chimneys: white painted brick, with stone cap and clay chimney cap Project Narrative With its idyllic views of Minnehaha Creek, the design for the home of Anastasia and William Hoeft has one goal in mind; to look as if it had always been there. Using its surroundings as a catalyst, the exterior of the house was delicately detailed and designed to pull from the time period of the neighboring homes. With the play of mass and forms, this home tells a story as if it were built upon through generations. Situated in a similar location as the previous structure, this home pulls itself away from the curb and curves as it makes its way from the left to the right, mimicking the street. The house separates itself form the garage, only connected by a small breezeway, which allows each structure to have its own appropriate scale. Intersecting gables help create the home and allows for its form to stay simple and understated. Romance starts to appear with wooden arches and intricate brackets, while slopping roof lines descend down to the head of the windows and doors of the main level, creating a more welcoming scale to visitors. Hip dormers and window placements offer a playfullness to the exteriors that is a result of function-follows- form approach. The exterior of the home acts as a new friend, offering only small glimpses of its interior on first approach but opens itself up to you as you get to know it. With its more public rooms at the rear of the home to capture views of the surrounding nature, it protects itself from the world beyond. Creating its own identity, while still holding true to its history, this home doesn’t just become a member of the neighbor, it becomes a staple. Statement From Homeowners Dear Historical Preservation Committee and City of Edina Officials, We are beyond thrilled to return to our childhood and young adult neighborhood of Country Club as empty nesters. It has been a blessing to work with our professional team to create a home that upholds the integrity of the architecture of Country Club. It is important to us to use quality materials, design details and authenticity of the English Cottage style we favor and is represented in Country Club. Also equally important is the scale of our home and its relationship to our neighbors. The home sits beautifully on the lot adhering to the original footprint and we have minimized our two garages to reflect what we see on Edgebrook Place. We submit this plan with great excitement and anticipation of your approval and hope you will at some point come visit us so we can meet you in person. Thank you for your time and efforts to maintain the charm and beauty of Country Club. Our best regards, Anastasia & William Hoeft 3 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 4 Main Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Master Bedroom HisCloset - Carpet Master Bath Master W.C. Master Vestibule HerCloset - Carpet Dining ClosetAnte Main Hall Living Kitchen Breezeway Pantry Sun Room- - Vaulted (wood clg) FrontPorch Bar Garage- Conc. w/ epoxy finish- In-floor heat 26 9'-6"7'-0"9'-5" 6'-3" 24 pocketdoor 4'-4"4'-112"4'-0"3'-6"7'-8"Up 17 R13'-312"Counterw/ drawersbelow 36 x 80 customwood door 26 30 door w/"armoire" front King 13'-6"16'-0"Master Sitting 11'-11"11'-7" 3'-4" 26 30 c.o. 36 opng 14'-514"60 c.o. 4'-0" 3'-712" Up 18 R 5'-4"4'-0"3'-8" Breakfast Sink Bench w/hooks abv.30" oven& steamoven36" ref. / frzr 36 c.o.28 c.o. 3'-6"3'-6"48" rangetopCloset armoireBench 4'-012"3'-6"4'-012" 3'-6" x8'-0"table 4'-0"36" sink18'-412"14'-112"24 19'-7"7'-612" Down Entry /Stair Hall Curved low wall 26 c.o.Hooks1'-4"Bench 1'-8"1'-8"10'-0"4'-8" 39" Øtable Pass-thruwndw 18'-4" Powder4'-0"15"ice24" d.w.30" wineref. w/ref.drawers 4'-10"Eq.. RearHall 24" ref.drawers 24" ref.drawers 36" ref. / frzr Linen 1'-2"1'-4"Equal Equal 3'-258"3'-6"6'-0" 30 c.o. 4'-2" Equal Equal4'-0"Flush hearth 3'-6" 2'-91 4" Step 5'-8"8"8"Overall tubshowndashed 26 StackdW/D Tv abv. f.p. 40 opngEqual Equal80" tv(72.4" x41.4") Openstorage Clg-hunggas heater "Isokern" 42"magnum f.p.w/ gas loginsert 1'-8" raisedhearth "Isokern" 36"magnum f.p.w/ gas loginsert 3'-11"28 4'-0"4'-0" 30 ratedwood door Workbench 10'-0" w. x 8 ' - 0 " h . o . h . d o o r w/ perim e t e r w e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g 86'-118" 19'-512"1'-6"9'-412"20'-712"1'-312"11'-412"9'-558"13'-0" 6'-2"9"5'-712"9"6'-2"44'-0"22'-6" 35'-0" 7'-6" 10'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 3'-6" 86'-118" 19'-2"6'-2"5'-1"10'-2"11'-3"11'-912"14'-012"8'-518"8'-612"3'-1158"12'-618"13'-0"6'-4"9'-0"5'-7"65'-9"12'-0" 2'-4" x 7'-7" steelwndws (5 thus) UCA2854 UCA2864 UCAFCIR3950UCA2854UCA2864UIFD3080 Custom clad casementpicture unit 5'-0" x7'-3 12" (frame size)UDHG24032/40UCA3272 UCA3272UCA1872UCA1872 UCA1856 Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size)Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size) Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size) Custom clad casementpicture unit 6'-5 34" x7'-3 12" (frame size)UIFD3080 Roof & bracketsabv. shown dashed 2'-4" x 7'-3 1 2" steelwndws (4 th us)UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UCA2854UCA2854 (4 thus) UCA2854 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40 UDHG22632/40UCA2432UCA2864 Glass front cab.w. mirrored back(brass / gold trim) Bamboopole clg w/wood beams Painted large scalecheckered floor Wiring for electricshades @ wndws facingpond (except Breakfast) Corrugated metalwainscot interior Wiring for electricshades @ wndws facingpond (except Breakfast) Bench Flip-up top forboot storage TileWood4'-018" 7'-6" 30" h. base cab.w/ glass displaydoors abv.12" d. cab.UDHG2 4032/40UDHG24032/40 UDHG240 3 2 / 4 0 UD H G 24032/4034'-6" GaragePorch 30 x 80 customwood do o r UCA2854UCA2854Down18 R12'-0"12'-0"Wndw well below 28 UCA2840 30 c.o.UCA2854UCA2854UCA2854UCA2854UCA2854UCA2854UCA285 4 ( 7 t h u s )4'-0"UCA285 4 ( 2 t h u s ) 10'-0" w. x 8 ' - 0 " h . o . h . d o o r w/ perime t e r w e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g 5 Upper Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” UpperStair Hall Laundry UpperBath # 1 UpperBed # 1 SharedBath UpperBed # 2 UpperBed # 3 UpperHall King Down 18 R 26 Sink W 28 8'-0"14'-612" 4'-0" 26 7'-412" 24 26 c.o. 15'-6"11'-8"26 3'-0"5'-278" Rough infor futurebath /shower Linen 24 4'-0"13'-8"13'-4"Hooks Centerline ofgable /wndw below ± 6'-10"wall hgt 8'-0"4'-0"4'-0" 30 c.o. 4'-0" 30 c.o. Hooks 26 3'-6" ± 5'-3 58"wall hgt ± 5'-3 58"wall hgt BedAnte Upper ± 6'-0"wall hgt ± 5'-0"wall hgt ± 7'-8 18"wall hgt Outside face ofstone abv.shown dashed 3'-412"± 7'-7 12"wall hgt ± 6'-0"wall hgt ± 7'-7 12"wall hgt ± 7'-7 12"wall hgt 16'-514" 6'-678" D Risersbelowshowndashed Pair of16 doors Ledge ± 4'-0"wall hgt ± 4'-0"wall hgt ± 4'-0"wall hgt 26 sloped clg 4'-0"26 Down 17 R UCA2854 UCA2854UCA2864 (2 thus) UCA2854 (2 thus)Steel window- 10" x 2'-7"UCA2864 (2 thus)UCA2864 (3 thus) UCA2854UCA2854 UCA2432 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA285 4 UCA2854 (3 thus)64'-614" 7'-138"4'-212"5'-7"10'-334"15'-914"13'-7"3'-8"4'-312" See RoofPlan forchimneydims 46'-0"Outside face ofsheathing belowshown dashed Outside face ofsheathing belowshown dashed Outside face ofsheathing belowshown dashed Outside face ofsheathing belowshown dashed Outside faceof sheathingbelow showndashed 8'-412"6'-1112"17'-1"13'-7"64'-614" 7'-138"11'-5"3'-2"3'-9"1'-914"15'-1"5'-734"3'-1034"5'-7"2'-612" 4'-634" ± 4'-0"wall hgt ± 4'-0"wall hgt 46'-0"11'-612"16'-512"1'-1038"3'-818"4'-11"5'-878"958"1'-0"32'-818" 10'-918" 3'-278" 10'-918" 6'-712"44'-0"17'-7"8'-10"17'-7"1'-312" 1'-978" 32'-818" 1'-312" 3'-278" 10'-918" UCA285 4Queen± 5'-8" wall hgt 26 30 c.o. 26 Linen 26 20 BathAnte Shared 3'-0" Bed # 1Ante Upper 26King 26 UpperCloset # 2 4'-912"7'-912"4'-2"4'-5"5'-3"11'-6"Books Wiring for electric shades@ wndws facing pond 10'-918" 6'-712" ± 4'-0"wall hgt ± 4'-0"wall hgt ± 8'-0" clg hgtshown dashed ± 2'-0"wall hgt ± 4'-0"wall hgt 6 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Edgebrook Pl Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Main level clg(+/- 9'-0") Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Main level subfloor Top of typ.Upper level subfloor 12 18 12 18 Faux slate roof 12 18 12 5127 12 16 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor 12 16 Raised clg @Master Bedroom Garage attic clg(+/- 8'-0") 12 10 12 18 12 16 12 16 12 731'-7" ridge hgt20'-918" building hgt(average distance ofthe highest gable) 7 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Minnehaha Creek Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of Garage slab vaulted clg @ Sun Room Main level clg(+/- 9'-0") Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Main level subfloor Top of typ.Upper level subfloor 9'-6" clg @ living room 12 18 12 16 12 16 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor Garage attic(+/- 8'-0") Raised clg @Sun Room Deep stone sill 12 10 12 18 12 18 12 16 12 3 12 7127 12 16 Top of Garage slab vaulted clg @ Sun Room M Up Main le Upper le 9'-6" clg @ living room 12 18 12 16 12 16 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor Garage attic(+/- 8'-0") Raised clg @Sun Room Deep stone sill 12 10 12 18 12 18 12 16 12 3 12 7127 12 16 8 North Elevation of the House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of typ.Main level subfloor Breezeway 8'-718"Rough frmg hgt8'-1012"Rough frmg hgt11'-514"Poured wall hgtMain level clg(+/- 9'-0") Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor 12 18 Raised clg @Sun Room 12 15 12 5 12 18 12 6 2'-0"12 15 9 South Elevation of the House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of Garage slab Main level clg(+/- 9'-0") Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Main level subfloor Top of typ.Upper level subfloor 12 16 12 3 12 16 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor Garage attic(+/- 8'-0") 4" deep recessesw/ pitched btms 12 16 12 16 127 10 North and South Elevations of the Garage - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Breezeway 8'-718"Rough frmg hgt8'-1012"Rough frmg hgt11'-514"Poured wall hgt12 18 Raised clg @Sun Room Breezeway 12 6 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor Garage attic clg(+/- 8'-0") 12 15 12 5 12 18 12 6 2'-0"12 15 Main level clg(+/- 9'-0") Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Main level subfloor Top of typ.Upper level subfloor 12 18 12 18 Faux slate roof 12 18 12 5127 12 16 Garage clg(+/- 9'-0") Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor Raised clg @Master Bedroom Garage attic clg(+/- 8'-0")12 18 31'-7" ridge hgt20'-918" building hgt(average distance ofthe highest gable) 11 Street Comparison Drawing - 4634 Edgebrook Pl 2021 Xref .\Site.dwg 1/8” = 1’0” 12 Backyard Images - 4634 Edgebrook PlBrowndal e Av e .Browndale Ave.Edgebrook Pl.Ed g e b r o o k P l . 4634 4638 4630 4626 4622 4618 4614 4610 Street-Facing Driveways/Garages Aeriel view of Edgebrook Place and Browndale Avenue 13 House to the South - 4638 Edgebrook Place 14 Subject House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 15 House to the North - 4630 Edgebrook Pl 16 Neighborhood House - 4610, 4612, & 4614 Edgebrook Place 17 Neighborhood House - 4618, 4622 & 4626 Edgebrook Place 18 Neighborhood House - 4616, 4620, & 4624 Browndale 19 Neighborhood House - 4628 & 4632 Browndale Up 18 R Egresswndwwell1'-2"(typ.)floor droppedfor tubfloor dropped forflush hearth ?Up 18 R UnexcavatedMechanicalverify locationVerify all interior wall locationsterrace ledges ?floor dropped forflush hearth ?SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEISSUE DATESTHESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDBY MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. AND ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OFMURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE SHARED,REPRODUCED OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTENCONSENT OF MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC.MURPHY&CODISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTUREMURPHY & CO. DESIGN811 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 250, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405612-470-5511HOEFTRESIDENCE4634 EDGEBROOK PLACEEDINA, MN 5542420-123A1Lower Level PlanMay 15, 2020 [Preliminary Pricing]May 22, 2020 [Revised Preliminary Pricing]May 28, 2020 [HPC Review]NGraphic Scale{Scale in Feet}03148122Scale:14" = 1'-0"Lower Level Plan = 3,133 sq. ft = 1,263 sq. ft = X sq. ft= 1,555 sq. ft = 1,085 sq. ft= 2,640 sq. ft = t.b.d. sq. ft= t.b.d. sq. ft = X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ftMain level finished area (including Stairs & Breezeway)GarageTotal areaUpper level finished area (including Stairs)Garage atticTotal areaLower Level finished area (including stairs)MechanicalTotal areaTotal finished area (including stairs)Total unfinished area (Garage, Porch, & Mechanical)Total (all 3 levels finished or unfinished)Square Footage Calculations: Master BedroomHisCloset- CarpetMaster BathMaster W.C.Master VestibuleHerCloset- CarpetDiningClosetAnteMain HallLivingKitchenBreezewayPantrySun Room- - Vaulted (wood clg)FrontPorchBarGarage- Conc. w/ epoxy finish- In-floor heat269'-6"7'-0"9'-5"6'-3"24 pocketdoor4'-4"4'-112"4'-0"3'-6"7'-8" Up 17 R 13'-312"Counterw/ drawersbelow36 x 80 customwood door2630 door w/"armoire" frontKing13'-6"16'-0"Master Sitting11'-11"11'-7"3'-4"2630 c.o.36 opng14'-514"60 c.o.4'-0"3'-712"Up 18 R5'-4"4'-0"3'-8"BreakfastSinkBench w/ hooks abv.30" oven& steamoven36" ref. / frzr36 c.o.28 c.o.3'-6"3'-6" 48" rangetop Closet armoire Bench4'-012"3'-6"4'-012"3'-6" x8'-0"table4'-0"36" sink 18'-412"14'-112"2419'-7"7'-612"DownEntry /Stair HallCurved low wall26 c.o.Hooks1'-4"Bench1'-8"1'-8"10'-0"4'-8"39" ØtablePass-thruwndw18'-4"Powder4'-0"15"ice24" d.w.30" wineref. w/ref.drawers4'-10"Eq..RearHall24" ref.drawers24" ref.drawers36" ref. / frzrLinen1'- 2 " 1'- 4 "EqualEqual3'-258" 3'-6"6'-0"30 c.o.4'-2"EqualEqual4'-0"Flush hearth3'-6"2'-914"Step5'-8"8"8"Overall tubshowndashed26StackdW/DTv abv. f.p.40 opngEqualEqual 80" tv(72.4" x41.4")OpenstorageClg-hunggas heater"Isokern" 42"magnum f.p.w/ gas loginsert1'-8"raisedhearth"Isokern" 36"magnum f.p.w/ gas loginsert3'-11"284'-0"4'-0"30 ratedwood doorWorkbench10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. doorw/ perimeter weatherstripping86'-118"19'-512"1'-6"9'-412"20'-712"1'-312"11'-412"9'-558"13'-0"6'-2"9"5'-712"9"6'-2"44'-0"22'-6"35'-0"7'-6"10'-0"4'-0"10'-0"3'-6"86'-118"19'-2"6'-2"5'-1"10'-2"11'-3"11'-912"14'-012"8'-518"8'-612"3'-1158"12'-618"13'-0"6'-4"9'-0"5'-7"65'-9"12'-0"2'-4" x 7'-7" steelwndws (5 thus)UCA2854UCA2864UCAFCIR3950UCA2854 UCA2864 UIFD3080Custom clad casementpicture unit 5'-0" x7'-3 12" (frame size)UDHG24032/40 UCA3272UCA3272 UCA1872UCA1872UCA1856Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size)Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size)Custom cladcasement unit2'-8" x 7'-3 12"(frame size)Custom clad casementpicture unit 6'-5 34" x7'-3 12" (frame size)UIFD3080Roof & bracketsabv. shown dashed2 ' - 4 " x 7 ' -3 12" s t e e lwndws ( 4 thu s ) UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40UCA2854 UCA2854 (4 thus)UCA2854UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40 UDHG2 2632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG22632/40UDHG2 2632/40 UCA2 4 3 2UCA2864Glass front cab.w. mirrored back(brass / gold trim)Bamboopole clg w/wood beamsPainted large scalecheckered floorWiring for electricshades @ wndws facingpond (except Breakfast)Corrugated metalwainscot interiorWiring for electricshades @ wndws facingpond (except Breakfast)BenchFlip-up top forboot storageTile Wood 4'-018"7'-6"30" h. base cab.w/ glass displaydoors abv.12" d. cab.UDHG24032/40 UDHG24032/40UDHG24032/40UDHG24032/4034'-6"GaragePorch30 x 80 customwood doorUCA2 8 5 4 UCA2 8 5 4 Dow n 18 R 12'-0"12'-0"Wndw well below28UCA284030 c.o.UCA2 8 5 4 UCA2 8 5 4 UCA 2 8 5 4 UCA 2 8 5 4 UCA 2 8 5 4 UCA 2 8 5 4 UCA2854 (7 thus)4'-0"UCA2854 (2 thus)10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. doorw/ perimeter weatherstrippingSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEISSUE DATESTHESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDBY MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. AND ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OFMURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE SHARED,REPRODUCED OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTENCONSENT OF MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC.MURPHY&CODISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTUREMURPHY & CO. DESIGN811 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 250, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405612-470-5511HOEFTRESIDENCE4634 EDGEBROOK PLACEEDINA, MN 5542420-123A2Main Level PlanMay 11, 2020 [Preliminary]May 15, 2020 [Preliminary Pricing]May 22, 2020 [HPC Review]May 28, 2020 [Revised HPC Review]Graphic Scale{Scale in Feet}03148122Scale:14" = 1'-0"Main Level Plan N= 3,133 sq. ft = 1,263 sq. ft = X sq. ft= 1,555 sq. ft = 1,085 sq. ft= 2,640 sq. ft = t.b.d. sq. ft= t.b.d. sq. ft = X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ftMain level finished area (including Stairs & Breezeway)GarageTotal areaUpper level finished area (including Stairs)Garage atticTotal areaLower Level finished area (including stairs)MechanicalTotal areaTotal finished area (including stairs)Total unfinished area (Garage, Porch, & Mechanical)Total (all 3 levels finished or unfinished)Square Footage Calculations: UpperStair HallLaundryUpperBath # 1UpperBed # 1SharedBathUpperBed # 2UpperBed # 3UpperHallKingDown 18 R26SinkW288'-0"14'-612"4'-0"267'-412"2426 c.o.15'-6"11'-8"263'-0"5'-278"Rough infor futurebath /showerLinen244'-0"13'-8"13'-4"HooksCenterline ofgable /wndw below± 6'-10"wall hgt8'-0" 4'-0"4'-0"30 c.o.4'-0"30 c.o.Hooks263'-6"± 5'-3 58"wall hgt± 5'-3 58"wall hgtBedAnteUpper± 6'-0"wall hgt± 5'-0"wall hgt± 7'-8 18"wall hgtOutside face ofstone abv.shown dashed3'-412"± 7'-7 12"wall hgt± 6'-0"wall hgt± 7'-7 12"wall hgt± 7'-7 12"wall hgt16'-514"6'-678"DRisersbelowshowndashedPair of16 doorsLedge± 4'-0"wall hgt± 4'-0"wall hgt± 4'-0"wall hgt26sloped clg4'-0"26Down 17 RUCA2854UCA2854 UCA2864 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)Steel window- 10" x 2'-7"UCA2864 (2 thus)UCA2864 (3 thus)UCA2854UCA2854UCA2432 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA2854 (2 thus)UCA2854UCA2 8 5 4 ( 3 t h u s )64'-614"7'-138"4'-212"5'-7"10'-334"15'-914"13'-7"3'-8"4'-312"See RoofPlan forchimneydims46'-0"Outside face ofsheathing belowshown dashedOutside face ofsheathing belowshown dashedOutside face ofsheathing belowshown dashedOutside face ofsheathing belowshown dashedOutside faceof sheathingbelow showndashed8'-412"6'-1112"17'-1"13'-7"64'-614"7'-138"11'-5"3'-2"3'-9"1'-914"15'-1"5'-734"3'-1034"5'-7"2'-612"4'-634"± 4'-0"wall hgt± 4'-0"wall hgt46'-0" 11'-612"16'-512"1'-1038"3'-818"4'-11"5'-878"958"1'-0"32'-818"10'-918"3'-278"10'-918"6'-712"44'-0" 17'-7" 8'-10" 17'-7"1'-312"1'-978"32'-818"1'-312"3'-278"10'-918"UCA2854Queen± 5'-8" wall hgt2630 c.o.26Linen2620BathAnteShared3'-0"Bed # 1AnteUpper26King 26UpperCloset # 24'-912"7'-912"4'-2"4'-5"5'-3"11'-6"BooksWiring for electric shades@ wndws facing pond10'-918"6'-712"± 4'-0"wall hgt± 4'-0"wall hgt± 8'-0" clg hgtshown dashed± 2'-0"wall hgt± 4'-0"wall hgtSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEISSUE DATESTHESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDBY MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. AND ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OFMURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE SHARED,REPRODUCED OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTENCONSENT OF MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC.MURPHY&CODISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTUREMURPHY & CO. DESIGN811 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 250, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405612-470-5511HOEFTRESIDENCE4634 EDGEBROOK PLACEEDINA, MN 5542420-123A3Upper Level PlanMay 11, 2020 [Preliminary]May 15, 2020 [Preliminary Pricing]May 18, 2020 [Revised Preliminary]May 22, 2020 [HPC Review]May 28, 2020 [Revised HPC Review]Graphic Scale{Scale in Feet}03148122Scale:14" = 1'-0"Upper Level Plan N= 3,133 sq. ft = 1,263 sq. ft = X sq. ft= 1,555 sq. ft = 1,085 sq. ft= 2,640 sq. ft = t.b.d. sq. ft= t.b.d. sq. ft = X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ft= X sq. ftMain level finished area (including Stairs & Breezeway)GarageTotal areaUpper level finished area (including Stairs)Garage atticTotal areaLower Level finished area (including stairs)MechanicalTotal areaTotal finished area (including stairs)Total unfinished area (Garage, Porch, & Mechanical)Total (all 3 levels finished or unfinished)Square Footage Calculations: Main level clg(+/- 9'-0")Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Main level subfloorTop of typ.Upper level subfloor12181218Faux slate roof12181251271216Garage clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Garage attic subfloor1216Raised clg @Master BedroomGarage attic clg(+/- 8'-0")121012181216121612731'-7" ridge hgt 20'-918" building hgt (average distance of the highest gable)Main level clg(+/- 9'-0")Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Main level subfloorTop of typ.Upper level subfloor12161234" deep recessesw/ pitched btms1216Garage clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Garage attic subfloorGarage attic clg(+/- 8'-0")SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEISSUE DATESTHESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDBY MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. AND ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OFMURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE SHARED,REPRODUCED OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTENCONSENT OF MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC.MURPHY&CODISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTUREMURPHY & CO. DESIGN811 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 250, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405612-470-5511HOEFTRESIDENCE4634 EDGEBROOK PLACEEDINA, MN 5542420-123A5Exterior ElevationsMay 11, 2020 [Preliminary]May 15, 2020 [Preliminary Pricing]May 22, 2020 [HPC Review]May 28, 2020 [Revised HPC Review]Scale:14" = 1'-0"Northeast Elevation Scale:14" = 1'-0"Southeast Elevation Scale:14" = 1'-0"Northwest Garage Elevation Top of Garage slabMain level clg(+/- 9'-0")Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Main level subfloorTop of typ.Upper level subfloor121812161216Garage clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Garage attic subfloorGarage attic(+/- 8'-0")Raised clg @Sun RoomDeep stone sill12101218121812161231271271216Top of typ.Main level subfloorBreezeway8'-718" Rough frmg hgt 8'-1012"Rough frmg hgt 11'-514" Poured wall hgt Main level clg(+/- 9'-0")Upper level clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Upper level subfloor1218Raised clg @Sun Room1251218126Breezeway126Garage clg(+/- 9'-0")Top of typ.Garage attic subfloorGarage attic clg(+/- 8'-0")12152'-0"1215SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEISSUE DATESTHESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN PROFESSIONALLY PREPAREDBY MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. AND ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OFMURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE SHARED,REPRODUCED OR USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTENCONSENT OF MURPHY & COMPANY DESIGN, INC.MURPHY&CODISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTUREMURPHY & CO. DESIGN811 GLENWOOD AVENUE, SUITE 250, MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405612-470-5511HOEFTRESIDENCE4634 EDGEBROOK PLACEEDINA, MN 5542420-123A6Exterior ElevationsMay 11, 2020 [Preliminary]May 15, 2020 [Preliminary Pricing]May 22, 2020 [HPC Review]May 28, 2020 [Revised HPC Review]Scale:14" = 1'-0"Southwest Elevation Scale:14" = 1'-0"Building Section / Northwest Elevation Scale:14" = 1'-0"Building Section / Southeast Garage Elevation G 1 G 2 POT POT POT POT POT POT POT POT G 1 G 1 G 2G 2 G 2 G 1 G 1 CB CB CB CB CBCB CB CB CB CBCBCB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB G 1 G 1 G 1 30 BG 14 BG 10 TM 4 TM 9 BG 3 MP 3 MP 6 PT 3 AG 3 AG 5 PT 1 AG 3 PT 2 MP 2 CV 1 CC 11 HM 28 BG 25 BG 6 HM 1 PS 1 CC10 BG 10 TM 4 HA 8 TO 890 89 2 894 89 6 89 8 90 0 902 90490688 8 886 890892902904906 906 906 904 902 900 898 896 894 892 890 906 G 2 1 MP 886888894 896 898900 907.50 FFE907.50 FFE 907.34 907.50 907.50 905.75 ME ME ME 907.34907.25 TOS 906.75 BOS 907.34 907.00 907.00 1.5%1.5%906.75 BOS 907.00 907.00 907.34 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.342.9%906.81 907.00 907.34 906.64906.64 906.50 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 907.00 2.0%3 : 1 3:11.7%1.25%1.25%1.6%2.7%906.50 PROPOSED RESIDENCE SEE ARCH. DWGS. PROPOSED GARAGE SEE ARCH. DWGS. EDGEBROOK PLACE MINNEHAHA CREEK TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 2 2 4 4 3 1TYP. PROPOSED PATIO PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED ENTRY COURTYARD PROPOSED SPA LAWN NO-MOW FESCUE NO-MOW FESCUE LAWN LAWN LAWN LAWN 902.00 TOW 896.00 TOW 901.50 BOW 898.00 BOW 892.75 BOW 1TYP. 907.34 906.50 907.16907.16 NOTE: FINAL GRADE ON SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 3:1 PLANTING AREA P.A. PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA 50' OHWL SETBACK 50' OHWL SETBACK FRONT Y A R D S E T B A C K FE M A 5 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E FEMA 5 0 Y E A R F L O O D LI N E SITE PLAN1 L101 SITE PLAN N 1" = 10'-0" SCALE: 1 inch = 0 10'20'5' 10 feet creation date:5/27/2020filepath:/Users/travisvanlierestudio/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/HOEFT RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/1. PERMIT-SET/L101 SITE PLAN.dwglast saved:travisvanlierestudio May 28, 2020 4:38 PMThe 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 2020Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. 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 V A N L I ER E date:5/27/2020 4 6 3 4 E D G E B R O O K P L A C E , E D I N A M N 5 5 4 2 4 H O E F T R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 5/28/2020 AB Rev #Description Date ISSUED FOR PERMIT 05-22-20 NOTE: N O T F O R CO N S T RU C TI ON 211 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 SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, STEP WITH GRADE 2.PROPOSED COVERED PORCH, SEE ARCH. DWGS. 3.EXISTING DOCK TOTAL HARDCOVER PROPOSED STRUCTURE 4,693 s.f. PROPOSED PATIO AND WALK SURFACING 1,150 s.f. PROPOSED DECK SURFACING 650 s.f. PROPOSED SPA 64 s.f. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 13 s.f. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY (EXCLUDED FROM CALC.)0 s.f. AREA OF PROPOSED HARDCOVER 6,570 s.f. AREA OF PROPERTY 29,625 s.f. LOT COVERAGE AREA RATIO 22.18% LOT COVERAGE AREA RATIO ALLOWED BY CODE 25% PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE PT Populus tremula SWEDISH ASPEN 14 EA.3" CA. B&B PS Pinus Strobus WHITE PINE 1 EA.14' HT. B&B MP Malus sp. 'Prairiefire' PRAIRIEFIRE CRABAPPLE 9 EA.3" CA. B&B CC Cercis canadensis Northern Strain Redbud 2 EA.3" CA. B&B CV Chionanthus virginicus WHITE FRINGE TREE 2 EA.3" CA. B&B AA Amelanchier grandifolia AUTUMN BRILLIANCE 7 EA.10-12' HT. B&B SHRUBS KEY NAME QTY SIZE HA Hydrangea arborecens VANILLA STRAWBERRY HYDRANGEA 4 EA. 1.5" CA. STANDA RD HA Thuja occedentalis 'Techny' TECHNY ARBORVITAE 8 EA.10-12' HT. B&B HM Hydrangea macrophylla x ‘Endless Summer HYDRANGEA ENDLESS SUMMER 15 EA.#10 CONT. TM Taxus x media ‘Taunton’ JAPANESE YEW TAUNTON 24 EA.#10 CONT. BG Buxus x ‘Glencoe’ CHICAGOLAND BOXWOO 96 EA. 24" HT.CON T. OR B&B PERENNIAL AREAS KEY NAME QTY SIZE FORMAL SHADE GARDEN: FOAMFLOWER-Tiarella 'Spring Symphony DWARF MEADOWSWEET -Filipendula 'Kahome' LEOPARD PLANT-Farfugium japonicum JAPANESE ANEMONE-Anemone tomentosa ‘Robustissima’ SWEET WOODRUFF-Galium odoratum 6820SQ.FT. 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 1060SQ.FT. SUN BORDERS: ‘MONTROSE WHITE' CALAMINT-:Calamentha nepeta 'BLUE NOTE' BLUE EYED GRASS -Sisyrinchium angustifolium MILLENIUM ALLIUM -Allium 'Millenium 'SEPETEMBER SUN' HOSTA- Hosta 'September Sun' 714SQ.FT. TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES KEY NAME QTY SIZE G1 SOD 9285SQ.FT. G2 NO MOW FESCUE SEED MIX 8275SQ.FT. TAG QTY Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 4634 Edgebrook Place April 29, 2020 1 in = 75 ft / MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker FROM: Robert Vogel DATE: May 29, 2020 SUBJECT: COA for 4634 Edgebrook Place I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to the COA application for construction of a new house at 4634 Edgewood Place in the Country Club District. The existing house at this location is a two-story residence in the Minimal Traditional style that was built in 1951. In the Country Club District National Register registration form this property is listed as an example of the “American Colonial Revival” style, built in 1931 and evaluated as “complementary”; in the context of the Edina Heritage Landmark designation, the property is categorized as non-contributing due to the fact that it was actually built after the district’s period of historical significance. It does not meet the eligibility criteria for individual designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark, therefore it is not considered a heritage preservation resource. While demolition of non-historic, non-contributing homes in the Country Club District does not require a COA, the design of new homes (infill development) is subject to review by the HPC. The design guidelines for new construction are set forth in the district plan of treatment. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation treat new construction as an appropriate undertaking in National Register historic districts when the new development is designed to be compatible with the size, scale, color, material and architectural character of the neighborhood’s built environment. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the proposed new house appears to meet the standards for rehabilitation and the design guidelines for new homes contained in the district plan of treatment. No historically or architecturally significant heritage preservation resources will be damaged or destroyed. In my opinion, the proposed new house will be compatible with the size, color, material and character of the neighborhood’s built environment; most importantly, the new construction preserves the distinctive spatial relationship between the house and Minnehaha Creek, an important historic landscape in its own right. The height of the new house appears to be compatible with that of other homes along Edgebrook Place. The application makes a good case for a front-loading, street-facing attached garage in this particular situation. The proposed attached garage will be differentiated from and visually subordinate to the house. The proposed replacement home is a good example of what some architectural historians refer to as the “Post-Modern” movement, an important trend in North American home building since the 1980s. The design is generally consistent with the architectural standards contained in the original Country Club District deed restrictions with respect to size, scale, massing, and setback. Its architectural character interprets various traditional and modern design elements—the overall impression could be described as the “New Classical Revival” style. The façade borrows from both the Tudor and Colonial revival aesthetic systems with its painted brick masonry wall cladding, prominent front facing gables with steeply pitched roofs, elaborate chimneys, dormers and casement windows. The designers have not attempted to create an earlier appearance—no informed observer would mistake this neo-eclectic confection for a midcentury period revival style house. Current best practices for heritage resource management do not discourage contemporary design for new home construction in historic residential districts—design review guidelines emphasize compatibility with respect to features, materials, size, scale and massing over attempting to “match” historic architecture. The proposed new house exemplifies this approach. The COA application does not include a detailed landscape plan. The district plan of treatment encourages landscaping that is visually compatible with the historic character of the district. The new landscaping should be designed to complement the historic character of the Edgebrook Place streetscape. The landscape architecture should also be compatible with the historic character of Minnehaha Creek. The building site was historically part of the Edina Mills community, one of the earliest nodes of Euro-American settlement in what is now Edina. The site also occupies part of the historic “Browndale Farm” property owned by Henry F. Brown (1843-1912), a prominent Minneapolis lumberman, mill owner, real estate developer and philanthropist. Archaeological evidence of the farm may be present; the area bordering Minnehaha Creek has also been identified by the HPC as likely to yield important data relating to the presence of ancient Native Americans in Edina. I would strongly encourage the property owner to arrange for an archaeological survey of the areas that may be disturbed by excavation or grading prior to construction. Any archaeological data recovered should be collected, analyzed and properly recorded by qualified professionals. I recommend approval of the COA based on the plans presented (including the revisions to the garage plan). The new house should be clearly identified as such by means of a plaque or inscription to be placed on an exterior surface bearing the year the house was built. Because the existing house is part of the National Register historic district created in 1980, we will need to inform the State Historic Preservation Office of its demolition and replacement at the time the new home is permitted. Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:2020 Work Plan Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description 2020 Work Plan Heritage Preservation 2020 DRAFT Commission Work Plan Template Initiative #1 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Ongoing Ongoing 3 (review and recommend) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Staff Liaison Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel Initiative #2 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Ongoing Ongoing 3 (review and recommend) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Staff Liaison Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel Initiative #3 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Ongoing Ongoing 4 (review and decide) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Staff Liaison Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel Initiative #4 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Ongoing May-20 4 (review and decide) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Progress Report: Review and Recommend Evaluate and recommend potential properties to be added to the Heritage Preservation eligible landmark list. All Commission Award the 2020 Edina Heritage Award during National Preservation Month in May. Use different media outlets to help increase awareness during the Progress Report: Review and Recommend Invite owners of determined eligible properties to designate their properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and recommend to Planning Commission and City Council. All Commission Review and Decide Progress Report: Review and decide on Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) applications for changes to heritage landmark designated properties. All Commission Review and Decide Funds available , CTS - 5 hrs Initiative #5 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Event May-20 4 (review and decide) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Liaison - 5 hrs, CTS Initiative #6 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge New Dec-20 2 (review and comment) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Staff Liaison Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel Initiative #7 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Continue Dec-20 2 (review and comment) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Funds available Staff Liaison Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel Initiative #8 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge Dec-20 Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support Staff Liaison NA Preservation Consultant-Robert Vogel nomination period to increase interest. All Commission Review and Comment Progress Report: Review and Decide Coordinate a public walking tour around the Edina Country Club golf course area to view historic properties and pieces of the Edina Mill. All Commission, Lead: Annie Schilling Progress Report: Progress Report: Review and Comment Continue the 2019 resurvey of the Country Club District and review the plan of treatment. All Commission Review and comment on staff's adminstrative process improvement for Certificates of Apprpriateness. All Commission Progress Report: Review and Decide Apply for CLG grant to test the archeological model. All Commission Initiative #9 Initiative Type Completion Date Continue Ongoing 2 (review and comment) Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support NA Progress Report: Progress Report: Review and Comment Appoint up to two members members to provide feedback on HRRC's initiative (#4) to create an assessment rubric / recommendation process for City facility artwork and décor before final recommendation goes to City Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Biographical Sketch-S. S. Thorpe Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the biographical sketch of S. S. Thorpe as a supplementary historic context statement for the heritage landmark designation for the Country Club District. INTRODUCTION: When the Country Club District was designated an Edina Heritage Landmark in 2003, the city council directed the Heritage Preservation Board (now the HP C) to conduct a resurvey of the district every 10 years. In 2019 the resurvey was made part of the HPC’s 2020 work plan. One of the objectives of the survey was development of a more complete and fully documented biography of Samuel S. Thorpe, the district’s original developer. ATTACHMENTS: Description Vogel Memo SS Thorpe Biographical Sketch MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: June 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Biographical Sketch of S. S. Thorpe When the Country Club District was designated an Edina Heritage Landmark in 2003, the city council directed the Heritage Preservation Board (now the HPC) to conduct a resurvey of the district every 10 years. In 2019 the resurvey was made part of the HPC’s 2020 work plan. One of the objectives of the survey was development of a more complete and fully documented biography of Samuel S. Thorpe, the district’s original developer. I submit for your perusal a biographical sketch of Thorpe that is intended to be placed on file with the Country Club District heritage landmark registration documents. This information can also be used in educating the public about Thorpe’s role in the development of the Country Club District. 1 SAMUEL SKIDMORE THORPE (1864-1936) By Robert C. Vogel Preservation Planning Consultant Edina Heritage Preservation Commission February 24, 2020 Samuel Skidmore Thorpe was born on April 20, 1864 in Red Wing, Minnesota. His parents were Rev. Samuel R. Thorpe (1820-1864), a Methodist clergyman who had immigrated to Minnesota from upstate New York ca. 1853, and Caroline (Emery) Thorpe (1831-1919). The Rev. Thorpe was a member of the faculty at Hamline University, which was located in Red Wing during 1854-1869 (re-established at St. Paul in 1880). Thorpe junior attended local schools and was briefly employed as a farm laborer. After the family moved to Minneapolis, he found work as a newsboy, Western Union messenger and bank clerk, and for two years he clerked in a ladies hat store (West & Brant, described in city directories as a “Combination Hat Store,” 37 South Washington Avenue). In 1892 Thorpe purchased an interest in the newly incorporated Carter, Rittenberg & Hanlian Co., a manufacturer and wholesaler of millinery goods founded by Henry Carter, Oscar Rittenberg and Louis A. Hainlin. For several years he lived at 92 South 12th Street with his widowed mother and his twin brother James Ruggles Thorpe (1864-1928). In 1885 Samuel and James established a real estate firm specializing in loans, fire insurance, and property management, which they operated in partnership with Arthur W. Armatage, a fire insurance underwriter (who is identified as the president of the “Thorpe Bros. and Armatage Agency” in city directories). According to a biographical sketch published in 1923, the Thorpe brothers earned over $70,000 during their first two years in business, which enabled them to take time off to attend the College of New Jersey (modern-day Princeton University), where they matriculated with the class of 1889. After leaving Princeton they returned to the real estate field in Minneapolis. By the time it was incorporated in 1900 as Thorpe Brothers & Company, the firm was one of the leading real estate brokers and developers in Minneapolis, with a reputation for “everlasting hustle” and “strong eastern connections.” The Thorpe brothers’ partnership lasted about fifteen years, until James retired and relocated to Denver, Colorado. Samuel Thorpe played a pivotal role in the development of the modern real estate industry. He was a founding member of the Minneapolis Real Estate Exchange, which was established in 1887, and was the driving force behind its reorganization in 1892 as the 2 Minneapolis Real Estate Board (now the Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors). Thorpe served as the Board’s president in 1904-05, by which time he had earned a national reputation as a tireless advocate for professional ethics and a tireless advocate for progressive community development, zoning and land use planning. In 1908 he helped establish the National Association of Real Estate Exchanges (now the National Association of Realtors) and later served as the Association’s president. The Thorpe Brothers Real Estate Company (the name was later changed to “Thorpe Brothers Realty Company”) was originally located at 258 Hennepin Avenue but later moved to a suite of offices in the Andrus Building at 512 Nicollet Avenue (modern-day Renaissance Square on the Nicollet Mall). By the late 1890s, Thorpe Bros. may have been the largest real estate brokerage in Minneapolis, dealing in residential and commercial properties, mortgages, loans and rental property management. During the early 1900s the Thorpes became heavily invested in farmland, marketing thousands of acres in Minnesota, the Dakotas, Michigan and Mississippi. The company also had a stake in more than seventy residential subdivisions and numerous large commercial developments. The centerpiece of the Thorpe commercial real estate portfolio was the Plymouth Building in downtown Minneapolis, a twelve-story high-rise commercial property built in 1910 at the corner of South 6th Street and Hennepin Avenue. Thorpe Bros. were the agents of the building’s original owner, John E. Andrus of Yokers, New York (Sam Thorpe’s father-in-law) and ownership of the property remained in the Thorpe family until 2002. The building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The eight-story Thorpe Building at 521 Marquette Avenue, built in 1924, was also a downtown landmark for many years, until it was demolished to make way for a parking ramp. Sam Thorpe had diverse business interests in addition to real estate. He played an important role in the effort to improve navigation on the Upper Mississippi River and served as president of the Upper Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company after it was organized by a group of Twin Cities businessmen in 1925. One of the Line’s first towboats was named in his honor. (The 162-foot paddle-wheeler—later renamed the “George M. Verity”—is a National Historic Landmark permanently dry-docked in Keokuk, Iowa, where it houses a steamboat museum.) Thorpe was a member of syndicates formed to acquire various business ventures in manufacturing, transportation and communications, and was a high-profile community booster. 3 In his private life Thorpe was a pillar of Minneapolis high society, an avid gardener and art collector, and served as a trustee of Hamline University. In 1922 Thorpe Bros. began planning for development of an “exclusive and select” residential subdivision in the village of Edina. The company purchased a three hundred acre tract of farmland along Minnehaha Creek from the estates of Henry F. Brown and George W. and Sarah Baird. (The original plat of “Thrope’s Country Club” bears the date September 15, 1922, but the subdivision was later vacated and then re-platted as “Edina Country Club” on April 12, 1924.) The project was undoubtedly inspired by the Country Club District in suburban Kansas City, Missouri, whose visionary developer, J. C. Nichols (1880-1950), was reportedly a personal friend of Thorpe’s. Thorpe reportedly invested more than a million dollars in underground utilities, paved streets and other amenities before the first lots in the Edina Country Club were put on the market in June, 1924. His vision of a master-planned community (where, according to Thorpe, “one could be proud to live, proud of your homes, and of your neighbor’s home as well”) included architectural and land use controls which were implemented through restrictive covenants. Although municipal zoning did not exist at the time the subdivision was laid out, the Country Club was one of the first communities in the nation to adopt the land use planning standards contained in the model zoning ordinance issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1924 (although the Village of Edina did not adopt its first land use zoning ordinance until 1930, when the state legislature authorized statutory municipalities to adopt zoning ordinances). Sam Thorpe is believed to have personally approved the plans for every home built in the district until 1930, when Thorpe Bros. delegated responsibility for enforcement of the architectural controls to a private homeowners’ association, the Country Club Association, which had been formed on November 30, 1925. Thorpe Bros. stopped requiring deed restrictions on lot sales after July 1, 1944, by which time 507 homes had been built in the district. The original covenants did not expire until 1964. Sam Thorpe reportedly considered the Country Club to have been the highpoint of his real estate career. Samuel S. Thorpe married Margaret Palmer Andrus (1876-1935) in Yonkers, New York on October 3, 1899. She was the daughter of John Emory Andrus (1841-1934) and Julia Marie Dyckman (1847-1909). Andrus, who made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and real estate, was one of the wealthiest men in the United States and had extensive investments in Minnesota. The couple returned to Minneapolis and took up residence in the Thorpe family home at 92 South 4 12th Street, but later moved to 1106 Mount Curve Avenue in the Kenwood neighborhood, where they raised four children: Andrus (1900-1963), James Ruggles (1903-1978), Julia (1904-1995), and Samuel S., Jr. (1907-1979). Margaret passed away on October 19, 1935. On October 5, 1936, Samuel Skidmore Thorpe died “while sitting in a chair at his home,” aged 72. He was buried in the Thorpe family plot in Lakewood Cemetery. After his death, the presidency of Thorpe Bros. Real Estate passed to his son, James R. Thorpe, who managed the family business until his retirement in 1968. Bibliography The Crier. 1930-1940. On file at the Edina Historical Society. [Monthly newspaper published for residents of the Country Club District] Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory. Vol. XLVIII. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1920. “Fine Houses Rise in Edina, Once ‘Seat’ of Flour Milling Industry.” Minneapolis Journal, October 3, 1926. Hesterman, Paul D. From Settlement to Suburb: The History of Edina, Minnesota. Edina Historical Society, 1988. [Country Club District, pp. 39-72] “Homesites in the Country Club District,” Minneapolis Journal, October 3, 1926. Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. “Our History: One Hundred Years Of Service to Members And Community . . .” http://www.mplsrealtor.com/inside_centennial.asps “Minneapolis Real Estate Board Elects New Officers,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 14, 1904. Morrill, George P. Multimillionaire Straphanger: A Life of John Emery Andrus. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971. Morse-Kahn, Deborah. Chapters in the City History: Edina. City of Edina, 1998. [Country Club District, pp. 90-98] National Association of Realtors. “Samuel S. Thorpe.” Presidents of the National Association of Realtors. Chicago, 1980. http://www.nar.realtor/samuel-s-thorpe “Samuel Thorpe, ‘Father’ of Barge Service, Dead,” Winona Republican Herald, October 6, 1936. Scott, William W. and Jeffrey A. Hess. History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota. City of Edina, 1891. [Country Club District, pp. 63-68] 5 Shutter, Marion D., ed. History of Minneapolis, Gateway to the Northwest. 3 vols. Chicago: S, J, Clark Pub. Co., 1923. [S. S. Thorpe biographical sketch in Vol. II, pp. 15-16] Smith, Scott D. “Thorpes sell Plymouth Building.” Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, January 6, 2003. http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2003/01/06.html Spaeth, Lynne VanBrocklin. “Country Club District, Edina, Minnesota.” National Register of Historic Places nomination form, October, 1980. On file at the State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul. Thorpe Bros. Announcing Thorpe Bros. Minnehaha Grove Addition. For Sale by Thorpe Bros. Minneapolis, 1923. [4 page brochure] Thorpe Bros. Country Club District. Minneapolis, 1924. [16 page brochure. illustrated] Thorpe Bros. Helping to Write Minneapolis History: Eighteen Eighty-Five to Nineteen Forty- Five. Minneapolis, 1945. Thorpe Bros. Map of Minneapolis. Compliments of Thorpe Bros., Inc. Minneapolis, 1940. [Includes Country Club District] “Thorpe’s Country Club District,” Minneapolis Tribune, Sunday, June 20, 1926. [Illustrated with photographs of new houses.] Village of Edina. Council minutes, 1920-1935. City Clerk’s office, Edina City Hall. “Your Home-Search Ends Where Town and Country Meet,” Minneapolis Tribune, June 8, 1924. Date: June 9, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Garden Arch Discussion, Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: See attached correspondence. ATTACHMENTS: Description Email-4504 Arden Garden Arch From:Jane Lonnquist To:Emily Bodeker Subject:Re: 4505 Arden Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:37:48 PM 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. Emily,  Thank you for that clarification! I would love for you to please just include our exchange andyour explanation at the meeting.  That way if any other HPC members get asked about this, they will have the correctinformation. Talk to you next week,Jane On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:03 PM Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@edinamn.gov> wrote: Hi Jane,   I hope you are doing well. Sorry it took me some time to get back to you on this one. Thehomeowner of 4504 Arden reached out to staff about the removal of the garden arch back in 2017. The garden arch was not an original feature of the home. When I discussed it withRobert we decided not to require a COA.   I can still place the garden arch discussion on the agenda if you would like! Generally if this was an original feature of the home, and the homeowner asked me the question, I wouldbring it to the HPC. These are a little difficult to monitor because a building permit isn’t necessarily required for the removal.   Please let me know if you have any questions! Thanks,   Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0462 | Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. | Edina, MN 55424 EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov   From: Jane Lonnquist <janelonnquist@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:31 PMTo: Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov>Subject: 4505 Arden   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.   Hi Emily, A neighbor in Country Club brought something to my attention that I'd like to add to thenext HPC agenda. The homeowners at 4505 Arden, who recently had a COA approved for anew garage, decided to remove a section of front facade eave and gate when they had thehome sheathed in plastic for re-stucco work. The work is already done, but I think it isimportant for the group to review this case just so we are always reflecting on how the POTis being applied and if the process needs any adjustments. In this case, were these elementsof the facade distinctive features that should have been left? Or should the matter at leasthave been debated by the HPC? I'm sure there are lots of small judgement calls of exteriorchanges that don't require a COA, but just want to be sure we aren't establishing a badprecedent. Just like the discussion of the house on Browndale with the excessive demolition,I think it will lead to more informed commissioners and a better process overall.  Can youplease add these attached before and after photos to the agenda when we discuss?  Thanks much, Jane