Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_8_17_MeetingAgenda Heritage Preservation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Virtual Meeting To listen to the HPC meeting please dial and use the information below: +1-415-655-0001 Access code: 133 258 4277 Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: July 14, 2020 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Wooddale Bridge Sketch Plan B.4630 Drexel Sketch Plan VI.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. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.COA Update: 4504 Arden Avenue B.2021 Work Plan VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta3 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 ampli7cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: August 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: July 14, 2020 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the July 14, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission minutes. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: July 14, 2020 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, July 14, 2020 I. Call To Order Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Lonnquist, Pollock, Cundy, Birdman, Widmoyer, Nymo, Everson, Hassenstab and Chair Schilling. Emily Bodeker, staff liaison was also in attendance. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Bodeker informed the commission that the applicant for the 4634 Edgebrook COA requested that the item be removed from the agenda. The application has been withdrawn at this time. Motion made by Lonnquist seconded by Birdman to approve the meeting agenda as amended. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Nymo seconded by Hassenstab to approve the meeting minutes from the virtual June 9, 2020 meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations A. 2021 Work Plan Discussion The Commission began discussions on their 2021 work plan. They brainstormed ideas and liaison Bodeker will put together a draft work plan for the August HPC meeting for review. VI. Chair and Member Comments: Chair Schilling asked for two volunteers to participate on a subcommittee of the HRRC, Arts and Culture Commission and the HPC to help make decisions on public artwork and décor. Commissioners Birdman and Widmoyer volunteered. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Commissioner Everson told the Commission about Lisl Close’s book. Bodeker asked Everson to send her the information and she would share it with the Commission. VII. Staff Comments: Bodeker informed the Commission that she was contacted by the property owners of 4521 Arden. They had just received a COA for a new garage. They will be updating the roofing on their house and would like the garage to match. They asked for feedback on potential roofing materials. The commission liked the Timberline NS Shingles that were presented to them. Bodeker informed the Commission that meeting will be virtual at least through the end of August. VIII. Adjournment Motion by Birdman seconded by Pollock to adjourn the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at 8:18 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker Date: August 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:Wooddale Bridge Sketch Plan Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Prior to filing a complete application, an applicant may request to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for an informal exchange when the HPC can review the basic concept of a proposed project and offer suggestions to a potential applicant. The purpose of this review is to provide assistance in resolving problems or meeting requirements if the potential applicant decides to proceed with the COA process. In this manner, the HPC may provide preliminary, non-binding guidance on the suitability of the project with a minimum burden of expense on a property owner. Such consultation shall bind neither the property owner nor the HP C, and statements made by HP C members shall not form a basis for invalidating any subsequent action taken. Materials presented for this discussion should include site plans, drawings, photographs or other sufficient information to allow for a meaningful understanding of the intended conceptual design. Sketch Plan Review does not require formal notice to neighboring properties but must take place only at regular (formal)meetings of the HPC. INTRODUCTION: Wooddale Bridge ATTACHMENTS: Description Wooddale Bridge Plan of Treatment Wooddale Bridge Sketch Review Submittal ATTEST: / Debra A. Mangen, Cit Clerld James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2016-55 ADDING EDINA HERITAGE LANDMARK DISTRICT ZONING DESIGNATION TO WO DDALE BRIDGE NO. 90646 AND A OPTING THE PLAN OF TREATMENT WHEREAS, the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646, located on Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek is historically significant for the engineering heritage embodied in its design and construction, and WHEREAS, the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646 is a rare, early twentieth century example of a single-span corrugated multi plate arch bridge, and WHEREAS, the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646 was constructed in 1937 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as part of a federal relief project, and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board did create a plan of treatment designed to identify the goals and procedures for preservation on the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646, and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board on December 8, 2015, did approve to nominate the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646 for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark District, and WHEREAS, the National Park Service did on February 2, 2016, recognize the historical significance of the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646 by conveying upon it National Register of Historic Places status, as supported by the Minnesota Historical Society, and WHEREAS, the Edina Planning Commission on April 13, 2016, did also review and recommend approving the nomination of the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646 for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council adds the Edina Heritage Landmark District zoning designation to the Wooddale Bridge No. 90646, and adopts the plan of treatment designed to identify the goals and procedures for preservation. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota • ay 17, 2016. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-927-8861 • Fax 952-826-0390 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-55 CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting on May 17, 2016, and as recorded in the Minutes of said, Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this { 1 day of Arlt.i , 2016 LcaAtt D City Clerk 2 PLAN OF TREATMENT The City of Edina has adopted the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the authoritative guide for design review decisions involving properties designated as Edina Heritage Landmarks. The following general guidelines address specific preservation treatment requirements of the Wooddale Bridge: 1. The historic bridge will be preserved in place with the existing form, structural integrity, and use of the same or similar materials. 2. The general treatment strategy applied to design review for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be rehabilitation, defined as the process of maintaining the bridge in a state of utility through repairs and minor alterations which make possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those features which are significant to its historical and engineering values. 3. The distinguishing physical characteristics of the bridge and its environment should not be substantially altered or destroyed as a result of any action taken by the city. Careful consideration should be given to preventing damage from flooding or bank erosion. 4. The removal or alteration of significant historic character defining features should be avoided whenever possible. Repair and replacement of deteriorated features should be based on accurate duplications of the original work, based on historical, pictorial or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of modern materials. 5. Retain the original limestone masonry, whenever possible, repointing only those mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration; duplicate the old mortar in composition, color, texture, joint size and profile. 6. Reconstruction of damaged masonry railings, head walls and wing walls should be kept to a minimum and the new work should be designed to be compatible in materials, size, scale, color and texture with the original stone work. 7. Necessary signs, lighting, fencing and walkways should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the bridge and its environment. These installations should be carried out in such a manner that if the new work was to be removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic structure would be unimpaired. 8. Recognize the special problems inherent in the bridge's alignment and structural systems when complying with traffic safety and engineering requirements so that the essential character of the historic structure is preserved intact. 9. Investigate alternative traffic safety measures that preserve the structure's historic integrity. The City will make every effort to retain the historic bridge as a functional part of the modern transportation system while preserving its distinguishing original qualities. 10. In the event that the historic bridge can no longer be preserved in place for reasons of public safety, the preferred treatment strategy shall be mitigation by relocation to another location where it can be preserved and repurposed. If relocation is not feasible, the effects of demolition may be mitigated by historical and engineering documentation with measured drawings, large-format negative photographs, and written data which meet the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). August 17, 2020 Heritage Preservation Board Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Jeff Johnson, P.E., Principal – Structural Practice Lead, SEH Engineering Wooddale Avenue Bridge Discussion Information / Background: The Wooddale Avenue Bridge was constructed in 1937 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA). It is a single span corrugated multi plate arch structure. The span length is 18-feet. The bridge features limestone masonry headwalls, railings and wingwalls. Inspection records show work is needed on the bridge. It also does not meet our current transportation needs. Flooding has caused damage to the entry and exist masonry walls. There is some displacement of the walls and masonry components near storm sewer drain penetrations. The masonry railings are quickly deteriorating. In fact the WPA masonry block / sign recently fell off. Staff would like to start preliminary plans to be ready to apply for MnDOT Bridge Bond Funds. Attachments: Existing Bridge Information Option 1 Concrete Circular Arch with Stone Veneer Headwall, Wing Walls and Railing Option 2 Concrete Slab Span with Stone Veneer Wing Walls and Railing 2016 Bridge Inspection Report MnDOT Local Historic Bridge Report Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Existing Bridge – Steel Arch with Stone Headwall, Wing Walls and Railing Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Looking North Looking South Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 East Railing West Railing Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Steel corrugated arch pipe with stone headwall, wing walls and railing Steel arch pipe corrosion at waterline Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Deteriorated stone – limestone with fine layering, commonly known as flagstone Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Corrosion at waterline and base of arch Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 WPA 1937 Previous repointing of joints show challenges of ever widening joints due to stone deterioration Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement HPC Meeting Discussion 8-17-2020 Original Bridge Plans 1937. Note original railing was a single timber rail with stone posts. Railing is similar to plans but stone is not the local limestone on current bridge. Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement Option 1 – Concrete Circular Arch with Stone Veneer Headwall, Wing walls and Railing Edina - Wooddale Ave over Minnehaha Creek Bridge Replacement Option 2 – Concrete Slab Span with Stone Veneer Wing Walls and Railing James Ave over Minnehaha Creek Previous Bridge – Twin steel arch with stone headwall 54th Street over Minnehaha Creek November 29, 2016 Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections City of Edina, Minnesota TKDA Project No. 15209.005 Dear Mr. Miller: Please find below a summary of the bridge safety inspections with maintenance recommendations for the following structures: 1. Bridge 4572 – West 78th Street over the Canadian Pacific Railroad 2. Bridge 27646 – Canadian Pacific Railroad over Eden Avenue 3. Bridge 27C00 – 54th Street over Minnehaha Creek 4. Bridge 90641 – Canadian Pacific Railroad over 44th Street 5. Bridge 90643 – 50th Street over Minnehaha Creek 6. Bridge 90646 – Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek 7. Bridge 92093 – 56th Street over Minnehaha Creek 8. Bridge 27J59 – Valley View Road over the North Branch of Nine Mile Creek Also enclosed is the MnDOT Bridge Management Unit’s Bridge Inspections Due (2016) Report for the City of Edina. According to that report, the eight bridges listed above required inspections in 2016. These inspections have been performed, thus fulfilling the City’s 2016 Bridge Inspection requirements. In addition, new hydraulic cross sections were taken for Bridges 27C00, 90646, 92093, and 27J59. Measurement of the intended section at Bridge 90643 was impossible due to the high flow rate of the Minnehaha Creek. Please review the online SIMS reports for the bridges identified above as well as the summaries provided with this letter. Upon completion of your review, please log into SIMS and approve the report as the City’s Program Administrator. Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 2 The following is a summary of the bridge safety inspections and recommendations for the eight bridges: Bridge Inspection Summary Bridge General Condition Management Recommendations Maintenance Recommendations Funding Eligibility Analysis Required Immediate Action Required 4572 Good Yes Yes Yes No No 27646 Good No Yes No No No 27C00 Good Yes Yes No No No 90641 Good No Yes No No No 90643 Fair-Good No Yes No No No 90646 Fair-Good Yes Yes Yes No No 92093 Good Yes Yes No No No 27J59 Good Yes No No No No Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 29 Bridge 90646 – Wooddale Avenue Over Minnehaha Creek General Condition: Fair – Good. 2016 Element Condition State Updates: The condition state ratings did not change in 2016. Although the element condition states did not change, notes were added to several elements to better describe the location and character of the observed deterioration. In addition, several new elements were added and others removed to reflect updates to MnDOT’s element coding system. Inspection Summary: Damage from 2016 flooding to the masonry channel wall abutting the east end of the north abutment remains, as shown in Figure 1. Repairs have been developed and are awaiting sufficient funds to implement. Displacement of riprap scour protection remains, creating exposed and undermined portions of the north abutment footing. Scour protection repairs will be made as soon as the high flows through the structure dissipate. Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 30 2015 2016 Figure 1. Bridge 90646 Damaged Northeast Culvert Wingwall Continued undermining of the remaining masonry headwall flares was observed, as shown in Figure 2. Additional loss of section since 2013 and continued global wall displacement were noted; although adequate photographs could not be taken due to high flow at the time of the site review. Figure 2. Bridge 90646 Undermined Southwest Culvert Wingwall Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 31 In order to track potential movement of this wingwall, the distance between the northwest culvert arch corner and a paint spot placed on the wingwall face has been historically measured, as shown in Figure 3 and the following table. These measurements were not taken due to high flow at the time of the site review. Figure 3. Bridge 90646 Measurement Location for West Wingwall Movement Year Distance (inches) Northwest Culvert Arch Corner to Paint Spot on Wingwall 199.0 198.5 197.5 197.0 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 32 Similar measurements have been historically made at the east end of the culvert footings to track footing translation. These too were postponed due to high flow at the time of the site review. 2013 N/A 2014 203.5 2015 203.5 Year Distance (inches) East End Culvert Footing to Culvert Footing 2012 N/A Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 33 Undermining at the west end of the north culvert footing due to scour action was previously reported. At the time of the inspection, the east and west portions of the north footing were completely submerged. As such, updated tracking measurements were unable to be made. For future inspection purposes, a description of the historic measurements is provided. To track footing movement over time, measurements were taken across the gap between the footing heel and the masonry wingwall at the west end of the north footing. The measurements were made 3 inches below the top of footing location, as shown in Figure 4. Similar measurements were taken at the east end of the north footing. The gap measurements are shown in the following table. Figure 4. Bridge 90646 Measurement Location for North Footing Movement N/A N/A 0.375 0.375 2013 2014 2015 0.375 0.375 0.375 Year Gap Distance (inches) North Footing 2012 0.375 West End East End 3” Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 34 Although not severe enough to warrant a lower condition state rating, additional element deterioration was observed and noted. For example, surface scale was previously observed along the entire culvert footing length, with isolated cracking near mid-span. At the time of the site review, the footings were completely submerged. As such, documentation of footing deterioration could not be made, as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Bridge 90646 Submerged Footing Undermining and loss of masonry wall components were observed at the remaining drain penetration in the east wall, as shown in Figure 6. 2015 2016 Figure 6. Bridge 90646 East Masonry Wall Deterioration Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 35 Continued deterioration of the masonry railings was noted, as shown in Figure 7. Preservation work should be considered to reduce the rate of further deterioration. 2015 2016 Figure 7. Bridge 90646 Masonry Railing Deterioration MnDOT’s new element coding system includes unique evaluation of the coating systems on steel components by the SF quantity. As such, determination of these areas was made for the following elements according to the identified perimeters: · Steel Culvert (32.0LF) A portion of this element was assigned condition state level 2 in recognition of the coating deterioration near the footing. In addition to the elements identified above, the following were added to the inspection report in lieu of the element migration. · Protected Species This element was assigned condition state 1. Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 36 Bridge Management Recommendations: According to the MnDOT Bridge Preservation, Improvement, and Replacement Guidelines, the bridge does not meet the condition criteria for preservation, improvement, or rehabilitation. However, this bridge has a sufficiency rating between 50 and 80 and has been declared functionally obsolete based on the appraisal rating of the deck. According to the criteria outlined in the guidelines, this bridge is therefore eligible for both state and federal funding for rehabilitation. Bridge Maintenance Recommendations: · Remove brush 5 feet from the face of the wingwalls. · Repair scour damage. · Implement repairs identified in the structure’s Historic Bridge Management Plan. Mr. Chad Millner City of Edina 2016 Bridge Safety Inspections November 29, 2016 Page 37 Bridge Hydraulic Cross Section: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Executive Summary Bridge Number: 90646 JUNE 2014 Bridge 90646 carries Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek in Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is owned by the City of Edina. The bridge was constructed in 1937 by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as part of a federal relief project to replace an earlier timber stringer bridge at the same location. The bridge is significant for its association with the WPA federal-relief program, its aesthetics, and as a representative example of a multi plate arch bridge in the state. Bridge 90646 is a single-span corrugated multi plate arch structure. The span length is 18 feet. The steel plate arch is supported by cast-in-place concrete spread footings. The bridge features limestone masonry headwalls, railings and wingwalls. Bridge 90646 is in fair condition and appears to adequately serve its purpose of carrying vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With proper maintenance, stabilization and preservation activities, it is believed Bridge 90646 could continue to serve in its present capacity for 20 years or longer. Any work on Bridge 90646 should proceed according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) [36 CFR part 67] and The Secretary’s Standards with Regard to Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Situations, as adapted by the Virginia Transportation Research Council (Guidelines). Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 Bridge Location JUNE 2014 Bridge Location Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 Table of Contents JUNE 2014 Table of Contents - i Executive Summary Bridge Location I. Project Introduction II. Historic Data III. Bridge Data IV. Existing Conditions/Recommendations V. Projected Costs Appendices A. Glossary B. Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards C. Documents Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 I – Project Introduction NOVEMBER 2013 Project Introduction I - 1 This Bridge Report is a product of a comprehensive study performed for approximately 140 historic bridges owned by county, city, township, private and other state agencies besides MnDOT. The study is the second phase of a multi-phased process developed and executed in partnership with representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); MnDOT State Aid; MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU); the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); local public works and county highway departments; county and township boards and city councils; the preservation community and the general public. To perform the study, MnDOT retained the consultant team of LHB Inc., Mead & Hunt Inc., and The 106 Group. The general goals of the study include: • Gathering and compiling the existing historic and bridge condition data and other relevant information on the bridges in the study group into bridge reports. • National Register nominations for a select number of bridges within the study group which the bridge owner may request a nomination to be prepared. • Updating MnDOT’s Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Minnesota based on the study’s findings. • Producing a narrative for the MnDOT Historic Bridge Website to disseminate information regarding locally owned historic bridges in Minnesota. • Investigating and preparing a summary regarding how other states have funded historic bridge programs and structured Programmatic Agreements when multiple non-state entities are the owners of historic bridges. The Bridge Reports compile and summarize the historic and engineering information concerning the structures. It is important to note that this report indicates if a bridge is located within a known historic district, but it does not identify all known or potential historic properties. Potential impacts to adjacent or surrounding historic properties, such as archaeological sites or other structures must be considered. Contact MnDOT CRU early in the project planning process in order to identify other potential historic properties. The reports also document the existing use and condition of the bridges along with assessments of the maintenance, stabilization and preservation needs of each structure, including cost estimates. The maintenance activities, along with regular structural inspections and anticipated bridge component replacement activities are routine practices directed toward continued structure serviceability. Stabilization activities address immediate needs identified as necessary to maintain a bridge’s structural and historic integrity and serviceability. Preservation activities are near term or long term steps that need to be taken to preserve and in some cases restore a bridge’s structural and historic integrity and serviceability. In assessing preservation activities, a design life of 20 years or longer is typically considered. In addition to general restoration activities and dependent on the severity of deterioration, preservation activities may include spot repair, disassembly and reassembly or replacement of specific bridge components. Recommendations within the Bridge Reports are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The Standards are basic principles created to help preserve the distinct character of a historic property and its site, while allowing for reasonable change to meet new engineering standards and codes. The Standards recommend repairing, rather than replacing Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 I – Project Introduction NOVEMBER 2013 Project Introduction I - 2 deteriorated features whenever possible. The Standards apply to historic properties of all periods, styles, types, materials and sizes and encompass the property’s location and surrounding environment. The Standards were developed with historic buildings in mind and cannot be easily applied to historic bridges. The Virginia Transportation Research Council (Council) adapted the Standards to address the special requirements of historic bridges. They were published in the Council’s 2001 Final Report: A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia, The Secretary’s Standards with Regard to Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Situations, provide useful direction for undertaking maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of historic bridges and are included in the Appendix to this plan. Existing bridge data sources typically available for Minnesota bridges were gathered for the study. These sources include: • PONTIS, a bridge management system formerly used by MnDOT to manage its inventory of bridges statewide, and its replacement system, SIMS (Structure Information Management System) • The current MnDOT Structure Inventory Report and MnDOT Bridge Inspection Report. Reports are available for the majority of the bridges (not available for bridges in private ownership) • Database and inventory forms resulting from the 2012 Minnesota Local Historic Bridge Study and other prior historic bridge studies as incorporated into the database • Existing Minnesota historic contexts studies for bridges in Minnesota, including Reinforced- Concrete Highway Bridges in Minnesota, 1900-1945, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, 1870-1945, Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota, 1873-1945 and Minnesota Bridges 1955-1970 • Field investigations documenting the general structural condition and determining character- defining features Additional data sources researched and gathered for some of the bridges as available also included: • Files and records at MnDOT offices • Original bridge construction plans, rehabilitation plans, and maintenance records of local owners • Files and documents available at the SHPO office, including previous inventory forms, determinations of eligibility, studies, and compliance documents • Existing historical and documentary material related to the National Register-eligible bridges The Appendix contains the following: a Glossary explaining structural and historic preservation terms used in the report, the Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, a list of engineering and historic documents available for this bridge, and copies of the MnDOT Structure Inventory and Bridge Inspection Reports current at the time of the report preparation. The Bridge Report will provide the bridge owner and other interested parties with a comprehensive summary of the bridge condition and detailed information related to the historic nature of the bridge. This information will enable historic bridge owners to make informed decisions when planning for their historic properties. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 II – Historic Data JUNE 2014 Historic Data II - 3 This narrative is drawn from previous documents, as available for the subject bridge, which may include determination of eligibility (also known as Phase II evaluation), Minnesota Architecture/History Inventory Form, National Register nomination, Multiple Property Documentation Form, and/or applicable historic contexts. See Sources for details on which documents were used in compiling this Historic Data section. Contractor WPA Designer/Engineer Hennepin County Highway Department Description Bridge 90646 is a single-span, multi plate arch bridge that carries Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek in Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Edina Country Club golf course is located directly west of the bridge and St. Stephens Episcopal Church is located directly east of the bridge. The bridge is oriented in a north-south alignment over Minnehaha Creek. At this location the creek is narrow and rocky, and has sloped banks which are covered with dense growth of small trees and shrubs. The bridge has a total length of 44 feet, a span of 18 feet, and an out-and-out width of 40 feet 5 inches. The deck is 40 feet wide and carries a 32-foot-wide roadway that has a bituminous wearing surface applied over earth fill. A concrete sidewalk extends along the east side of the roadway. The bridge’s semi-circular arch and barrel are constructed of Armco Multi plate corrugated steel plates, which are bolted together. The voussoirs are rectangular-shaped and are applied perpendicular to the arch. The voussoirs increase in height closer to the center of the arch where an elongated keystone marks the middle. The abutments have engaged pilasters and are constructed of reinforced-concrete with Platteville limestone facing with raked mortar joints. The bridge’s headwalls and wingwalls (also referred to as spandrel walls) extend above the deck to form the railing. The engaged pilasters also extend above the deck forming the railing end posts. The solid railings are slightly arched and topped with a thin limestone cap that overhangs the width of the railings. A plaque inscribed with “WPA 1937” is located on the inside of the south end of the eastern railing. Short limestone retaining walls extend upstream and downstream from the end posts. Significance In March 1937 the Village of Edina turned its attention to replacing a deteriorated bridge on Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek. The existing crossing was a timber-stringer structure that was both too narrow and too light for the traffic demands of the site. The new bridge was to be a WPA project, which meant that the Village was responsible for providing engineering and materials, while the federal work- relief agency would pay for the labor. According to the council minutes, there were four different types of construction under consideration: "reinforced concrete, piling with I beams, creosoted wood culverts, and inverted multi plate steel arch on concrete base with rubble or boulder stone facings." The Village decided in favor of the stone-faced, multi plate arch—the type that most suited the crossing's residential location and the WPA's work-relief aesthetic. For bridge plans, the Village turned to the Hennepin County Highway Department, and it secured the multi plate arch from the Lyle Pipe and Culvert Company. In August 1937, the Edina Crier announced Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 II – Historic Data JUNE 2014 Historic Data II - 4 that "one of the village's most attractive civic improvements, the new Wooddale Avenue Bridge is being completed. The structure, a modern, 40-foot inverted Armco culvert span, replaces the old 16-foot bridge that had stood for many years. Stonework has been completed, workmen in the last few days have been applying the finishing touches, and the bridge has been opened to traffic." The Armco Culvert Manufacturers Association introduced multi plate in 1931. The galvanized, corrugated-iron product was fabricated in curved segments to facilitate shipping in "nested" position. For bridge construction, the segments were bolted together in the field to form an arch, which was typically anchored by concrete headwalls and abutments. Frequently, the concrete work was ornamented with stone facing in order to simulate a stone-arch bridge. Such construction found ready acceptance with work-relief planners of the 1930s, for the stone-faced, multi plate arch bridge was highly compatible with the New Deal's agenda of promoting highway beautification, local craft skills and materials, and labor- intensive public works projects. Bridge 90646 exemplifies the types of projects undertaken by the WPA as a labor-intensive project that utilized local laborers for its construction. With its Platteville limestone walls, Bridge 90646 also exemplifies the Rustic Style design aesthetic popularized by the WPA. The Rustic Style is a style of architecture that was previously developed by the National Park Service (NPS). Rustic Style buildings and structures were designed to harmonize with the natural environment. The hallmark of buildings and structures constructed in the Rustic Style is that they were built with whatever materials were available locally, utilized labor intensive building methods, and often had a hand-crafted appearance. Platteville limestone was chosen to harmonize with the design of the nearby St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church. This is in keeping with the design principles of the Rustic Style, as Platteville limestone is a locally available material and the use of it emphasizes the bridge’s relationship with its surrounding environment. Research did not reveal any alterations to Bridge 90646 since its construction. It retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. The bridge continues to carry a vehicular road over Minnehaha Creek in Edina. The bridge retains integrity of setting, feeling, location, and association. The period of significance for the bridge is 1937 corresponding with the date of its construction. Bridge 90646 is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A in the area of Politics and Government, for its association with the WPA. The bridge is an outstanding and rare surviving example of a single-span, multi plate arch bridge with masonry facing that was constructed by the WPA. The bridge represents the impact of New Deal public works programs in Edina and is the only New Deal multi plate arch bridge extant in Hennepin County. As such, Bridge 90646 is significant for its exemplification of the types of labor-intensive public works projects undertaken by the WPA during the Great Depression, in order to provide work for the unemployed. Bridge 90646 is also eligible for the National Register for its design and workmanship under Criterion C in the area of Engineering. With its roughly coursed, rubble limestone veneer, Bridge 90646 is an excellent example of the Rustic Style as applied to bridges. The Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) associated with this context presents the following registration criteria for the multi plate arch type: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 II – Historic Data JUNE 2014 Historic Data II - 5 Since the multi-plate [sic] arch bridge is most notable for its modular corrugated-metal construction and stone headwalls and spandrels, these features should be clearly visible and relatively unaltered. And since the multi plate arch bridge enjoyed its vogue at least partly because of the New Deal's encouragement of roadside beautification, the bridge's workmanship and design should be on the original site, harmonious with the general setting, of high aesthetic quality, and of New Deal vintage. Bridge 90646 satisfies all of these criteria. Historic Context Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota, 1873-1945 National Register Status Eligible (Individually) Criterion A Significance Politics/Government Criterion C Significance Engineering: High artistic value Historic District N/A SHPO inventory number HE-EDC-633 Sources Used to Compile Section II -- Historic Data Bridge 90646 electronic record in the Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Database. Bridge 90646 File, in Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul. Bridge 90646 File, in Edina City Hall, Edina, Minnesota. Edina City Council, Minutes, 12, 16 October 1936, 8 March 1937, in Edina City Hall. The following notices in the Edina Crier of 1937: "New 40-foot Bridge over Minnehaha Creek" (September), "Work Finished on Wooddale Bridge" (August). Fredric L. Quivik, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota," National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Sec. F, 10-11, in State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. Field inspection by Denis Gardner, 8 October 1996. Field inspection by LHB, Inc. and Mead & Hunt, Inc., 31 July 2013. National Register Nomination Draft, Bridge 90646, Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 II – Historic Data JUNE 2014 Historic Data II - 6 Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of a historic property that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include materials, engineering design, and structural and decorative details. Often, the character-defining features include important historic fabric. However, historic fabric can also be found on other elements of a bridge that have not been noted as character-defining. For this reason, it is important to consider both character- defining features and the bridge’s historic fabric when planning any work. Feature 1: Design and construction of a multi plate arch. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 II – Historic Data JUNE 2014 Historic Data II - 7 Feature 2: Overall WPA Rustic Style design aesthetic as represented through use of a randomly coursed limestone, masonry parapet/railing with stone cap, curved limestone wingwalls, and limestone arch ring. This feature includes the concrete plaque identifying the bridge as “WPA 1937.” Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 III – Bridge Data JUNE 2014 Bridge Data III - 8 Date of Construction (remodel) 1937 Common Name (if any) Location Feature Carried: WOODDALE AVE Feature Crossed: Minnehaha Creek County: Hennepin Ownership: City of Edina MnDOT Structure Data *Data Current (as of): Sep 2013 Main Span Type: 315 STEEL PIPE ARCH Main Span detail: Substructure Type - Foundation Type: Abutment: 1-Concrete - 1-Spread/Soil Piers: N-Not Applicable - N-Not Applicable Total Length: 21 ft Main Span Length: 18 ft Total Number of Span(s): 1 Skew (degrees): 0 Structure Flared: No Flare Roadway Function: Urban, Local Custodian/Maintenance Type: City Reported Owner Inspection Date 10/29/2012 Sufficiency Rating 61.7 Operating Rating HS 18 Inventory Rating HS 12 Structure Status A - Open Posting VEH: SEMI: DBL: Design Load UNKN Current Condition Code Roadway Clearances Deck: N Roadway Width: 31 ft Superstructure: N Vert. Clearance Over Rdwy: N/A Substructure: N Vert. Clearance Under Rdwy: N/A Channel and Protection: 6 Lat. Clearance Right: 0 ft Culvert: 7 Lat. Clearance Left: 0 ft Current Appraisal Rating Roadway Data Structural Evaluation: 4 ADT Total: 5300 (2005) Deck Geometry: 3 Truck ADT Percentage: Not given Underclearances: N Bypass Detour length: 7 miles Waterway Adequacy: 8 Number of Lanes: 2 Approach Alignment: 8 Fracture Critical No Waterway Data Deficient Status F.O. Scour Code: I-LOW RISK Non-MnDOT Data Approach Roadway Characteristics **Number of Crashes reported Lane Widths: 16 ft in MnMCAT within 500 feet Shoulder Width: N/A (C&G) of Bridge Site 27 Shoulders Paved or Unpaved: N/A (C&G) Roadway Surfacing: Bituminous Location of Plans City of Edina Plans Available Original Plan Sheet * Non-MnDOT data collected during field survey. All other fields of data collected from MnDOT September of 2013. See Appendix C for MnDOT inventory and inspection report data. ** Unless a significant number of crashes are noted on or near a bridge, the accident data is not detailed in this report. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 9 Existing Conditions Available information, as detailed in the Project Introduction section, concerning Bridge 90646 was reviewed prior to visiting the bridge site. The site visit was conducted to establish the following: 1. General condition of structure 2. Conformation to available extant plans 3. Current use of structure 4. Roadway/pedestrian trail geometry and alignment (as applicable) 5. Bridge geometry, clearances and notable site issues General Bridge Description Bridge 90646 is a single-span corrugated multi plate arch structure, about 44 feet in total length. The plate arch span is approximately 18 feet. The steel plate arch is supported by cast-in-place concrete spread footings. Bridge 90646 carries Wooddale Avenue over Minnehaha Creek in the City of Edina. The bridge features limestone masonry headwalls, railings and wingwalls. The bituminous-surface roadway is about 32 feet wide, gutter to gutter. There is a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the east side of the bridge. The railing height varies from 3 feet 10 inches on the ends to about 4 feet 5 inches at mid-span. Railings and wingwalls are parallel to the roadway. Remnants of smaller curved stone masonry walls were noted off each end of the existing wingwalls. These walls are somewhat intact on the east side but are missing nearly entirely on the west side. There are also small stone masonry walls present along the stream channel that abut each of the bridge wingwalls. Serviceability Observations The bridge is currently open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic with no apparent load posting restrictions from legal loads. Condition Observations Roadway Surface The existing bituminous roadway is in good condition with no significant deficiencies noted. Bridge Railings The stone masonry bridge railings are solid limestone masonry capped with limestone slabs. The original bridge plans show timber elements in the railing details, but no timber elements are present at this time. The railings comprise the top level of the masonry headwalls and wingwalls and are about 2 feet thick. The railing height varies along the length of the bridge with the end minimum height at about 3 feet 10 inches at the ends, and a maximum mid-span height of 4 feet 5 inches. The east rail leans outward about 1 inch in 4 feet. The condition of the existing stone masonry railings is fair to poor. The relatively soft limestone has weathered and deteriorated with nearly all stones cracked, and widespread areas of mortar deterioration, especially on the roadside face of the railings. Crumbled stone and mortar has collected at the base of the railings. The solid limestone slab railing caps are nearly 100 percent deteriorated. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 10 Bridge Headwalls and Wingwalls The stone masonry headwalls and wingwalls below the railing are in fair condition. The stone in these areas is in markedly better condition than the railing stones, presumably due to less exposure.to road salts. Widespread deterioration of the mortar was noted. Many areas of the mortar on the headwalls were cracked and de-bonded from the stone. Arch ring stones along the perimeter of the plate arch were in good to fair condition. Alignment and geometry of the headwalls and wingwalls appeared to be true. Steel Multi Plate Arch The galvanized steel multi plate arches are in good condition overall. Though water conditions were relatively high at the time of this site visit, the zinc coating appeared to be in good condition overall. Active corrosion was noted at and near the connection of the arch to the concrete abutments with the most severe being at the southeast corner. Substructures The substructures are cast-in-place concrete footings bearing on the native soil. Due to the high water level at the time of the field assessment, access to most of the footings was not possible. Scouring and undermining of the east end of the south footing was noted, about 3 feet in length and 12 inches in depth beneath the bottom of the footing. Approach/Waterway Observations The bridge approaches appear suitable for the current bridge function with no deficiencies noted other than the presence of a mature tree at the southeast corner that may be affecting the stone masonry wingwalls. The waterway geometry appears to be adequate, though the velocity at the time of the field assessment was high. The retaining walls along the channel that abut the bridge wingwalls at the water’s edge were noted to be poor condition with undermining and missing stones throughout. Accident Data There are 27 reported accidents within 500 feet of the bridge site, in the MnMCAT system. The majority of these crashes took place at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and 50th Street (a highly traveled roadway). The bridge is not considered a contributing factor to this high number of vehicular accidents. Date of Engineering Site Visit by LHB July 31, 2013 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 11 Condition 1: Bridge approach, looking north Condition 2: West elevation, looking northeast Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 12 Condition 3: Looking north at top of west railing (note deteriorated masonry on the top and at the base of the railing) Condition 4: View of east railing, looking south Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 13 Condition 5: General view of northeast wingwall Condition 6: General view of northeast wingwall masonry Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 14 Condition 7: General corrosion at waterline Condition 8: Corrosion in southeast corner Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 15 Condition 9: Stamp on inside of steel plate arch Condition 10: Remnants of walls off ends of wings, west side Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 16 Condition 11: Typical east side channel wall (northeast shown) Condition 12: Typical west side channel wall (southwest shown) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 17 Condition 13: Tree growing near southeast corner Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 18 Overall Recommendations The bridge is currently open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The recommendations which follow assume the structure’s use will remain the same. Bridge 90646 is not currently load posted. However, the latest rating of the bridge was performed in 1973. The bridge rating is outdated and should be re- evaluated for the current condition of the structure. Costs for this rating have been included in the Preliminary Design and Assessment estimate. Stabilization, preservation, and maintenance activities that could extend the serviceability and overall longevity of the bridge are detailed below. Recommended Stabilization Activities 1. Remove mature tree in southeast corner. Recommended Preservation Activities The overall condition of the bridge can be described as fair. While the multi plate arches are in good condition, save for some minor corrosion, the stone masonry on the bridge is in fair to poor condition, particularly the railing. Some geometric distortion was noted in the east railing but overall the bridge lines appeared straight and true. An overall preservation plan should be developed to improve the noted deficiencies. Based on our field observations the bridge appears to be nearing a critical point in its lifespan where investment in the near term could significantly delay or prevent accelerated deterioration or loss of the bridge superstructure. The recommended preservation activities are: Bridge Railings Due to their deteriorated condition, it is recommended to remove and replace the stone masonry railings down to the arch crown elevation. The railing stones are spalled, cracked, and eroded beyond the point of practical salvage. At the time of rehabilitation planning, a detailed study should be conducted to determine the level of repair required and analysis should be conducted to confirm that the current condition of the masonry precludes repair. The estimated costs contained in this report assume that the railings will require reconstruction to the limits described above. . A mortar study should be performed to ensure selection of a mortar that is compatible in composition, strength, color, texture and tooling. To maintain historic integrity it will also be necessary for the project construction details to fully define the repointing requirements including but not limited to such items as joint preparation, mortar finish and tooling, mortar curing, and preparation of repointing test panels. Similarly, the replacement stones selected shall match the original stones in color, origin (if possible) and composition. At the time of rail reconstruction, it is recommended that the four smaller decorative walls off each wingwall at roadway level be reconstructed. Arch, Roadway & Sidewalk When either the roadway and sidewalk need to be replaced, or the arch begins to show signs of corrosion, it is recommended that the sidewalk and bituminous surface be removed and replaced and at the same time, remove the earth fill above the steel multi plate arch and inspect steel surfaces for Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 IV – Existing Conditions/Recommendations JUNE 2014 Existing Conditions/Recommendations IV - 19 corrosion. After any corrosion of the top surface is addressed, the fill shall be replaced with clean aggregate and include a drainage system. Consideration for installation of a waterproofing membrane should also be made. This repair is anticipated to be required in approximately 10 years and has been included in the preservation cost estimate. Bridge Headwalls and Wingwalls The alignment and condition of the headwalls makes them a very good candidate to be rehabilitated before they deteriorate to the level where replacement is required. Although the stones appear to be severely weathered, it was observed that removal of mortar and repointing of stone masonry on headwalls and wingwalls would be possible with very limited loss of original stones. It will be required to replace those stone that do not hold up to the repointing process (estimate 60 square feet). At the time of rehabilitation planning, a detailed study should be conducted to determine the level of repair required. Repair mortar and replacement stones should be chosen as detailed in the Railing Section above. Channel Walls The stone masonry walls at the channel edge are severely deteriorated and should be reconstructed. As with the railing, headwalls and wingwalls, the decision to replace these historic elements should follow a detailed study and repair or replacement shall follow the same guidelines for selection of replacement stones and mortar. Substructures It is recommended to underpin the concrete footings to mitigate scour action. Concrete underpin walls placed at the scoured locations shall be designed to be as visually unobtrusive as possible while protecting the footings from continued scour. Recommended Annual Maintenance Activities 1. Flush bridge roadway, sidewalks, and stone masonry railings, headwalls and wingwalls each spring with water to remove salt residue. Low pressure spray, less than 400 psi, should be used to ensure there is no damage to surface finishes. Test flushing method and water pressure to ensure it does not damage or abrade the bridge surfaces. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 V – Projected Costs JUNE 2014 Projected Costs V - 20 Summarized Maintenance, Stabilization and Preservation Construction Cost Estimates It is important to recognize that the work scope and cost estimates presented herein are based on a limited level assessment of the existing structure. In moving forward with future project planning, it will be essential to undertake a detailed structure assessment addressing the proposed work for the structure. It is also important that any future preservation work follow applicable preservation standards with emphasis to rehabilitate and repair in-place structure elements in lieu of replacement. This includes elements which are preliminarily estimated for replacement within the work scope of this report. Only through a thorough review of rehabilitation and repair options and comprehensive structural and historic assessment can a definitive conclusion for replacement of historic fabric be formed. The opinions of probable construction and administrative costs provided below are presented in 2013 dollars. These costs were developed without benefit of a detailed, thorough bridge inspection, bridge survey or completion of preliminary design for the estimated improvements. The estimated costs represent an opinion based on background knowledge of historic unit prices and comparable work performed on other structures. The opinions of cost are intended to provide a programming level of estimated cost. These costs will require refinement and may require significant adjustments as further analysis is completed in determining the course of action for future structure improvements. A 20 percent contingency and 7 percent mobilization allowance has been included in the construction cost estimates. Administrative and engineering costs are also presented below. Engineering and administrative costs are also to be interpreted as programming level only. Costs can be highly variable and are dependent on structure condition, intended work scope, project size and level of investigative, testing and documentation work necessary. Additional studies, evaluation, and historical consultation costs not exclusively called out may also be incurred on a case-by-case basis. Maintenance, Stabilization and Preservation Costs (refer to the work item breakdown on the next page) Opinion of Annual Cost- Maintenance Activities: $ 1,800 Opinion of Construction Cost- Stabilization Activities: $ 2,650 Opinion of Construction Cost- Preservation Activities: $ 494,280 Estimated Preliminary Design, Final Design, Construction Administration Costs Preliminary Design and Assessment $ 12,000 Final Design and Plans $ 45,000 Construction Administration $ 55,000 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 V – Projected Costs JUNE 2014 Projected Costs V - 21 MAINTENANCE, STABILIZATION & PRESERVATION COST ESTIMATE (2013 DOLLARS) Bridge No. 90646 January 7, 2014 1 FLUSH STONE MASONRY HEADWALLS AND RAILINGS LUMP SUM 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 20% CONTINGENCY LUMP SUM 1 $300.00 $300.00 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS $1,800 MOBILIZATION @ 7%LUMP SUM 1 $150.00 $150.00 1 REMOVE TREE TREE 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 20% CONTINGENCY LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00 $2,650 MOBILIZATION @ 7%LUMP SUM 1 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 1 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ FT 2175 $4.00 $8,700.00 2 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 150 $5.00 $750.00 3 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS SQ FT 450 $3.00 $1,350.004REMOVE MASONRY (RAILINGS)LIN FT 88 $110.00 $9,680.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 450 $12.00 $5,400.00 6 REPLACE EARTH ARCH FILL & ROAD BASE MATERIAL CU YD 450 $26.00 $11,700.00 7 REPLACE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TON 70 $110.00 $7,700.00 8 REPLACE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS SQ FT 450 $12.00 $5,400.00 9 REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 150 $24.00 $3,600.00 10 UNDERPIN CONCRETE ABUTMENTS LIN FT 25 $1,400.00 $35,000.00 11 RECONSTRUCT STONE MASONRY WALLS (STREAM)SQ YD.45 $2,200.00 $99,000.00 12 RECONSTRUCT STONE MASONRY WALLS (WING ENDS)SQ YD.10 $2,500.00 $25,000.00 13 RECONSTRUCT STONE MASONRY RAILINGS SQ YD.45 $1,200.00 $54,000.00 14 STONE RAILING CAPS LIN FT 88 $700.00 $61,600.00 15 100% REPOINTING OF HEADWALLS AND WINGWALLS SQ FT 400 $28.00 $11,200.00 16 STONE MASONRY REPLACEMENT SQ FT 60 $220.00 $13,200.00 17 DRAINAGE SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 18 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE SQ FT 1400 $20.00 $28,000.00 20% CONTINGENCY LUMP SUM 1 $83,000.00 $83,000.00 $494,280 ESTIMATED STABILIZATION COSTS ESTIMATED PRESERVATION COSTS STABILIZATION COSTS PRESERVATION COSTS ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AND COST ITEM NO.ITEM UNIT MAINTENANCE COSTS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ESTIMATE Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 Appendices JUNE 2014 Appendices - 22 Appendix A. Glossary Glossary Abutment – Component of bridge substructure at either end of bridge that transfers load from superstructure to foundation and provides lateral support for the approach roadway embankment. Appraisal ratings – Five National Bridge Inventory (NBI) appraisal ratings (structural evaluation, deck geometry, under-clearances, waterway adequacy, and approach alignment, as defined below), collectively called appraisal ratings, are used to evaluate a bridge’s overall structural condition and load- carrying capacity. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design standards. Ratings range from a low of 0 (closed bridge) to a high of 9 (superior). Any appraisal item not applicable to a specific bridge is coded N. Approach alignment – One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises a bridge’s functionality based on the alignment of its approaches. It incorporates a typical motorist’s speed reduction because of the horizontal or vertical alignment of the approach. Character-defining features – Prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of a historic property that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include structural or decorative details and materials. Condition, fair – A bridge or bridge component of which all primary structural elements are sound, but may have minor deterioration, section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour. Condition, good – A bridge or bridge component which may have some minor deficiencies, but all primary structural elements are sound. Condition, poor – A bridge or bridge component that displays advanced section loss, deterioration, cracking, spalling, or scour. Condition rating – Level of deterioration of bridge components and elements expressed on a numerical scale according to the NBI system. Components include the substructure, superstructure, deck, channel, and culvert. Elements are subsets of components, e.g., piers and abutments are elements of the component substructure. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design standards. Component ratings range from 0 (failure) to 9 (new) or N for (not applicable); elements are rated on a scale of 1-3, 1-4 or 1-5 (depending on the element type and material). In all cases condition state 1 is the best condition with condition state 3, 4 or 5 being the worst condition. In rating a bridge’s condition, MnDOT pairs the NBI system with the newer and more sophisticated Pontis element inspection information, which quantifies bridge elements in different condition states and is the basis for subsequent economic analysis. Corrosion – The general disentegration of metal through oxidation. Cutwater – The wedge-shaped end of a bridge pier, designed to divide the current and break up ice. Decay – Deterioration of wood as a result of fungi feeding on its cell walls. Delamination – Surface separation of concrete, steel, glue laminated timber plies etc. into layers. Deck geometry – One of five NBI appraisal ratings. This rating appraises the functionality of a bridge’s roadway width and vertical clearance, taking into account the type of roadway, number of lanes, and ADT. Deficiency – The inadequacy of a bridge in terms of structure, serviceability, and/or function. Structural deficiency is determined through periodic inspections and is reflected in the ratings that are assigned to a bridge. Service deficiency is determined by comparing the facilities a bridge provides for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic with those that are desired. Functional deficiency is another term for functionally obsolete (see below). Remedial activities may be needed to address any or all of these deficiencies. Deficiency rating – A nonnumeric code indicating a bridge’s status as structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). See below for the definitions of SD and FO. The deficiency rating status may be used as a basis for establishing a bridge’s eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation. Design exception – A deviation from federal design and geometric standards that takes into account environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a transportation project. A design exception is used for federally funded projects where federal standards are not met. Approval requires appropriate justification and documentation that concerns for safety, durability, and economy of maintenance have been met. Design load – The usable live-load capacity that a bridge was designed to carry, expressed in tons according to the AASHTO allowable stress, load factor, or load resistance factor rating methods. An additional code was recently added to assess design load by a rating factor instead of tons. This code is used to determine if a bridge has sufficient strength to accommodate traffic load demands. A bridge that is posted for load restrictions is not adequate to accommodate present or expected legal truck traffic. Deterioration – Decline in condition of surfaces or structure over a period of time due to chemical or physical degradation. Efflorescence – A deposit on concrete or brick caused by crystallization of carbonates brought to the surface by moisture in the masonry or concrete. Extant – Currently or actually existing. Extrados – The upper or outer surfaces of the voussoirs which compose the arch ring. Often contrasted with intrados. Footing – The enlarged, lower portion of a substructure which distributes the structure load either to the earth or to supporting piles. Fracture Critical Members – Tension members or tension components of bending members (including those subject to reversal of stress) whose failure would be expected to result in collapse of the bridge. Functionally obsolete – The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classification of a bridge that does not meet current or projected traffic needs because of inadequate horizontal or vertical clearance, inadequate load-carrying capacity, and/or insufficient opening to accommodate water flow under the bridge. An appraisal rating of 3 or less for deck geometry, underclearance, approach alignment, structural evaluation or waterway adequacy will designate a bridge as functionally obsolete. Gusset plate – A plate that connects the horizontal and vertical members of a truss structure and holds them in correct position at a joint. Helicoidal – Arranged in or having the approximate shape of a flattened coil or spiral. Historic fabric – The material in a bridge that was part of original construction or a subsequent alteration within the historic period of the bridge (i.e., more than 50 years old). Historic fabric is an important part of the character of the historic bridge and the removal, concealment, or alteration of any historic material or distinctive engineering or architectural feature should be avoided if possible. Often, the character- defining features include important historic fabric. However, historic fabric can also be found on other elements of a bridge that have not been noted as character-defining. Historic bridge – A bridge that is listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. Historic integrity – The authenticity of a bridge’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival and/or restoration of physical characteristics that existed during the bridge’s historic period. A bridge may have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Inspections – Periodic field assessments and subsequent consideration of the fitness of a structure and the associated approaches and amenities to continue to function safely. Intrados – The innner or lower surface of an arch. Often contrasted with extrados. Inventory rating – The load level a bridge can safely carry for an indefinite amount of time expressed in tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see above). Inventory rating values typically correspond to the original design load for a bridge without deterioration. Keystone – Wedge-shaped stone, or voussoir, at the crown of an arch. Load Rating – The determination of the live load carrying capacity of a bridge using bridge plans and supplemented by field inspection. Maintenance – Work of a routine nature to prevent or control the process of deterioration of a bridge. Minnesota Historical Property Record – A documentary record of an important architectural, engineering, or industrial site, maintained by the Minnesota Historical Socitety as part of the state’s commitment to historic preservation. MHPR typically includes large-format photographs and written history, and may also include historic photographs, drawings, and/or plans. This state-level documentation program is modeled after a federal program known as the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER). National Bridge Inventory – Bridge inventory and appraisal data collected by the FHWA to fulfill the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Each state maintains an inventory of its bridges subject to NBIS and sends an annual update to the FHWA. National Bridge Inspection Standards – Federal requirements for procedures and frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of state bridge inventories. NBIS applies to bridges located on public roads. National Register of Historic Places – The official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). Non-vehicular traffic – Pedestrians, non-motorized recreational vehicles, and small motorized recreational vehicles moving along a transportation route that does not serve automobiles and trucks. Includes bicycles and snowmobiles. Operating rating – Maximum permissible load level to which a bridge may be subjected based on a specific truck type, expressed in tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see above). Pack rust – Rust forming between adjacent steel surfaces in contact which tends to force the surfaces apart due to the increase in steel volume. Pier – A substructure unit that supports the spans of a multi-span superstructure at an intermediate location between its abutments. Pointing – The compaction of mortar into the outermost portion of a joint and the troweling of its exposed surface to secure water tightness and/ or desired architectural effect (when replacing deteriorated mortar). Pony truss – A through bridge with parallel chords and having no top lateral bracing over the deck between the top chords. Posted load – Legal live-load capacity for a bridge which is associated with the operating rating. A bridge posted for load restrictions is inadequate for legal truck traffic. Pontis – Computer-based bridge management system to store inventory and inspection data and assist in other bridge data management tasks. Preservation – Preservation, as used in this report, refers to historic preservation that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Historic preservation means saving from destruction or deterioration old and historic buildings, sites, structures, and objects, and providing for their continued use by means of restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse. It is the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a historic building or structure, and its site and setting. MnDOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines describe preservation differently, focusing on repairing or delaying the deterioration of a bridge without significantly improving its function and without considerations for its historic integrity. Preventive maintenance – The planned strategy of cost-effective treatments that preserve a bridge, slow future deterioration, and maintain or improve its functional condition without increasing structural capacity. Reconstruction – The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Activities should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Rehabilitation – The act or process of returning a historic 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 that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Historic rehabilitation, as used in this report, refers to implementing activities that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As such, rehabilitation retains historic fabric and is different from replacement. MnDOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines describe rehabilitation and replacement in similar terms. Restoration – The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time. Activities should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Ring stone – One of the separate stones of an arch that shows on the face of the headwall, or end of the arch. Also known as a voussoir. Scaling – The gradual distentegration of a concrete surface due to the failure of the cement surface caused by chemical attack or freeze-thaw cycles or rebar too close to the surface and oxidizing from exposure to chlorides. Scour – Removal of material from a river’s bed or bank by flowing water, compromising the strength, stability, and serviceability of a bridge. Scour critical rating – A measure of a bridge’s vulnerability to scour (see above). MnDOT utilizes letter designations to represent specific descriptions of a bridges susceptibility and/ or present condition in regards to scour. Range in condition and scour susceptibility does not necessarily correlate alpha numerically to the MnDOT scour code letters so it is important to understand the specifc scour description for each MnDOT scour code. The scour codes and descriptions can be found in the ”MNDOT Bridge Inspection Field Manual”. Section loss – Loss of a member’s cross sectional area and resulting strength usually by corrosion or decay. Serviceability – Level of facilities a bridge provides for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, compared with current design standards. Smart flag – Special Pontis inspection element used to report the condition assessment of a deficiency that cannot be modeled, such as cracks, section loss, and steel fatigue. Spall – Depression in concrete caused by a separation of a portion of the surface concrete, revealing a fracture parallel with or slighty inclined to the surface. Spring line – The imaginary horizontal line at which an arch or vault begins to curve. As example, the point of transition from the vertical face of an abutment to the start of arch curvature extending from abutment face. Stabilization – The act or process of stopping or slowing further deterioration of a bridge by means of making minor repairs until a more permanent repair or rehabilitation can be completed. Stringcourse – A horizontal band of masonry, generally narrower than other courses and sometimes projecting, that extends across the structure’s horizontal face as an architectural accent. Also known as belt course. Structural evaluation – Condition rating of a bridge designed to carry vehicular loads, expressed as a numeric value and based on the condition of the superstructure and substructure, the inventory load rating, and the ADT. Structurally deficient – Classification indicating NBI condition rating of 4 or less for any of the following: deck condition, superstructure condition, substructure condition, or culvert condition. A bridge is also classified as structurally deficient if it has an appraisal rating of 2 or less for its structural evaluation or waterway adequacy.. A structurally deficient bridge is restricted to lightweight vehicles; requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open to traffic; or requires maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. Sufficiency rating – Rating of a bridge’s structural adequacy and safety for public use, and its serviceability and function, expressed on a numeric scale ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 100. It is a relative measure of a bridge’s deterioration, load capacity deficiency, or functional obsolescence. MnDOT may use the rating as a basis for establishing eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation. Typically, bridges which are structurally deficient and have sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80 are eligible for federal rehabilitation funds and those which are structurally deficient with sufficientcy ratings of 50 and below are eligible for replacement. Through truss – A bridge with parallel top and bottom chords and top lateral bracing with the deck generally near the bottom chord. Under-clearances – One of five NBI appraisal ratings. This rating appraises the suitability of the horizontal and vertical clearances of a grade-separation structure, taking into account whether traffic beneath the structure is one- or two-way. Variance – A deviation from State Aid Operations Statute Rules that takes into account environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a transportation project. A design variance is used for projects using state aid funds. Approval requires appropriate justification and documentation that concerns for safety, durability and economy of maintenance have been met. Vehicular traffic – The passage of automobiles and trucks along a transportation route. Voussoir – One of the separate stones forming an arch ring; also known as a ring stone. Waterway adequacy – One of five NBI appraisal ratings. This rating appraises a bridge’s waterway opening and passage of flow under or through the bridge, frequency of roadway overtopping, and typical duration of an overtopping event. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 Appendices JUNE 2014 Appendices - 30 Appendix B. Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Secretary’s Standards with Regard to Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Situations Adapted from: Clark, Kenneth M., Grimes, Mathew C., and Ann B. Miller, Final Report, A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia, Virginia Transportation Research Council, 2001. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, first codified in 1979 and revised in 1992, have been interpreted and applied largely to buildings rather than engineering structures. In this document, the differences between buildings and structures are recognized and the language of the Standards has been adapted to the special requirements of historic bridges. 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to continue an historic bridge in useful transportation service. Primary consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of the bridge on site. Only when this option has been fully exhausted shall other alternatives be explored. 2. The original character-defining qualities or elements of a bridge, its site, and its environment should be respected. The removal, concealment, or alteration of any historic material or distinctive engineering or architectural feature should be avoided. 3. All bridges shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create a false historical appearance shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive engineering and stylistic features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize an historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated structural members and architectural features shall be retained and repaired, rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive element, the new element should match the old in design, texture, and other visual qualities and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical and physical treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the most environmentally sensitive means possible. 8. Significant archaeological and cultural resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, structural reinforcements, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Bridge Number: 90646 Appendices JUNE 2014 Appendices - 33 Appendix C. Documents Additional Electronic Data Bridge 90646 Historic Data • Research Local Data • 2013 MN Local Historic Bridge Study • 90646 Returned Form • Questionnaire MN Local Historic Bridge Study MnDOT Reports • Accident Report • From City of Edina o Inspection records from 1973 - 2013 • 90646 Condition Sheet 2010 • 90646 Inspection 10-29-13 • 90646 Inventory 05-29-13 Photos • 2005 Photos • 90646_LHB_07-31-13 • 90646_M&H Photos_7-31-13 • 90646 Report Photos Plans • Bridge No.281 d Date: August 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:4630 Drexel Sketch Plan Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Prior to filing a complete application (no application fee is required), an applicant may request to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for an informal exchange when the HPC can review the basic concept of a proposed project and offer suggestions to a potential applicant. The purpose of this review is to provide assistance in resolving problems or meeting requirements if the potential applicant decides to proceed with the COA process. In this manner, the HP C may provide preliminary, non-binding guidance on the suitability of the project with a minimum burden of expense on a property owner. Such consultation shall bind neither the property owner nor the HPC, and statements made by HP C members shall not form a basis for invalidating any subsequent action taken. Materials presented for this discussion should include site plans, drawings, photographs or other sufficient information to allow for a meaningful understanding of the intended conceptual design. Sketch Plan Review does not require formal notice to neighboring properties but must take place only at regular (formal) meetings of the HPC. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Sketch Plan Submittal 4630 Drexel Sketch Plan Drawings Survey of Similar Garages 2019 4630 Drexel COA Drawings 4630 Drexel Avenue Refresh and Addition Sketch Plan Review John and Cathy Wolf We are looking to refresh the residence of 4630 Drexel Ave and bring the design & construction into today's living. We want to achieve this while carrying forward the historic Spanish Colonial elements of the existing home. We are incorporating elements from the Spanish Colonial style including two story wall heights, white stucco wall finish, compound low pitched gable roofs with gable corbel details, maintaining the street facing chimney, arched windows/openings, and metal balconies/railings. We accomplished this through the support & guidance given by adjacent neighbors' letters and they are all anxious for us to get started on this project. Our goal is to refresh this house and add value to the community that will create a beautiful new home that we and the neighborhood will enjoy for years to come! We were previously granted a COA for this project in January, 2019. After spending more time looking at the approved plans, we realized there were a few changes we wanted to make. The new plan is a better floor plan for how we live. The new plans are also an improvement for us and the neighborhood in the following ways: 1.We realized that the new garage/upper level addition of the old plan was too massive, blocked significant sunlight into the home and blocked all views of our children playing in the driveway/yard area. 4630 Drexel Avenue fronts the main entrance to the Country Club District. The intersection of Drexel/Country Club Road/Wooddale Avenue is sometimes referred to as “spaghetti junction.” There are 6 flows of traffic coming to this one intersection (Drexel Northbound and Southbound, Country Club East and Westbound, Wooddale North and Southbound). Adjacent to 4630 Drexel there are 5 stop signs, 1 yield sign, 2 keep right signs, 1 do not enter sign, 4 bike route signs, 8 driveways and 2 traffic islands). By pulling the mass of the new addition back, the new plan allows better views of our children outside and in the side yard (which is the only “back yard” of this property). This new plan will make the new home safer for our family. It is also a better plan for preventing car headlights from shining into our sleeping areas. 2. The new plan pulls the mass of the rear 2 story addition further away from the street than the old plan. This makes the new home look less massive from Country Club Road and has better articulation than the old plan. The garage addition on the old plan was 32’ from the Country Club Road setback. The garage on the new plan will be approximately 58’ from the Country Club Road setback. As shown on the site plan, this will hide the garage in the rear. The new garage will also be blocked from view by the wing wall of the new addition and a row of trees. It is worth noting that street-facing attached garages are very common in the District (38 out of the 68 corner lots-see attachment). This new garage addition will require a 15’ rear lot line setback variance from the Planning Commission as it is 10’ from the rear lot line. The adjacent attached garage at 4625 Wooddale is 5.3 from their rear lot line so this is a condition existing in the area and other corner lots in the District (5 other corner lot homes in Country Club adjacent to busy traffic islands have attached street-facing garages less than 25’ from the rear for line - see attachment). 3. The new plan is more in character with the existing home. It is a more modest vernacular house that maintains more of the existing design elements. The two story addition on the west end is less massive looking from the street. We feel this will be a better fit for the District than the previous plan. 4. The new plan eliminates the non-conforming 8’ setback on the north side of the home. 5. The old plan had 2 steps down from the foyer to the dining room/kitchen area. The new plan lowers the foyer to create one level floor with no sunken areas 6. The new plan has a covered entry over the front door. This is an element common on other Spanish Colonial/Mediterranean homes in the District such as this example at 4510 Moorland Avenue: Comparing East/Drexel Avenue Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing South /fCountry Club Road Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing West /Facing 4625 Wooddale Garage Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing North /Facing 4626 Drexel Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Existing Streetscapes ExitExisting Front Facing Drexel ExitExisting Front Country Club Road ExitExisting View From in front of 4626 Drexel ExitExisting Front Country Club Road Towards 4625 Wooddale Existing Streetscapes ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to North 4626 Drexel ExitExisting House to North 4626 Drexel ExitExisting Double Lot Between 4630 and 4626 Drexel Existing Streetscapes ExitView North of 4630 Drexel ExitView House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale Comparing Streetscapes Old Plan to New Plan (Drexel View) Comparing Streetscapes Old Plan to New Plan (Country Club View) Existing Home Site Plan Old Home Plan Site Plan New Home Plan Site Plan Materials Brava Tile, Decra Tile, Clay Tile, Asphalt Roofing Options Fine Texture Stucco Black Satin Metal Railing Marvin Ebony-Clad Exterior Windows Black Painted Steel Garage Doors Corner Lot Homes in Country Club District with Street Facing Garages < 25' from Rear Lot Line Address Garage Faces Approx. Garage Setback from Rear Lot Line Comments 4621 Edina Blvd.Country Club Road ~ 9.4'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection4601 Browndale Avenue Bridge Street 4501 Arden Avenue Sunnyside Road ~ 5'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4632 Arden Avenue Country Club Road4901 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road 4600 Arden Avenue Bridge Street 4530 Arden Avenue Bridge Street4501 Arden Avenue Sunnyside Road 4500 Arden Sunnyside Road 4530 Bruce Avenue Bridge Street4531 Bruce Avenue Bridge Street 4634 Bruce Avenue Sunnyside Road 4900 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road4901 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road 4638 Casco Avenue Country Club Road 4600 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4531 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4532 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4501 Casco Avenue Sunnyside Road 4500 Casco Avenue Sunnyside Road 4501 Drexel Avenue Sunnyside Road ~10'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4527 Drexel Avenue Bridge Street 4600 Drexel Avenue Bridge Street 4633 Drexel Avenue Country Club Road4625 Woodale Avenue Country Club Road ~ 5'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4601 Wooddale Avenue Bridge Street ~ 8'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4523 Wooddale Avenue Bridge Street4519 Edina Blvd Bridge Street 4601 Edina Blvd Bridge Street ~ 4'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4624 Moorland Avenue Country Club Road4600 Moorland Avenue Bridge Street 4516 Moorland Aveniue Bridge Street 4517 Moorland Avenue Bridge Street4500 Moorland Avenue Sunnyside Road 4601 Browndale Avenue Bridge Street ` 10'Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4640 Edghebrook Place Browndale Avenue4629 Browndale Avenue Country Club Road 4218 Sunnyside Road Wooddale Avenue 38 of 68 corner lots in Country Club have attached street facing garages Other Homes in Country Club District with Street Facing Attached Garages (excludes Sunnyside Road West of Browndale as all homes have front facing attached garages) 4203 Country Club Road 4205 Country Club Road4207 Country Club Road 4209 Country Club Road 4215 Country Club Road4221 Country Club Road 4225 Country Club Road 4229 Country Club Road4625 Country Club Road 4305 Country Club Road 4409 Country Club Road4083 Sunnyside Road 4501 Casco Avenue 4503 Drexel Avenue4512 Drexel Avenue 4616 Drexel Avenue 4622 Drexel Avenue 4305 Country Club Road 4405 Country Club Road 4409 Country Club Road 4624 Wooddale Avenue 4610 Wooddale Avenue4606 Wooddale Avenue 4603 Wooddale Avenue 4519 Wooddale Avenue4612 Edina Blvd 4517 Moorland Avenue 4615 Moorland Avenue4606 Moorland Avenue 4506 Sunnyside Road 4510 Sunnyside Road4513 Browndale Avenue 4520 Browndale Avenue 4604 Browndale Avenue4614 Edgebrook Place 4618 Edgebrook Place 4622 Edgebrook Place 4626 Edgebrook Place 4630 Edgebrook Place 4634 Edgebrook Place 4638 Edgebrook Place 4619 Browndale Avenue4901 Browndale Avenue 4905 Browndale Avenue 4909 Browndale Avenue E >- 51] utrt-kriIi‘1.1.-N I /// /EXISTING , /HOUSE/ \ ,r ,v~ sK' ( ';\ \ -• I (Th ( I .<7 L.; L _ / <' x 7 ) EXISTING' z HOUSE/ ., 7 (-)` FOUND IRON •zt 0 0 z 30 15 0 ao FOUND IRON SCALE IN FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 16, Block 7, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT FAIRWAY SECTION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing system used is assumed. 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, are approximate only. PURSUANT T MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT \ (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 3. Site Area = 13,160 square feet = 0.302 acres. 4. This survey was made on the ground. 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and encumbrances are subject to revision upon receipt of current title work. 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data. 100.000 (NAVD 88) = 99.814 (NGVD 29) Bench mark is located Top of Nail (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) Elevation = 891.75 7. Existing Impervious Area details. Total Site Area: 13,160 square feet Total Impervious Area: 2,174 square feet House Area: 1,618 square feet Patio/Deck Areas: 615+91-150=556 square feet Percent of Impervious Area: 16.52% 8. Proposed Impervious Area details. Total Site Area: 13,160 square feet Total Impervious Area: 2,847 square feet House Area: 2,758 square feet Terrace Area: 239-150=89 square feet Percent of Impervious Area: 21.63% 9. Existing elevation spots and pavement removed for clarity. LEGEND IR, FOUND Found Property Corner SET IRON IRON x x x - -906- - CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this survey, ▪ plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: July 24. 2018 Minn. Reg. No. 236 N ) /EXISTING/ / /HOUSE 35.6 A , 35.6 35.6 /\/EX,ISTING \ 0 /HOUSE A c/ 1:-<1 L _ \__J \ / -7 Nef:/ j / 5.3 43. c.% 25.3 '7.6\ 8.7 0 „..47;254 TERRACES 0.; 4?", X111 N 9.2 25.7-770\ - \ie , ( \ , S et. ct) 63/ CO CO \ \l'F°0#‘UND It'• cbt> 0 iN /cc? / ,895 1 10 fr.:IRON 894 " • 8 rq I IN 1-1-E)\/ X89 v '423042,56,, 2bc p! L.JIN I I\ I .11.--7178. 7 ROW WIDTH VARIES • I I L _ L 693, 0 I \ \__///-\ LJ rTh BITUMINOUS CD LO as co HOUSE DETAILS: 4630 DREXEL AVENUE 2-STORY HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREA = 1,618 SQ. FT. Set Property Corner (Minn. Reg. No. 23677) Concrete Concrete Curb Fence Hydrant Gate Valve Light Pole Sanitary Manhole Existing Contour / /IT 0/ / T •mas E. Hodorff/ )- 7 3 ca ca 19.0 SEE DETAILS 1 letri:--) PRO D )SIDEW4LK 0§ < / SET / te l ( / IRON 7--\\ N 89°5T35" E 141.45 I 6:9Q, 93 x x xi ' q- 1 45.2 L I C\IN I (N ctij N ILS I _; .,..._89 ,,„ 1 txis 6:9 S'ft "-7 CO < V.Z 0; 20.0 '1- 80\ \' 19:5N c5\ \ .1 38.6 0 PROPOSED (,)`!) HOUSE \ N2 o / 4311 cbj /I II , I N.1 L CB 63\ \ \695,- 8-3,s; \_ 1 ct /in CITY OF ED! H NOV 2.0 2018 - \--/ \ \ EXISTING WALL .%- ...\ --- r- SETBACK 8.2 FEET / /.) / N. .....-- / 0 \ \-- - / . , v 4R- < C eye N Revision History. / CAD File: 201831301.DWG Path: J: \ 2018313 \ DWG \ We are looking to refresh the residence of 4630 Drexel Ave and bring the design & construction into today's living. We are wanting to achieve this using the guidelines of the Mediterranean Revival (reference Exhibit A attached).We are incorporating elements from the Mediterranean/Spanish Revival including arched windows & openings, white walls, low pitched clay tile roof, iron balconies/railings & ornate wooden doors. Along with these classic elements we plan to incorporate the existing roof and gables in the front of the house into our refreshed design for 4630 Drexel Ave. We accomplished this through the support & guidance given by neighbors' letters (reference Exhibits B attached). The support of the neighboring houses to 4630 Drexel Ave has been tremendous and a great sense of what the neighborhood wants for the aesthetic & value for their community. Also using the guidelines set by the houses of the neighborhood, in the Mediterranean style (Exhibits C; photos attached), which helped integrate the refreshed design into the community. Through incorporating classical elements of Mediterranean style and houses in the community, the guidance and support of neighbors; we plan to refresh this house, add value to the community that will create a beautiful new home the owners and neighborhood will enjoy for years to come! Sheet I - Cover Letter Sheet 2 - Exhibits A & C Sheet 3 - Letters from Neighbors (exhibit 13) Sheet 4 - Letters from Neighbors (exhibit f3) Sheet 5 - Letters from Neighbors (exhibit 13) Sheet 6 - Photos of house & streetscapes (exhibit P) Sheet 7 - Photos of house & streetscapes (exhibit P) Sheet 8 - Photos of house & streetscapes (exhibit P) Sheet 9 - Material board Ks • 2 N E Ks a q ) :! - ': —6:: I's n : -.==.! 41 -71':') i 'St5'''- '''''l ' Si:: i :1:• 3- 1):). i: N 2 t 2 -Zs' -c•1 K,5 k,_ -- cc'''- ''73 °Z ;.., c,,,, ,_, s ‘,1 8_ ,s.,• ° ,-1-- 0 '- • 4-, ')':-. -'' N 1( ' Z '2 't 11S)' ° _Z .__ F ,,$),S 2 -Ki ,Th c_ co 2 ! - , , ,, , _ r7 :2 :a ; :a 3 , , so zs. ss_ >, Ks__ a -, 6 N J, i _. ,,-, , (5 = ,I3 -', F• 2 a ca 'V P -.•- ÷K,_ 1 , s 2,t) -,5. s ,, a LI) x g -,7,., -E -6 .2 ki I— U ''',13 a .E 1-S .'g_ 8- :S7 a) 5 i . , / -4 E: . , 1 - CD - = ,-., . T N t_ e, -C 0 l'a La 0 W I . '6 1 1 n e -;,.., 3 ± l7) 0 0 ; t -" li 2 in 0 .7,) SI —% ie, 4d -,' 6 ....1 Let . .1) tr:,- << ! a in E d L.t..• iF1 ct i 0 4'6 co v 40 O PAGE SHEET 2 DATE 11-20-2018 Drawn by Wade 5. esiclerice For: 4630 Drexel Ave cs) Mediterranean Revival, also known as Spanish Colonial, is an all-inclusive description for those houses inspired by the architecture of Spain and Mexico. The design, featuring small windows and white walls, originally evolved to accommodate a hot, dry climate. In the 1920s and 1930s, southern California adopted the style and developed a resi- dential architecture integrating white stucco walls, flat or low hip roofs of red clay tile, small wooden or wrought iron balconies, twisted churrigueresque columns, and ornate wooden doors. The style even- tually enjoyed great popularity throughout the country. Kansas City's Country Club Plaza, for ex- ample, recalls old Seville. Edina's Country Club Dis- trict also has its share of Spanish motifs, as displayed in houses at 4500 Edina Boulevard (c. 1925); 4609 and 4619 Moorland Avenue (c. 1928, c. 1930); 4402, 4601, and 4604 Browndale Avenue (c. 1927, c. 1929, c. 1925); 4503 Casco Avenue (c. 1930); and 4531 Arden Avenue (c. 1935). Wooddale School (1926) at West 50th Street and Wooddale Avenue reflects a Spanish Colonial influence in its arched openings, twisted columns, and hint of curvilinear gables at building entrances. Only a few houses in the Country Club District are designed in the Italian Renaissance mode. This style, which began in sixteenth-century Italy, was itself a revival of classical Greek and Roman archi- tecture. The house at 4520 Casco Avenue (c. 1940?) reveals the basic features of the style: stuccoed walls; a low hip, tiled roof; and a centered doorway with classical trim. The "palazzo" at 4513 Wooddale Ave- nue (c. 1929) typifies the monumental character often achieved in houses of this style. Mediterranean Revival: 4402 Browndale Avenue. Italian Renaissance Revival: 4520 Casco Avenue. PI Animinn 11PDADTRAcKrr Exhibit A - (p.28 of History & Architecture of Edina, Minnesota by William W. Scott, A.I.A., and Jeffery A. Hess). Exhibits B (Letter from neighbors on sheets to follow) Amy & Alex Ware — 4403 Country Club Road Annika Meehan & Jason Nasby — 4625 Wooddale Ave Dan & Christina Delianedis — 4624 Drexel Ave Jeff & Cathy Ruehl — 4623 Wooddale Ave Jim & Kathy Haymaker — 4633 Drexel Ave Kimberly & Martin Kosto — 4225 Country Club Road Patrick Conlin — 4629 Drexel Ave Shannon Neale — 4623 Drexel Ave Tasha Buscemi — 4625 Drexel Ave Ted & Alex Christianson — 4614 Drexel Ave Theresa Corona — 4621 Drexel Ave Zach Burnett - 4620 Drexel Ave as-Lz4.-A_ 4) E —C—S! 0 C 7) "*C. c,) {).) • 6 c.° -7 2 T, us) 0 • 4_81 -2 0 0 J P_ ,1?) 4-05 4T, rs O S Q F, O 6l ,,) E T., ts; 8- LP, 0 - — 5— < < O O PACE SHEET 3 DATE 11-20-2018 Drawn by Wade S. I M a 4 ',J Hi Tom, I am writing to support the approval of the changes for 4630 Drexel Avenue. We are thrilled to actually see the house now as you enter the neighborhood on Wooddale, and glad that the Wolf's decided to stay in the neighborhood and fix up a home that had been neglected, rather than buying newl The renderings are in keeping with the charm of the house and integrity of the neighborhood. Let's support the Wolf's and their team as they move forward in this process. Thanks, Amy and Alex Ware 4403 Country Club Road Dear HPB, Jason and I are excited to hear about the proposal for the renovation at 4630 Drexel Ave. As their next- door neighbor we are thrilled to hear about this upcoming and long over- due renovation. The architectural renderings are simply beautiful, keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood and the charm of country club. Upon entering Country Club it will set the tone for the neighborhood with a stately, clean line, Mediterranean home that is modern and current. Adding value to all surrounding homes and the neighborhood. More renovation such as this will only increase Country Club homes value, keeping it current with updated, clean homes people can enjoy and view for a lifetime. Thank you, Annika Meehan & Jason Nasby PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF EDINA Dear Edina Heritage Preservation Board: We wanted express our support of the proposed changes to 4630 Drexel. We are 2 doors north at 4623 Wooddale Ave and both my wife and I love the designs and the new look for 4630. We feel it will that it will add to the look of our neighborhood while keeping the historic character of the neighborhood intact. We have lived in our home for 17 years and have done extensive renovations to our home. Our primary concern was always to keep the changes we made in keeping with the history and the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, (2 • Cathy and Ruehl 4623 Wooddale Ave Edina MN 55424 11/12/2018 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina, MN Heritage Preservation Board Edina, MN To All Board Members, We have lived at 4624 Drexel in the Country Club neighborhood since 2001. Since then, a number of homes on Drexel and throughout the Country Club neighborhood have had numerous additions or complete reconstruction; ours included. We fully support the property reconstruction at 4630 Drexel. The renderings we've seen will do a few things for the Country Club neighborhood: 1.) Improve the quality of the neighborhood. 4624 Drexel is the first property that people passing through see when entering the neighborhood from the south. From a historical perspective, it's the home that makes the first impression on anyone looking at it from a historical perspective. The first impression people have today makes the Country Club look "run down", "worn out", and "tired". That impression as you know is far from the truth and is not what the Historical Preservation Board wants people to think. The request from the owners to improve is a great idea. 2.) Improve the median home price in the neighborhood. That's generally a good thing for the neighborhood and town. 3.) Increase tax revenue for the City Of Edina The renderings we viewed appear to be within the boundaries of the Country Club Heritage Preservation requirements. 4630 Drexel will again become a beautiful property and a key landmark to strike the right first impression for visitors to the neighborhood We look forward to the project being approved and the property getting a high quality makeover. Regards, Dan & Christina Delianedis /1/4-1fre----12tYx-c-t. /6/ 20/ Se -7z-4-T A-4 'c' '4e- 3 3 Gefre-g-e-o-?pg-e,,e_.- e..14 / 0-7vt ditz-y, V4wce-Itt-L- o-7A-4 1 40-t4-L )ay-•' /6:C-0-7-BGG-, 4-a- 4_ le,1-0-ec_ eg) iV o 4.) • E 4-, a) 2) g ass, a- E vz ° 9) 4, z 44' = 9- 0L)Z F,7 •42 --PZN -,1 L' E F_ " F. 2)4) )) , 00s ' < ° C 4-) 2 45i L: 4-0 0) • 0 -c5 9) ! - O , 5 ) 71 _Er - .9 • SL c"- 44' 0-') )01§ .06 •C "E43 E o O S = O 13- I— 0 4, < < 0- 9) O C \ 1 Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave - ER PACE SHEET 4 DATE 11-20-2018 Drawn *Wade S. ere atrick Conlin November 5, 2018 To: Edina Heritage Preservation Board I am writing in support of the plans for the remodel of 4630 Drexel Avenue. I have lived on Drexel Avenue for 16 years. It will be a welcome change to have a beautiful home situated at the gateway to our neighborhood. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Shannon Neale NOV 2 0 2018 4623 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 CITY OF EDNA Tasha Buscemi 4625 Drexel Ave Edina, MN 55424 (410) 790-6161 tashabuscemi@gmail.com Sincerely yours, Tasha Buscemi Kimberly and Martin Kosto 4225 Country Club Road Edina, MN 55424 November 19, 2018 Heritage Preservation Board Country Club Neighborhood Edina, MN RE: 4630 Drexel Avenue, Edina, MN Dear Members of the Heritage Preservation Board, We are writing the Board in support of the application to renovate the property located at 4630 Drexel Avenue, Edina, which sits directly across the street from our home. While the beauty of the original architecture is quite evident, the home is in need of significant maintenance, both inside and outside. Upon review of the restoration plan, we find the proposed changes will maintain the home's historic footprint and appearance, which is so important to conserving the feel of this Neighborhood, while meeting the modernization needs of the individual property. As we support their current renovation plan, we know John and Cathy Wolf, as current residents of the Country Club Neighborhood, will be extremely mindful in their decisions as they look to maintain the home's original character and blend in with the Neighborhood. Best regards, Kimberly and Martin Kosto Date: November 17th, 2018 To: Edina Heritage Preservation Board From: Patrick Conlin Address: 4629 Drexel Avenue I am in full support of the renovation plans that the which is across the street from me. The house and for a long time. Right now it is the equivalent to a willing to take on a difficult project and I hope the Board are as well. 4/n4,4„;_, November 10, 2018 Heritage Preservation Board C/O Tom Rauscher Rauscher and Associates 275 Market Street, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55405 RE: 4630 Drexel Avenue, Edina Ladies and Gentlemen of the Heritage Preservation Board: I am writing you this letter in support of the proposed renovation of the home located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in Edina, Minnesota. My husband, Keith, and I reside across the street at 4625 Drexel Avenue and have been presented with the intended updates and modifications to the home's exterior. In our opinion, the changes indeed honor the original character of the home while also providing a much needed facelift for this highly visible property. Recognizing the importance of preserving our historic district's identity, we feel changes like this should be embraced because of their ability to simultaneously restore a property's historical distinctiveness while also sustaining economic vitality for the community. Wolfs have for 4630 Drexel Avenue, the property has not been maintained "teardown". I am pleased that they are city of Edina and the Preservation r 2 cci m 4-s Li ¢) -C 44) 4" ,0 q4 = RS ^ SS') :)'T r: '' • ' ''' ::: - CS) -SS .6 El' , %) . 1.7. 4E, -6 ,s, `,•,) -4; 42 ;2_ 46ki ccs 4.) D0 g - , 4-, u • = 4C2 : : SR ,S .r._ ___0 , 4 : : - "=. .° . Ts' 'E i ' ' '' ':s: 1 ' 1 .si i .1 2:c 3' 3 q) 0> 2 S ) , _'' ' > ,' EC C ' 00 6 , • ' - . pC' g) -P L• ,-" ,' t . 1z-:'_) 6, 4-- , A) 0 = -, 4) __,.. ,c, RS ij 4-' -4" 0 • TS lS) *TS RS .F.. 4-) -c -P R3 • 0 - -,S C.) 7: 4 -0: : _ _ • 1; : 2: ''" S 6Sc7, 1 t_ k“,, 2 E 2 RS , R3 RS u Ti.. ; ; Y: i f_')''" /-1) t% P.P .2 -6 m >, 1, O 2_ ° ,$) _ r (3 _.c , - 0 .s = o , n 1- u 4 -, << . 2 U 51 n C 0 Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave IMfiW'XM PAGE SHEET 5 DATE 11-20-2018 Drawn by Wade 5. o ‘-) 71... My husband and I reside at 4621 Drexel Avenue in Edina, across the street from John and Cathy Wolfe's current residence. I am writing to express our support of John and Cathy's proposed plan for the home they have purchased at 4630 Drexel Avenue. 4630 Drexel Avenue is an important home in terms of the "look" and "feel" of the Country Club neighborhood, since it is visible to everyone who drives into the neighborhood from the 50th & Wooddale intersection. I am not an architect or designer, but I've spent some time looking at the house and their drawings. After consideration, I believe that John and Cathy have proposed a design for the home that preserves the historic character of the home as well as providing a nice view to everyone who enters our neighborhood from the south. The details rendered in the design show window shapes and styles that match others in the neighborhood, molded details and trim that is in character with its stucco neighbors, and a very clean roof-line, similar to most of the stucco homes in the neighborhood. Their proposed addition to the 2" floor on the north side looks like it would balance the front facade of the home, which in my opinion, allows your attention to be drawn to the curved wall (former entrance) that they propose to retain. This curved wall is characteristic of several homes in our neighborhood, but is unusual on for the stucco homes here, so I was very happy to see that they had preserved this element. Finally, the proposed terrace is a particularly attractive feature — it frames up and highlights the original stone fireplace detail on the south side of the home. Also, because the outer edge is almost squared off with the garage facade, it gives the appearance of bringing the living space of the main part of the house towards Country Club Road, balancing the garage, while preserving the fireplace and leaving the spacious south part of the lot open and welcoming. Since the home's front door is on Drexel Avenue, and the design is therefore oriented towards Drexel, this feels to me like an excellent way to ensure that the side of the house still looks lovely and traditional to those entering the neighborhood from the south. In short, I hope the Committee will support their proposal. Cathy and John Wolf have been great neighbors, and this is a big project. I trust them to do a wonderful job with it. Sincerely, Theresa Corona 4621 Drexel Ave. November 6, 2018 Edina Heritage Preservation Boaro. c/o Tom Rauscher RausCher and Associates • k PC,ta:4.,.:, cni Minneapolis, MN 55405 Dear Edina Heritage Preservation Boara: I am writing regarding the proposed remodeling of the house located at 4630 Drexel Avenue. We are in support of the proposed remodeling by Cathy and John Wolf and encourage the Edina Heritage Preservation Board to approve their submitted plan. We believe their plan maintains the character of the house and thus maintains the unique character of our street block and neighborhood. Yours truly, Ted and Alex Christianson 4614 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Mobile #612-383-6985 To: Edina Heritage Preservation Board do: Tom Rauscher Dear Edina Heritage Preservation Board, I am writing to formally support John and Cathy Wolfs proposed renovation of 4630 Drexel Avenue. After reviewing the plans and discussing the proposal with the Wolfs, I feel this design aligns to the integrity of the neighborhood while enhancing the property. John and Cathy intend to live in the home and therefore will make every effort to ensure the renovation is done properly and enhances the overall neighborhood. Furthermore, I appreciate the transparent communication by the Wolfs and ask the Heritage Preservation Board make every effort to work with the Wolfs to approve the redesign and subsequent renovation. Best, Zach Burnett 4620 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 (612) 387-3177 zach.burnettgmail.com PLANNING DEPARMENT November 11,2018 NOV 2 0 2018 Edina Heritage Preservation Commission Edina City Council CITY OF ED DA. Dear Members of the Commission: PHOTOS 1 Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave a 81-0Z-03-I, I, IZAUSCHER E. ASSOCIATES Fine Home Design & Interiors 275 Market Street Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612-353-6940 © 2018 These plans or drawings, the overall form, arrangement and composition of spaces and the elements in the design, are the exclusive copyrighted property of Rauscher Associates, Ltd protected by united states copyright law. All rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use of these plans is strictly prohibited. Do not copy, or allow these plans to be copied. These plans or drawings contain confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. Violators will be subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages. PHOTOS 2 Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave -a IZAUSCHER E. ASSOCIATES Fine Home Design & Interiors 275 Market Street Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612-353-6940 © 2015 These plans or drawings, the overall arra ent andZ composition of spaces and the elerren e in th ign, areZ the exclusive copyrighted property cia,auschergv Associates, Ltd protected by unitecMates cwight laws All rights are reserved. Any unauthdrized use c}f,kiese plaT is strictly prohibited. Do riot copy, or allow thaplans to copied. These plans or drawings contain conficial, proprietary and trade secret information. Violators will subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages. •S opem Rq umea6 4? 1-0Z-03- II- . 4,5 gyukagismorp.211001",...,-' 11014 "NW Illik$Wiedrel • • r 1.,1016 '1111 Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave PHOTOS 3 IZAUSCHER E. ASSOCIATES Fine Horne Design & Interiors 275 Market Street Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612-353-6940 © 2018 These plans or drawings, the overall form, arrangement and composition of spaces and the elements in the design, are the exclusive copyrighted property of Rauscher & Associates, Ltd protected by united states copyright law. All rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use of these plans is strictly prohibited. Do not copy, or allow these plans to be copied. These plans or drawings contain confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. Violators will be subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages. O O C) O C F ffeir•mhazier4Kozree• VN1G3 JO M.I0 INEINI.dVd3a ONINNVid fflaimmaR-grivalroxklv 21 • • WGMOIINIM 3ZN02I9 NIA- • T, ?.. -,,7r---- — - - .7-i,"4-44... 41..":, _ .. '.1-,.:ri.r.-:,-_—.—e•-•.. P4-,... '-'''''''V'iOtc,'Z--t--,=:::'-kt'i.;k_'&.455°''tk5.2..ki::L-.. ',..7;.----..---4-r-- . --,".t.'<-..-;-W.----v-7,;:,-.-7 _ •. •••••••• :".'-'- . ,„...- - _ t‘---*,:er-Al2.;,,,,,....,..c:;,,,---- - --, _,-.,..... ....,..„-*/- -;.*..'.' - — ,-. -,- 4-"`e • .4. - :..,72;='_)-4.4"9,•-•57 . ,,,,J• ,•,. • :-C"' C7'.--"ryali0f+,,,,,,?.....• f,Z.4,‘',,e;''.-..WC,:^74:„..r.°'-iFit.4#44,1....1e.,,,, 44f _ .. - '''.*:,: ' ."-ir'.Z......e":-A4,-,:if*".. ..i. • 4.. I >"7. • .1". • ,¢Fc, e••• CP 0 rn rn —k CO 81,0Z-OZ-1.1. Residence For: 4630 Drexel Ave MATERIALS IZAUSCHER E. ASSOCIATES Fine Home Design & Interiors 275 Market Street Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55405 612-353-6940 © 2015 These plans or drawings, the overall form, arrangement and composition of spaces and the elements in the design, are the exclusive copyrighted property of Rauscher & Associates, Ltd protected by united states copyright law. All rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use of these plans i5 strictly prohibited. Po not copy, or allow these plans to be copied. These plans or drawings contain confidential, proprietary arid trade secret information. Violators will be subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages. PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF EDNA '-'1120POSED DESIGN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: /EXISTING • 1,7u/5E' Lot 16. Block 7. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT FAIRWAY SECDON, Hennepin County. Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES: I. The beoring system used is assumed. 2. The i00011011 of the underground utilities shown hereon. If any, are opproxirnote only. PURSUANT T a' FF --EL=594.,2 rr EL-E95.79 --r Edina, MN 55424 USA 2I5D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CAU. AT 1 rL,300.46 -- 7 (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. / \ • / 3. Site Area = 13,160 swore feet = 0.302 cares. ,01, , 4. This survey was made on the ground. r \ •EXIS11N/G' 5. No current title work was furnished for the \ . of current title work. preparation of this survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded esment. end encumbrances ore subject to revision upon receipt r:', X 0 0 7, ...k.,1 O. 6. Devotion datum is based on NAVD 88 dots. \ ...-1/ ',A C -.i Bench mark is located Top of Nal 100.000 (NAND 88) = 99.814 (NDID 29)%,C3, 'k:A (AS 560111 ON SURVEY) \l, ' A• L - - Devotion= s Ar e a9 5 (?.,, 13 ,, Toto Site Area: 13.160 square feet \-- 7. Impervious details. Total Impervious Area: 2,174 square feet House Area: 1,618 square feet Patio/Deck Areas 615+91-150=556 square feet Percent of Impervious Area: 1552% .<0 •‘",e 35 xspgs NG' '.......-.---.:6- i / k j -7-_-- —1 -.) ICJ Fr 0 `..)' F'' -..".. ,,-;,' BL.001< 7 -, , , 0' •,--'- , , c ,,,,, SET ,, A ' -.4. FF IRON r` 4., /,,Z.— , Et.898.53 ''x I ,0 -111:-.,723 '.. N 89°57:35! E,1a1A5 ''.}, --I. j5, ::: ::: Concrete '21W.,T,IP ref.. SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE TITLE SHEET &EXISTING SURVEY PROPOSED SITE PLAN ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE PLAN ELEVATIONS 155UED FOR: ELEVATIONS 0) EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION IS 0 , \ B L. of rs K LEGEND L a ...) \ a,„,_,FROg4D Found Property Corner 0 \ .,.. ig-''`O ol ignr7.`°47.tY,Z7167) (1 \ --1C9$ Polio Pavers -.)(, .< Fence .cA \ Concrete Curb — Water Yr \ 4/ Underground Electric Sanitary Sewer A. -,,,, \ / .1. , Gas Storm Sewer cs...,:f 1=899.0; Grte'Vtalve 1.(:. \ \ ire Electric Meter Deciduous Tree (Dia. In In.) Xc' . Coniferous Tree (Dia. hr In.) N. 0 // I Light Pole N.kETAV A N L O L fj‘..... Sonitory Mcmhole % 41, '.• 4. Gas Meter o Existing Contour ..)'--- 670 Existing Spot Day Gutter 0,5' • E.Exiisstliinngg Roof 010:,,,vottii.non 30 X 851.270 X 934.3 X 954.91 LOWER LEVEL PLAN ao FOUND IRON- CERTIFICATION: FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE IN FEET 893.82G SECOND FLOOR. PLAN T1 1 2 3 4 5 S 9 I hereby cerUfy that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lows of the Stole of Minnesota. 'ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) •NAKRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS Date: Jul, 24. 2018 PACE T HOUSE DETAILS: 4630 DRDIEL AVENUE 2-STORY HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREA = 1,618 SO. FT. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (FOR FULL SCALE PLAN 5EE PAGE 1) SCALE:N/A as E. Hodorf Minn. Reg. No. 236 '? tlUMINOUS 00 , .49 ROW Mill VARIES% 4". 11, ) e43.7x •••,x -k „ NiHIN 'JP IR" rN I HSJ BENCHMARK a 7 la-V.°Fan 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS 'STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS SCALE 1'= 30• DATE I 1-20-18 Plans Prepared by Wade S. SCALE, WA 0 CZ intaMMUMEINZWRIBILRIAP • " ..9514 DRIVEWAY TO REMOVES • 9 - *. • • • 4)/ • •• • • cb''` 0) j PROPOSED WALK S - CJ / • • c5 • cb • • 1 • , FF _ / EL= 899.08 // • FOUND N \ 90 X LOT SF = 13,160 @ 25% = 3,290 SF ALLOWED 2,772 = HOUSE & STEPS 316 = TERRACE 3,088 TOTAL SF = 23.47% 25 BACK YARD SETBACK 32.4' FRONT YARD SETBACK AVG. FROM NEIGHBORS FRONT YARD SETBACKS 29.2 & 35.6 ti O / a NETAINING Zi6V 4 WALL '6'9 to \,t4' PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 894:5 894:5 894.5 DEPAR .g.oc ' 1 ,41, co Q39 OtN.1 eb )4-4, • 891.17V • coCkANNIN it.%) cc 891.84-0 4b cbc) . - .• ,,_.- FOUND ///)9'c. __. 4.••• 94.7k, IRON 893.82 TQ CITY OF 892.2X • 57 0 892.55E BITUMINOUS LI 893.73 0 893.9X 893.9X 893.7X X `DX I IN IM t) \ / /.\I I I':- Fl) UIN I I\ 1 893 L _ I \ X'39(1:8 <6. 894.2X PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 6" ce) • ROW WIDTH VARIES c5G) 1/49k1 896.1X 892, SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN S SECOND FLOOR PLAN 'ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS 4STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS NOV 0 2( INA PACE 1 DATE I I -20- 18 Plans Prepared by Wade S. /7 EXISTING/ HOUSE/ ( C ), FOUND IRON FF EL= 897. 73 ccy X \ (/ .-\2• _ EFF : L= 898.53 c7>< 9. \ I \ \,' / \ 1 1 vq) SET S°1 / I /.N IRON —n, ci . i, 7 , N 89°57'35" E 'N 141.45 1 e9 _ .S. , 1 \ X X X - 19S, 93, -talrAq• 1-11&h c5 .0- Ne / Rime .- .:-.0.-_cr_tecri_l_•_Ipik,..............._-......... if 5.3 iltrria Ljil Et • 0104 rig DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED 11"11K41L 11 15-1 1-11-zr-1r 1; wirLI'Ll-irA ••• F 74„ 00 /N glx 94;6( 1)PeTiq r1/ c?) z — 0 U 0 0 WAvtilamMvu NOV 2 0 2018 4614 Drexel Avenue pLANNING DCI'AFITMCNT 4620 Drexel Avenue 4623 Drexel Avenue S 4624 Drexel Avenue 4625 Drexel Avenue 4623 Wooddale Avenue 629 Drexel Avenue 4625 Wooddale Avenue Edina, MN 55424 4633 Drexel Avenue Addresses of letters in support of refreshing 4630 Drexel (Letters found in separate package) 4403 Country Club Road .11110c4i0.1111tri Club Rd SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE TITLE SHEET Sr EXISTING SURVEY PROPOSED SITE PLAN ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE PLAN ELEVATIONS ISSUED FOR: 1-1P13 Submittal 4225 Country Club Road ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION LOWER LEVEL PLAN A FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN ARIAL VIEW OF 4630 DREXEL 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS 'STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS 'ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) PACE 2 DATE I I -20- I 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. U O LL Li) 4— dei X 14) 43 O to Edina, MN 55424 E e, ISSUED FOR: ro —V116,4i*' 3.1404-S;;_allik410-1.R.e4Se. feSSalate*. itoitriaJNIX,err-.14&-• fz W.1 '-.4a34 'noiLvrit_ 1 crf-; ISUFFAI-Op. — W,I" I 13.1 =-..!{Y PLANNING DEF'Aiii iv:7: 7r NOV 2 0 201h v1 11.1 _ 144tmckm:1=15514_-_':iragE_ JH4E 441,- 4184 ktio 0 Gi CITY OF EDI t ' SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEYEL PLAN 5 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN *ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS `STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS raN PAC[ 3 DAT[ I 1 -20- 1 5 Plans Prepared by Wade S. Edina, MN 55424 EllUn!MIIMIP1611•IMINPRIJIMMEIM 0 PAM 4 DALE • 1 1 -20- 1 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. ISSUED FOR: biPS Submittal PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF EDINA SHEET INDEX # SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN S FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN "ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) *NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS *DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS *STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS CLAY TILE ROOF WHITE TEXTURED STUCCO PROPOSED DESIGN - LEFT ELEVATION SCALE 1 /4 =1 -0 111111PP PROPOSED DESIGN - FRONT ELEVATION SCALE T PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF EDINA SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY .1 PROPOSED SITE FLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN *ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS 'STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS Edina, MN 55424 SCALE 1 /4 =1-0 PROPOSED DESIGN - LEFT ELEVATION ISSUED FOR: 1-1N3 Submittal 0 PACE 5 DALE I 1 -20- 1 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. PROPOSED DESIGN - RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE 114 =1-0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 2 0 018 CITY OF EDINA SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 APJAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN "ADD TIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS "STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS Edina, MN 55424 STREETSCAPES - SHOWING RELATION OF PROPOSED HOUSE TO NEIGHBORING HOUSE - DREXEL AVE . 411111- STREETSCAPES SHOWING RELATION OF PROPOSED HOUSE TO NEIGHBORING HOUSE - COUNTRY CLUB ROAD O ISSUED FOR PAGE 6 DATE 1 1 -20- 1 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 1-IPES Submittal WEER BATH GUEST suns STORAGE STORAGE UNDER STARS SPORT COURT EXERCISE ROOM FrTcrla LOWER FAMILY • LJ U 0 ce L.0 (.) CZ Z • C.. •md N < CB 02 X L. 0 Edina, MN 55424 ISSUED FOR: E US 0:3 PACE 7 DATE I I -20- I 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED DROPPED BEAM 9 7 k— FLOOR DRAIN UPS. STACK UP 12R AS BUILT PLAN - LOWER LEVEL MECH STORAGE am r t STORAGE 1==1 GLASS WAIL PLANNING DEPARTI,TNT NOV 2.0 2018 CITY OF EDINA SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 FRO POSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN *ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS *STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS STORAGE LOLUER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 114, VG. Lel LI O .0,471 /VcLG. HGT FOR. CURB CONCRETE WALLS .e0EE.L0_HOT. T T 155 140 CVERHEAD GARIKE DOOR T r $ , **l E' ELEC. METER ELEC. PO VER., LWE ELEC. PANE. 2R I SI ,vwslAB TO PLY WD. ABOVE I HGT lit 4,511 WTO UNDERSIDE OF BEAM CONCRETE BEAM Li— CONCRETE COLUMN 13.11/2'LLG. HOT. F1000 ABOVE D1120 513 9„1 >022 2R > GATHERING IW W.I.G. MOM'S lao Edina, MN 55424 ISSUED FOR: 4 01 ro PACE 8 NOT I I -20- I 8 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 9,5 WO OVERHEAD" GARAGE DOOR PANTRY _ L_ I 9,5 4I OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR GARAGE KITCHEN 1=I L____1 .1. L FLAT EX FIAT. to Dr! 120 UP TS 13,13 1? CI.G. HOT. DN IR 05R FLAT CEO. DO 2R a 0 SNR v7. PORCH DI UP DO GALLERY FOYER =1 ROO MUD M I I TERRACE =1 PLANNING DEPARTF.; NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF E1 NA SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS 6 EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN /3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR. PLAN *ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS *DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS •STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 114,1'-0. Edina, MN 55424 GT 4,E.ICLG PARAPET 1 no BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 3 zoo 1 UNEN PARAPET 17H @START OF SLOPE FLIT GIG. 4O1,0.1413T. 1^'CLG. HOT. DN 16/1 BALCONY 1E1 BALCONY ON 1R CP TO SAL lo BATH 3 =1 AS BUILT PLAN - UPPER LEVEL MASTER WARDROBE L,)jo LUC4AGE OPEN TO BELOW LAUNDRY MASTER BATH zoa LONGS 200 BEDROOM 2 BALCONY SHEET INDEX SUBMITTAL DELIVERABLE T1 TITLE SHEET & EXISTING SURVEY 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 2 ARIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 ELEVATIONS 5 ELEVATIONS S EXTERIOR FRONT FACADE ELEVATION 7 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 'ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES (SEPERATE PLAN SET) 'NARRATIVE/EXHIBITS/LETTERS/MATERIALS 'DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING/NEIGHBORS 'STREETSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHS MASTER BEDROOM MASTER UARDROBE 1=1 = UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE' 11-1,1'.0' PLANNING DEP. 77" NOV 2 6 2018 CITY OF 1--;7,i1 .- „-, U O O ii n E ISSUED FOR: 5,3 a `1-1 PACE 9 DATE I I -20- 18 Plans Prepared by Wade S. Date: August 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:COA Update: 4504 Arden Avenue Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the updated elevations for the COA for a new garage at 4504 Arden Avenue. INTRODUCTION: The subject property, 4504 Arden Avenue is located on the west side of Arden Avenue south of Sunnyside Road. The home is a two-story Tudor Revival style home that was built in 1926. The original Certificate of Appropriateness request was approved at the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on May 12th. The COA entailed the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4504 Arden Avenue. A condition of the COA that was approved was that the garage needed to meet the 3-foot setback requirement (including the eaves). The proposed updates to the elevations do not have eaves or overhang on the garage which were removed to meet the 3-foot setback requirement. The original elevation for the garage included overhangs/eaves on the garage. ATTACHMENTS: Description Applicant Submittal Aerial Map Staff Report March 2020 COA elevations Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, © WSB & Associates 2013 4604 Arden Ave Legend March 16, 2020 1 in = 25 ft / August 17, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4504 Arden Avenue- detached garage, updated elevations Information / Background: The subject property, 4504 Arden Avenue is located on the west side of Arden Avenue south of Sunnyside Road. The home is a two-story Tudor Revival style home that was built in 1926. The original Certificate of Appropriateness request was approved at the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on May 12th. The COA entailed the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4504 Arden Avenue. A condition of the COA that was approved was that the garage needed to meet the 3-foot setback requirement (including the eaves). The proposed updates to the elevations do not have eaves or overhang on the garage which were removed to meet the 3-foot setback requirement. The original elevation for the garage included overhangs/eaves on the garage. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: March 2020 (Consultant Vogel didn’t have updated comments with the changes in the proposed elevations) I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for construction of a new detached garage at 4504 Arden Avenue in the Country Club District. The subject property is a two-story Tudor Revival style residence built in 1926. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage. The house is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation but retains sufficient historic integrity of those features necessary to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource in the district. The existing garage is not considered a heritage preservation resource and as a matter of policy construction of new detached garages is considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, no significant historic features will be destroyed and the replacement structure will be visually compatible with the house in size, scale, materials, and texture. The STAFF REPORT Page 2 side and rear elevations will be partially screened from neighboring properties by existing privacy fences. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the updated plans for 4504 Arden Avenue, also recommending approval of the updated 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: • 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 4502 Arden Avenue 13'8" from slab to peak 4504 Arden Ave Current Garage to Demo 14' tall from slab to peak Current Garage to Demo 14' from slab to peak 4506 Arden Ave 10'6" from slab to peak Address in Question: 4504 Arden Ave. City of Edina PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 1 0 2020 CITY OF EJ .1,1A Owners: Thomas and Erica Stark Contractor: Sussel Builders To Whom it may concern: Thomas and Erica are asking to allow the demolition of the current garage on their property that is a 20' x 20' detached garage with slab as it is beyond repair and buckling on the narrow walls. The homeowners are looking to replace that garage with a 22' x 20' detached garage and slab. The new garage will match the exterior façade of the current house on the property as it will be finished in stucco with 4" Miratec around the doors and window, Allprime Fascia and Plywood soffits. Date: August 17, 2020 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Heritage Preservation Commission Item Type: Other From:Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work Plan Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission work plan. INTRODUCTION: 2021 Commission work plans are due on September 25th. ATTACHMENTS: Description Work Plan Timeline DRAFT 2021 Work Plan 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission Work Plan CC Inventory CC Non-Historic Resources after 1945 Heritage Landmark Subcommittee-Lonnquist 2020 Workplan Development Timeline JUNE – AUG WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT: Commissions should be developing their work plan at the same time liaisons should be sharing their perspectives. JUNE 23 LIAISON MEETING: Work plan prep / check in SEPT MEETINGS: Commission approves proposed work plan. SEPT 25 WORK PLANS DUE: Include liaison comments. OCT 6 WORK SESSION:Chairs present proposed work plan to Council at work session. Liaisons attend. NOV 4 WORK SESSION: City staff presents staff proposed revisions. Liaisons attend. DEC 7 COUNCIL MEETING: City staff incorporates council feedback and submits final draft for approval. JAN 1: Commissionofficially starts implementing work plans. Commission Work Plan Instructions Updated 2020.06.25 Instructions: Each section with a white background should be filled out. Do not fill out council charge. Scott will complete this section with his proposed charge to the Council. Liaisons are responsible for completing the budget and staff support columns. At the end of each quarter give brief description over status of initiatives List initiatives in order of priority Initiative Type: Project – This is a new or continued initiative. Annual / On-going: – Initiative that is on the work plan every year. Event - Event or awards coordinated by the commission (not City staff). Timeline: SEPT MEETINGS: Commissionapproves proposed work plan. Plans due to MJ September 25.OCT 6 WORK SESSION:Chairs present proposed work plan to Council. Chairs present.NOV 4 WORK SESSION: City Manager presents staff proposed revisions. Liaisons present.DEC 1 COUNCIL MEETING: City Manager incorporates council feedback and submits final draft for approval.JAN 1: Commissionofficially starts implementing work plans. Commission: Heritage Preservation Commission 2021 Annual Work Plan Proposal Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Educate owners and Designate properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks Deliverable: • Educate owners and invite owners of determined eligible properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and recommend to Planning Commission and City Council • Create Resources to give to property owners with benefits and reasons to consider designating their properties Leads: Jane Lonnquist Target Completion Date Continual/Ongoing Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No funds are anticipated to be required outside of printing costs depending on what resources are created Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Depending on what educational materials are decided on, potentially some marketing/design services. Staff Support would 33 Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Add properties to the Heritage Preservation eligible landmark list Deliverable: The addition of properties to the City’s eligible landmark list Leads Target Completion Date Continual/Ongoing Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No funds required Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Review and decide on Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) applications for changes to heritage landmark designated properties. Deliverable: Grant COAs for heritage landmark designated properties Leads N/A-all Commission Target Completion Date Continual/Ongoing Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds required Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Pre-Application meeting with staff liaison and application review time/report from Staff Liaison and Consultant Vogel. Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☐☐☐☐ Project ☒☒☒☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Award the 2021 Heritage Preservation Award during Preservation Month in May. Deliverable: Award the 2021 Heritage Award Leads Target Completion Date May 2021 Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional funds required, funds for the plaque comes from the Planning Budget Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? Preservation month poster asking for nominations for the award Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒☒☒☒ Project ☐☐☐☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐☐☐☐ Event Council Charge ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Create a virtual walk/tour to celebrate preservation month (May) -History of Edina Schools (team up with Historical Society) -Virtual Parks Tour (Park and Rec Commission) -work with HRRC on walking tour Deliverable: -Virtual Walking Tour Leads Target Completion Date May Budget Required: Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. No additional budget required. Staff Support Required: How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support? 8 hours with GIS Specialist and time to help inform the community of the virtual tour Liaison Comments: City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Proposed Month for Joint Work Session (one time per year, up to 30 minutes): ☐ Mar ☐ April ☐ May ☐ June ☐ July ☐ Aug ☐ Sept ☐ Oct ☐ Nov 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 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 - 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: 11 2003 4619 Moorland Avenue 2005 4601 Drexel Avenue 2006 4608 Bruce Avenue December 11, 2019 Page 5 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 = 129 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 1 EDINA COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT NON-HISTORIC RESOURCES HOMES BUILT AFTER 1945 Arden Avenue: 6 4505 2014 English Tudor 4526 1950 American Colonial Revival 4529 1957 American Colonial Revival 4619 1945 American Colonial Revival 4904 1945 Rambler 4906 1948 American Colonial Revival Bruce Avenue: 7 4504 1950 American Colonial Revival 4510 2000 English Cottage 4524 2012 English Tudor 4528 1986 English Tudor 4602 2010 English Tudor 4608 2006 English Cottage 4624 2012 English Tudor Casco Avenue: 4 4515 1950 American Colonial Revival 4608 2016 Mediterranean/Revival 4611 1950 American Colonial Revival 4614 1951 American Colonial Revival Drexel Avenue: 1 4601 2005 English Tudor Wooddale Avenue: 3 4501 2003 Norman/English Tudor 4505 2000 American Colonial Revival 4615 2009 American Colonial Revival Edina Boulevard: 1 4612 1950 American Colonial Revival Moorland Avenue: 3 4600 1951 American Colonial Revival 4619 2003 French Normanish 4624 2010 English Tudor (Changed from 4408 Country Club Rd.) 2 Browndale Avenue: 2 4613 1950 New England Colonial Revival 4619 1956 American Colonial Revival Edgebrook Place: 3 4618 1957 American Colonial Revival 4626 1949 American Colonial Revival 4640 1950 Rambler Sunnyside Road: 10 4212 1949 American Colonial Revival 4702 1948 American Colonial Revival 4706 1951 American Colonial Revival 4800 1951 American Colonial Revival 4901 2010 English Cottage 4903 1947 American Colonial Revival 4904 1947 Rambler 4907 1946 American Colonial Revival 4916 1945 American Colonial Revival 4920 1945 American Colonial Revival Country Club Road: 2 4207 1990 American Colonial Revival 4409 1952 Rambler Total # of Non-Historic Resources: 42 HPC Purpose -- from Planning Department website: “​The role of the ​Heritage Preservation Commission​ safeguards the significant heritage properties of the City by ​identifying and nominating them for designation​ by the City Council as Edina Heritage Landmarks.” Work Plan: 2020 actual and 2021 proposed Initiative 1: ​Evaluate and recommend potential properties to be added to the Heritage Preservation eligible landmark list. Initiative 2: ​Invite owners of determined eligible properties to designate their properties as Edina Heritage Landmarks and recommend to Planning Commission and City Council. Current Status: - 11 existing Edina Heritage Landmarks: ​https://www.edinamn.gov/712/Heritage-Landmarks - 6 of these are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places (​Baird ​and ​Grimes ​houses, ​Grange Hall​, ​Cahill School​, ​Country Club District​, ​Wooddale Bridge​) - 5 are not (​Browndale Bridge​, ​Edina Mills Site​, ​Edina Theater Sign​, ​Oskam House,​ ​Peterson House​) - 9 properties have been determined (in 1980) to be Eligible for Landmark Designation (see notebook) -1 of these, Morningside United Christian Church, explored the next step of nomination and plan of treatment development with the City and HPC recently, but decided not to pursue Possible Roles for Heritage Landmark Subcommittee -What is the history of engagement with the other eligible property owners? -What information has been used to engage with these property owners? -Should these records and outreach materials be updated? -Are there other properties that should have Determination of Eligibility done? -Any past attempts to help the 5 Landmarks join the National Register? Proposed Commitment for Subcommittee Members -One call monthly and occasional emails for input/direction (easy!) -Optional additional research or outreach (truly optional)