Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2021 PacketAgenda He ritage Pre se rvation Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota Virtual Meeting This m e eting will be h eld electronically u sin g Webex software . The m e etin g will be stream e d live on the City’s YouTu be ch anne l, YouTube.com /Edin aTV or you can listen to the m e eting via te le phone by callin g 1-415-655-0001, Access code : 177 048 4718 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: December 8, 2020 V.Sketch Plans A.Sketch Plan: 4600 Browndale Avenue VI.Reports/Recommendations A.COA: 4634 Edgebrook Pla ce B.COA: 4630 Drexel Av enue VII.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Preservation Basics-Section 106 Review VIII.Chair And Member Comments A.2021 Work Plan Upda tes IX.Sta 4 Comments X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 7c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: Minutes F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : December 8, 2020 Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the D ecember 8, 2020 H eritage P reservation C ommission meeting minutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description Minutes : December 8, 2020 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, December 8, 2020 I. Call to Order Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Lonnquist, Pollock, Cundy, Birdman, Widmoyer, Hassenstab, and Chair Schilling. Emily Bodeker, staff liaison, and preservation consultant, Robert Vogel were also in attendance. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Pollock seconded by Birdman to approve the meeting agenda as presented. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Lonnquist seconded by Hassenstab to approve the meeting minutes from the virtual November 10, 2020 meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations A. COA: 4215 Country Club Road Staff introduced the COA request for the addition of three dormers within the existing roof structure at 4215 Country Club Road. Motion by Birdman seconded by Hassenstab to approve the COA request at 4215 Country Club Road as presented and conditioned on the plans presented. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Dan Patch Line Switchman’s Shanty Bodeker informed the Commission she invited the student who reached out to the Commission asking about the switchman’s shanty. She invited him to a future meeting to discuss the project that he was working on. Chair Schilling informed the Commission she has been unable to meet with her contact at the Historical Society due to staffing issues. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: C. 2021 HPC Work Plan Bodeker informed the Commission that City Council has approved the 2021 work plan as presented by the HPC. Liaison Bodeker also went through a short presentation on the work plan process. VI. Special Recognitions and Presentations A. Registration of Preservation Resources Consultant Vogel gave a presentation to the Heritage Preservation Commission. VII. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Lonnquist updated the Commission on the work that her and Commissioners Pollock and Hassenstab have done on notifying landmark eligible property owners. Chair Schilling informed the Commission that Student Commissioner Maheshwari emailed her an staff an updated presentation that he had been working on. VIII. Staff Comments A. 2021 Meeting Calendar and Deadlines Liaison Bodeker informed the Commission that the 2021 meeting dates and deadlines have been finalized. IX. Adjournment Motion by Birdman seconded by Pollock to adjourn the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at 7:41 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: O ther F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:S ketc h P lan: 4600 Bro wnd ale Avenue Dis cus s ion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : S ketch Plan R eview: P rior to filling a complete application, an applicant may request to meet with the H eritage P reservation C ommission for an informal exchange when the H P C can review the basic concept of a proposed project and offer suggestions to a potential applicant. T he purpose of this review is to provide assistance in resolving problems or meeting requirements if the potential applicant decides to proceed with the C O A process. T he H P C may provide preliminary, non-binding guidance on the suitability of the project. S ketch plan review does not require formal notices to neighboring properties. I N TR O D U C TI O N : AT TAC HME N T S : Description January 2021 Sketch Plan Submittal 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Location 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 HOTO CA. 1926 ROPOSED ADDITION 2019 CA. 1937 2018 - Realtor Ad INTRODUCTION Historic Conditions 1926 - Star Tribune 1980 - NRHP nomination 2020 - photo by Peterssen/Keller 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Existing Conditions VIEW FROM BACKYARD VIEW DRIVEWAY ENTRY PATH VIEW FROM STREETFRONT ENTRY VIEW OF SIDE ENTRY FROM STREET VIEW OF DRIVEWAY AT FIN 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 INTRODUCTION Architectural Reference Description of Tudor Style (English, Eclectic Houses 1890-1940) • Identifying Features: steeply pitched roof, facade dominated by one or more prominent cross gables, decorative half-timbering present on about half of examples, windows usually grouped in multiples with multi-pane glazing, massive decorative chimneys • Principal Subtypes: Stucco Wall Cladding • Variants and Details: gables, half-timbering, chimneys • Typical Elaborations: cast-stone and brick trim, end porches frequently under main roof of house, steeply pitched gable dormers, varied eave-line heights, patterned stone or brick-work 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Precedent Projects in Portfolio Country Club Tudor Lars Peterssen while at Domain Loring Cottage Country Club Residence Bde Maka Ska Residence Isles Residence La Salle Residence Summit Avenue Residence Park Residence Grotto Residence 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 TING CONDITION SURVEY FOR:L DESIGN + BUILD SCALE IN FEET N Legend DESIGN Existing Site Plan Sidewalk Access only through driveway, historically sidewalk was connected to main entrance Side Patio part of 1960’s addition, underused, does not get good sunlight Lack of Formal Porch which is both typical in neighborhood and within the architectural language Narrow Driveway Driveway narrows between neighbor’s fence and decorative fins to less than 8’ Rear Facing Garage and Driveway face the creek, blocking view of the creek from majority of the home + difficult to navigate 1960’s Addition outdated, inconsistent with primary architectural style 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Proposed Site Plan Original Driveway Location maintained as well as lowest driveway point and view to creek Side Entrance side entrance in similar location allows ease of access and location for trash/recycling more central to kitchen Formal Porch added aligned with primary wing of the home that faces the street Narrow Driveway Decorative fins removed from home to help with accessibility and maintain driveway location Side Facing Garage with Terrace hides view of the garage from the creek + allows more active house spaces to take advantage of views New Addition utilizes existing mass by extending the primary gable towards the creek 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Perspective Views - Front Grade increased 1ft from property line to front steps, allowing railing free front porch Front porch added where no formal entry was previously Front door location adjusted to allow easier access from porch and views to creek Attic gable window enlarged to match size and style of other existing windows on the third level 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Perspective Views - Driveway Retaining Wall built along property line to allow lower driveway access Decorative sidewall removed to allow widened driveway Windows added above existing windows to match height of arched windows Original curb cut and driveway location preserved 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Perspective Views - Backyard Original foundation repurposed as large outdoor storage with side porch above for kitchen access New windows with larger divided panes allowing more view while reflecting historic style Lower Patio does not exceed where the original driveway of the house was Catslide roof and dormers added to creek facing side Upper Level Hangout pushed into expressed gable face 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Perspective Views - Aerial 1 Access from front yard terraced steps built into mass of the house Terrace and screen porch provide ample outdoor space while disguising garage mass Dominant gable ridge line maintained and carried through to be expressed on the creek side New or adjusted windows that reflect openings on the front facade Lower level garage location moved to allow more active use on creek facing lower level 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Perspective Views - Aerial 2 Wood paneling on exterior to match finish of windows and existing half-timbering on front facade Existing dormer expanded to allow additional windows in upper level bedroom Balcony added where angle of original facade meets creek facing new gable 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN East Elevation 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN South Elevation 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN West Elevation 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN North Elevation 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Lower Level Plan 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Main Level Plan 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Upper Level Plan 4600 Browndale Avenue - Sketch Review PETERSSEN/KELLER ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 DESIGN Attic Level Plan Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O A: 4634 Ed gebrook P lac e Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : Approve the C ertificate of Appropriateness request and final plans for the new home at 4634 E dgebrook P lace. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage which meets the district’s plan of treatment criteria. T he existing home is not classified as a historic resource since it was constructed after the D istrict’s period of significance (1924- 1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the H P C review and approval. T he H eritage P reservation C ommission reviewed the new home C O A application on O ctober 13, 2020. T his is the applicant’s submittal for final plans for the proposed home at 4634 E dgebrook P lace. B etter Together P age AT TAC HME N T S : Description Staff Report Final Plan Submittal Applicant Submittal Meeting #1 Aerial Map Cons ultant Vogel Memo January 12, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4634 Edgebrook Place-demolish existing home and construction of a new home and attached garage Information / Background: The subject property, 4634 Edgebrook Place, is located on the west and south side of Edgebrook Place. The existing home is a two-story residence that was built in 1951. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of the existing home with the intention of building a new home with attached garage which meets the district’s plan of treatment criteria. The existing home is not classified as a historic resource since it was constructed after the District’s period of significance (1924-1944), thus its demolition is not an issue; however the construction of a replacement home is subject to the HPC review and approval. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the new home COA application on October 13, 2020. This is the applicant’s submittal for final plans for the proposed home at 4634 Edgebrook Place. Final Plan Overview: The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the preliminary plan at their October 13, 2020 meeting at which time they heard comments from both the applicant as well as the public via the City’s Better Together page. The HPC took no action at that time, but rather provided the applicant with feedback relative to suggested changes to the plans. The applicant considered the board’s feedback when crafting the final plans offered for consideration at this time. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Analysis and Recommendation: The final plans have been reviewed by Preservation Consultant Vogel who determined that the design of the new home complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation and the guidelines for new construction in the Country Club District plan of treatment. The plan of treatment directs the design of new houses to meet the original Thorpe deed restrictions and be compatible with existing historic houses in materials, size, scale, color, and texture; however there is no requirement for new houses to imitate an earlier style or period of architecture. The proposed home is compatible with the historic character of the district and will cause no harm to adjacent historic homes. Staff agrees with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation and recommends approval of the proposed new home at 4634 Edgebrook Place. If the homeowner is agreeable consultant Vogel recommends an archeology survey or phase 1 shovel test. This would be completed prior to construction. Findings supporting the recommendation for approval include: 1. The final plans reflect changes suggested by the HPC during the preliminary review at the October 13, 2020, HPC meeting; 2. The applicant has met all of the procedural requirements required for the replacement of a non-historic resource in the Country Club District; 3. The proposed plan meets the criteria set out in the design review guidelines of the Country Club District Plan of Treatment; and 4. The proposed new house will be visually compatible with the historic period revival style homes in the neighborhood and should not detract from their historic character. Approval is conditioned on the following: 1. Plans electronically submitted to staff on December 18, 2020. 2. A year-built plaque is displayed on the home. 3. The HPC’s staff liaison is provided a final inspection of the home prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Photographs of all elevations of the new construction shall be provided once the house is completed. 4634 Edgebrook PlaceEdina, Minnesota Proposed MaterialsMain Home Façade: white painted brick, with stepped surface for textural compositionTrim and Windows: Off white Roofing: Cedar ShinglesChimneys: white painted brick, with painted stone cap and clay chimney capHouse FeaturesPlate glass windows appear in the higher traffic gathering areas in this home. Inspiration for these types of windows were drawn from renowned Minnesota architect Edwin Lundie. In areas with large expanse of glazing, Lundie would sometimes opt out of using repetitive smaller windows in lieu of larger plate glass windows. See inspiration images below and adjacent. Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place Stairs 4'-73 4"Up 18 RUnexcavated Lounge LowerEntry Exercise LowerGuest Bed Craft Room Mechanical Sport Court Sauna LowerPowder F.d. 26 Queen GuestBath Lower Hooks24 SportsStorage Lower Hall 26 30 10'-8"14'-3"5'-6"6'-0" 21'-11" Centerline of wndws abv. 98" tv Ping pong Down 7 R 5'-0"6'-1014" 6'-10" 15'-212" 22'-914"13'-9"15'-514"32'-9"12'-0"GuestHall 30 Media Wine cab. Risers abv. shown dashed 26 8'-0"13'-10"21'-112" 28 30 c.o. 28 28 26 28 c.o. GuestBed Ante 4'-0"6'-1014"5'-8"7'-012" 285'-8"3'-0" 24 26 pocket door 26 pocket door 32'-4"PowderAnte Lower 4'-0" 26Media Storage 26PowderChanging 30 Pair of 24 doors 7'-1112"5'-10"Terrace UIFD3080 UIFD3080 UCA3072 (3 thus)UCA3072UCA3072UCA3084 (5 thus) Pair of 26 pocket doors Low Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Main Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Screen Porch - Mudset stone HisOffice PowderAnte Front Porch - Mudset stone FormalPowder FrontStoop - Mudset stone Entry Living Room Stairs Dining HerOffice Kitchen Mud Room SideStoop Pantry RearPowder Sun Room Garage - Conc. w/ epoxy finish 15'-0"16'-714"26 30 7'-1"7'-0"6'-912"11'-914"4'-6"24" d. cubbiesLockers 28 28 6'-1" 11'-1112"10'-4"10'-912"14'-312" 22'-512"4'-6"10'-0" 6'-5"10'-434"Down x R24'-73 4"42'-912"36 c.o.5'-412"7'-712" 30 c.o. 36 pocket door 36 c.o.5'-0"28 15'-212"4'-214" 8'-6"5'-412"36 x 80 custom wood door 26 concealed door 13'-812"26'-612""Isokern" Magnum 48" woodburning f.p. 50 opng"Isokern"Magnum 36" wood burning f.p. 28 10'-6"MainHall Tv Up 18 RPair of 30 pocket doors48" range w/ hood10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstripping16'-714"Bar area OfficeAnte4'-0"36" frzr36" ref.36" sink Trash / recycle / compost D.w. GarageStorage Stacked W/D 36 c.o. Prep sink 14" d. cabs54" Ø table 50 opng 3'-6" x 10'-0" table5'-6"30" walloven4'-134"4'-8"4'-0" 30 x 92 screendoor 15'-712"28 dual action "Isokern" Magnum 42" woodburning f.p. Breakfast 10'-0"Sink 14" d. book cab. bench ? Down2 R Down2 R Down2 R 10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstripping10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstrippingDown2 R 2x6 2x8 2x8 2x8 2x62x6 2x62x62x62x62x6 Wndws tight toinside corner F.d. F.d. F.d. Ice 15" d. open shelves15" d. open shelves appliances ? Wine Sink T/RD.w. 30 Tile dog wash - verify overall size & height w/ owner w/ ± 10" tile curb @ opg - provide chain to tether dog F.d. 16'-11" Thin brick to alignw/opposite side 2x8 2x8 riser @ door ? 12" d. book cab. Down2 R UCA2056 UCA2056UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084 UCA3084 UIFD2680UCA3084Custom Marvin clad casement picture unit - 11'-11" w. x 6'-11 58" h.(frame size)UCA3084UCA3060 30 x 80 custom wood door UCA3060 UCA3060 UCA3060 UCA3060 Down2 R UAWN3032UIFD3080Custom Marvin clad casement picture unit - 4'-2 12" w. x 7'-7 18" h.(frame size) - 5 thus Custom Marvin clad casement picture unit - 4'-2 12" w. x 7'-7 18" h.(frame size) - 4 thus Custom Marvin cladcasement picture unit -4'-2 12" w. x 7'-7 18" h.(frame size) - 2 thusUCA3060 (2 thus)UCA3060 (5 thus) 30 x 80 custom wood door UAWN3032 4'-1112" 1 2 3 4 8 12 Upper Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place PrimaryBedroom Stairs Down 18 R4'-214" Open to below PrimaryLounge PrimaryBath PrimaryClosetKing Kid's Loft UpperBed # 2 Queen Bed # 2Bath Bed # 3Closet 26 Laundry UpperBed # 1 Queen5'-0"Bookcase13'-0"4'-378"18'-7"14'-712"8'-103 4"12'-11"4'-0"12'-8"8'-914"18'-7"13'-0"18'-0" 6'-93 4" Hooks 24 3'-6"5'-0" 6'-2" 18'-7" 11'-912"8'-4"12'-212"14'-3" Sink5'-0" x 3'-0" freestanding tubPair of 20 pocket doors 28 UpperBed # 3 Bed # 3Bath 24 24 Bed # 2Closet 26 13'-212" 7'-0" 5'-0"Bed # 1Bath DeskDesk10'-1112"12'-1112"Linen Desk6'-1012" UpperBed Hall 26 26 pocket door 28 12'-612"8'-6"26 8'-0"± 7'-0" wall hgt ± 7'-0" wall hgt HooksHooks 26 28 pocket door 40 c.o.5'-012"3'-6"3'-6"7'-3"3'-6"3'-6" Make-up desk Wndw seat Tv 10'-412"4'-5"Queen UpperStorage Closet 26 pocket door ± 7'-0" wall hgt ± 7'-0" wall hgt 6'-812" Tile shower - seegeneral plan notes F.d.2x62x6 2x6 2x62x6 2x62x62x62x6Risers below shown dashed Outside face of sheathing below shown dashed Outside face of sheathing below shown dashed Outside face of sheathing below shown dashed 26 pocketdoor 2x6Tile shower - see general plan notes F.d. Tile shower - see general plan notes 2x6 Linen 3'-6" 4'-0" 26 24 3'-6"F.d. W D 26 pocketdoor 26 HooksBed # 1Closet 4'-778"± 6'-9 3 4"wall hgt ± 6'-0" wall hgt Tile shower - see general plan notes F.d. UCA3072 UCA3072 UCA3072 UCA3072 UCA3072 UCA3072UCA3072 UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3084 UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072 UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072UCA3072 UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084UCA3084 UAWN3032UAWN3032 UAWN3032 1 2 3 4 8 12 Front Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 32'-812"12 13 "Timberlane" flat panel shutter FP2 Thin brick@ recess Thin brick @ chimney Top of typ.Garage slab Conc. Stone cols Horiz. siding @ sides of wndw Pitched metal pan @ wndw ± 14" per foot(hold top of pan 4" below btm of wndw sill) Painted brick chimney cap w/ conc. wash (typ.) Clay chimney pot (typ.) 8" h. painted wood lintel (typ.) Prefin. metal step flashing up chimney 8" min. Stepped brick @ eave ends (typ.) 1 12" brick mould @wndw perim. (typ.) Tapered painted brick sill over low brick Tapered 2x sill over wood siding Custom profiled cutstone surround @ door perim. Pitched painted brickwndw sill (typ.) Mudset stone stoop / porch w/ stone treads & risers Decorative wood corbels @ corners Wood newels, balusters, & guardrail 8" h. paintedwood lintel (typ.) Cedar shingle roofing (treated to not gray) - typ. Painted brick veneer (typ.) 8" h. painted conc. band Painted conc. cap Typ. painted veneer brick Mudset stone stoop w/ stone treads & risers 1x shiplap siding w/ nickel gap & 6" exposure (typ.) 1 2 3 4 8 12 Left Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 12 13 Top of typ.Lower level slab Fixed screen panels (typ.) 12 3 Right Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 Top of typ.Sport court slab Wood trim to match depth of lintel abv. Painted conc. cap Back Elevation of the House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Top of typ.Main level subfloor Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Top of typ.Sport court slab Top of typ.Lower level slab Lower level clg(9'-0") 2x6 wndw trimw/ 2x tapered sill @ siding areas 2x trim (typ)4" thick wood cap over typ. wood siding over "Root River" 3036 crown mould Street Comparison Drawing - 4634 Edgebrook PlTop of typ.Main level subfloorUpper level clg(9'-1 1/8")1213Top of typ.Garage slabpypypHoriz. siding @sides of wndwPw1(bClay chimneypot (typ.)Stepped brick @eave ends (typ.)sill over low brickMudset stone stoop / porchw/ stone treads & risersDecorative woodcorbels @ cornersCedar shingle roofing(treated to not gray) - typ.veneer (typ.)Mudset stone stoop w/stone treads & risersPitched metal pan @wndw ± 14" per foothold top of pan 4"below btm of wndw sill) Aeriel view of Edgebrook Place and Brownlade Avenue - 4634 Edgebrook PlBro wnd a l e A v e. Brownd a l e A v e . Edgebroo k P l.Edge brook Pl.46344638463046264622461846144610 Neighboring Houses with Large windows4902 Sunnyside4627 Browndale4619 Browndale4505 Browndale4216 Sunnyside4216 (Unknown Street) Neighboring Houses with Front Porches4510 Moorland4620 Moorland4504 Sunnyside4634 Bruce4618 Edgebrook 4608 Casco Neighboring Houses with Columns4600 Moorland4909 Arden4532 Casco4607 Edina Blvd4505 Wooddale4601 Moorland Neighboring Houses with Brick Chimneys4902 Bruce4506 Bruce4504 Arden4500 Browndale4901 Browndale4515 Browndale House to the South - 4638 Edgebrook Place Subject House - 4634 Edgebrook Place House to the North - 4630 Edgebrook Pl Neighborhood House - 4610, 4612, & 4614 Edgebrook PlaceExample of a home in the neighborhood that has larger plate glass windows. Neighborhood House - 4618, 4622 & 4626 Edgebrook Place Neighborhood House - 4616, 4620, & 4624 Browndale Neighborhood House - 4628 & 4632 Browndale FEM A 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E G1 G2 G1 G1 G1 CB CB CB G1 G1 G2 CB 2 2 3 4 4 POTPOT CB CB P.E. P.E. P.E. 6 1 1 O.H.W.L= 888.49 MINNEHAHA CREEK 1 5 G2 G2 G1 2 2 1.5%1.5%PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY L INE EDGEBROOK PLACE CB POT POT908.00TOW 901.00TOW 906.50TOW 904.50TOW 904.50TOW 910.00TOW 910.00TOW 895.63BOS 906.25 906.00 ME ME ME ME 905.00BOW 894.00BOS 906.25BOW 907.58 904.50BOS 907.50TOS 900.00BOW 893.83BOS 895.00BOW 895.00BOW 906.25 906.00BOW 906.17 906.50 906.50907.63 905.75 906.00 906.12BOS 907.50TOS 907.63 906.50 895.50TOS 895.50 895.50 895.50 895.50 895.63895.63 895.63 895.63 895.63 895.63 904.13TOS907.58 906.50BOS 907.50TOS 906.50BOS 907.50TOS 900.63BOS897.92TOS 906.00TOS 902.00BOS 901.92BOS 897.83TOS 906.08 906.12 906.25 906.00BOW 893.00TOS 892.00BOS891.50TOS 890.00BOS 889.50TOS 888.00BOS CB 1.5%1.5%892 906906 890 896 898894 9029049008908928 9 6 8 9 8 9 0 0 8 9 4 8 9 3 90 4 9069 0 2 TRAFFIC FLOW 1 DN DN DN DNDN DN DN DN DN DN DN 1 1 1 906.50BOS 907.50TOS DRIVE LAWN WALK-OUT TERRACE PLUNGE POOL 10' X 22' WATER EL. 895.00 BENCHW.W. PLAY LAWN FRONT PORCH UPPER TERRACE HOUSE FFE: 907.75 BFFE: 895.75 GARAGE FFE: 906.25 FIREPIT TERRACE DN CB AD AD AD AD 2 CB AC POT G3 10' SIDEYARD SETBACK30' FRO N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 30' FRONT YARD S E T B A C K 10' S IDEYARD SETBACK 11 BG 18 BG 7 QA 2 CV 19 BG 1 AG 13 BG 5 TM 14 NF 15 TO 6 TM 9 BM 11 ER 11 AA 12 TM 13 BM 10 TM 16 NF 10 NF 14 CN 10 CN 19 NF 40 BG 4 PC 16 ER 22 BM 41 ER 41 AA 38 DE 14 CN 17 ER 37 DE 5 CB 11 CB 19 TO 1 AG 12 NF 7 TM 12 NF 15 AA 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK P.E. CB PROPERTY LINE G3 G1 G1 G1 1 SANITA R Y S E W E R LI N E FE M A 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E 1 1 5 1 8 8 10 1 9 10 12 8 6 2 1 11 10 7 10 10 9 1 4 3 9 8 L101 SITE PLAN 1"= 10'creation date:12/17/2020filepath:/Users/travisvanlierestudio/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/EDGEBROOK PLACE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/HPC-REVIEW/L101.dwglast saved:travisvanlierestudio December 17, 2020 10:45 AM211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING CITY SIDEWALK - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 5.EXISTING STORM SEWER ACCESS. SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING RIP RAP SHORELINE The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2020 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. NOTE: N OT FOR CONSTRUCTION license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 TRAVIS VAN LIERE Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 4 6 3 4 E D G E B R O O K P L A C E E D I N A , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 4 2 4 E D G E B R O O K P L A C E R E S I D E N C E Sheet: 12/01/2020 date:12/01/2020 AB Rev #Description DateIssued for HPC review 09/25/2020Issued for Preliminary Pricing 12/01/2020 Issued for HPC review 12/18/2020 SCALE: 1 inch = 0 10'20'5' 10 feet N SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN1 NOTE: SEE SURVEY DRAWING FOR PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 2.PROPOSED PERGOLA 3.EXISTING DOCK TO REMAIN, SAVE AND PROTECT 4. PROPOSED RIP RAP SHORELINE 5.NEW CURB CUT PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS 6.PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY 7. PROPOSED PLUNGE POOL 8.PROPOSED GATE 9.PROPOSED FENCE 10.PROPOSED POTS, BY OWNER 11.PROPOSED UTILITY/ AC LOCATION 12.PROPOSED GAS FIREPIT PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE QA Quercus alba x Q. robur 'Crimschmidt 'CRIMSON SPIRE' COLUMNAR OAK 7 EA.3" CA. B&B PC Pyrus calleryana CHANTICLEAR PEAR 4 EA.3" CA. B&B CV Chionanthus virginicus WHITE FRINGE TREE 2 EA.3" CA. B&B AG Amelanchier x 'Autumn Brilliance AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 2 EA.3" CA. B&B SHRUBS KEY NAME QTY SIZE TO Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' 'TECHNY' ARBORVITAE 33 EA.8-9" HT. B&B TM Taxus x media ‘Taunton’ JAPANESE YEW TAUNTON 40 EA.36" HT. CONT. BG Buxus x ‘Glencoe’ CHICAGOLAND BOXWOOD 101 EA. 24"HT. CONT. OR B&B PERENNIAL AREAS KEY NAME QTY SIZE BM Brunnera macrophylla ‘Jack Frost’ 'JACK FROST' BRUNNERA 44 EA.#1 CONT. DE Dryopteris erythrosora 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE' FERN 75 EA.#1 CONT. ER Epimedium rubrum RED BARRENWORT 85 EA.#1 CONT. AA Astilbe x arendsii ‘Beauty of Ernst’ 'BEAUTY OF ERNST' ASTILBE 66 EA.#1 CONT. CN Calamintha nepeta ‘Montrose White’ 'MONTROSE WHITE' CALAMINT 29 EA.#1 CONT. NF Nepeta x faassenii 'Walker's Low' 'WALKERS LOW' CATMINT 83 EA.#1 CONT. CB Clematis virginiana VIRGIN'S BOWER VINE 16 EA.#1 CONT. TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES KEY NAME QTY SIZE G1 SOD 1585 SQ.YD. G2 NO MOW FESCUE SEED MIX 1827 SQ.FT. G3 Geranium macrorrhizum ‘Bevan's Variety’ BEVAN'S VARIETY HARDY GERANIUM 305 EA.4" CONT. TAG QTY 1 4634 Edgebrook Place Edina, Minnesota 2 Proposed Materials Main Home Façade: white painted brick, with stepped surface for textural composition Trim and Windows: Off white Roofing: Cedar Shingles Chimneys: white painted brick, with painted stone cap and clay chimney cap House Features Plate glass windows appear in the higher traffic gathering areas in this home. Inspiration for these types of windows were drawn from renowned Minnesota architect Edwin Lundie. In areas with large expanse of glazing, Lundie would sometimes opt out of using repetitive smaller windows in lieu of larger plate glass windows. See inspiration images below and adjacent. 3 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 4 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 5 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 6 Exterior Rendering - 4634 Edgebrook Place 7 Main Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Screen Porch Office Nook PowderAnte Front Porch FormalPowder FrontStoop Entry Living Room Stairs Dining Office Kitchen Mud Room SideStoop Pantry RearPowder Sun Room Garage 15'-0"17'-714"8'-5"26 30 7'-1"6'-6"6'-912"11'-0"5'-8"24" d. cubbiesLockers 4'-0"28 28 6'-1" 11'-1112"11'-0"8'-012"6'-512"9'-1112"13'-712" 23'-3"4'-6"10'-0" 4'-11"8'-1034"Down x R23'-13 4"34'-912"36 c.o.36 c.o.5'-0"6'-1" 30 c.o. 36 pocket door 36 c.o. 36 c.o.5'-0"Terrace 28 18'-4"4'-214" 3939 20'-6"31'-8"20'-6"13'-2"11'-6"8'-6"7'-0"Pair of 28 doors 30 36 26 concealed door 28 8'-6"13'-0" 15'-11"27'-212"1'-8" flush hearth "Isokern"Magnum 42" wood burning f.p. 1'-8" flush hearth 50 opng"Isokern"Magnum 36" wood burning f.p. 28 10'-6"MainHall Tv Up 18 RPair of 30 pocket doors48" range w/ hood10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstrippingEqual Equal 5'-6"16'-134"Open to abv. & below2'-0"4'-0"Bar area OfficeAnte 6'-912"5'-914"36" frzr36" ref.36" sinkTrash / recycle D.w. GarageStorageDown 30 Stacked W/D 30 9'-6"7'-53 4"3'-83 4"3'-734"GarageStairs 36 c.o. Prep sink 30 18" d. cabs54" Ø table 50 opng EqualEqual3'-6" x 10'-0" table5'-6"30" walloven4'-734"6'-2"4'-0" PowderAnte Rear 30 15'-712"28 dualaction 1'-8" flush hearth "Isokern"Magnum 42"w/ gas log Breakfast 12'-034"BooksSink Full hgt cab. bench ? removeanteroom ? removeanteroom ? 8 Upper Level Floor Plan - 4634 Edgebrook Place Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” PrimaryBedroom Stairs Down 18 R4'-214" Open to below 2'-0"4'-0"PrimaryLounge PrimaryBath PrimaryClosetKing Kid's Loft UpperBed # 2 Queen Bed # 2Bath Bed # 3Closet 26 Laundry UpperBed # 1 QueenPrimaryBalcony W D 4'-10"Bookcase13'-0"7'-534"18'-7"15'-1112"8'-103 4"10'-8"4'-0"7'-0"12'-8"15'-738"18'-7"13'-0"18'-0" 6'-93 4"1'-6"Hooks 1'-6"26 3'-6"5'-0" 6'-2" 18'-7" 11'-912"8'-4"12'-212"14'-3" Sink Free stand tub40 c.o. 3421 28 wndw ? omit wndw ? UpperBed # 3 1'-4" Bench Bed # 3Bath 24 24 1'-6"1'-6"1'-4" Bench Bed # 2Closet 26 13'-412" 7'-0"2'-0" Bench Bed # 1Closet 4'-10" Bed # 1Bath 1'-4" Bench 24 Hooks1'-6"5'-8"DeskDesk3'-6"9'-1112"12'-1112"Linen Deskf.p. flue 6'-1012" UpperBed Hall pocket doors ? 26 26 pocket door 1'-6"26 4'-4"10'-312"6'-3"26 6'-6"± 7'-0" wall hgt ± 7'-0" wall hgt HooksHooks 26 28 40 c.o.5'-012"3'-6"3'-6"7'-3"3'-6"3'-6" Make-up desk Wndw seat Tv 7'-938"12'-0" 5'-612"3'-0"26 Queen UpperStorage Closet 26 26 pocket door ± 6'-6" wall hgt ± 6'-6" wall hgt 5'-112"7'-012" 6'-812" wndw ? 26 267'-2"7'-534"Full hgt cab. 9 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Front Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 32'-812"12 13 Thin brick @ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 10 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Left Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 11 Right Elevation - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 Back Elevation of the House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 1 2 3 4 8 12 Scale: 1’-0” = 1/8” Top of typ.Main level subfloorMain level clg(9'-4 1/2")Top of typ.Upper level subfloorUpper level clg(9'-1 1/8")121332'-812"1213Thin brick@ chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")1213 12 13Chimney beyond Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8") 12 13 12 13 chimneys Top of typ.Main level subfloor Main level clg(9'-4 1/2") Top of typ.Upper level subfloor Upper level clg(9'-1 1/8")1213 13 Street Comparison Drawing - 4634 Edgebrook Pl 2021 Xref .\Site.dwg1/8” = 1’0” 14 Aeriel view of Edgebrook Place and Brownlade Avenue - 4634 Edgebrook PlBrowndal e Ave .Browndale Ave.Edgebrook Pl.E d gebr o o k Pl. 4634 4638 4630 4626 4622 4618 4614 4610 15 House to the South - 4638 Edgebrook Place 16 Subject House - 4634 Edgebrook Place 17 House to the North - 4630 Edgebrook Pl 18 Neighborhood House - 4610, 4612, & 4614 Edgebrook Place Example of a home in the neighborhood that has larger plate glass windows. 19 Neighborhood House - 4618, 4622 & 4626 Edgebrook Place 20 Neighborhood House - 4616, 4620, & 4624 Browndale 21 Neighborhood House - 4628 & 4632 Browndale G2 CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB HOUSE FFE: 907.75 BFFE: 895.75 907.50 FFE AUTOCOURT LAWN WALK-OUT TERRACE O.H.W.L= 888.49 895.50 905.50 906.00 TOW 901.00 TOW 1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5% DN DN DN DNDN DN DN DN DN GARAGE FFE: 906.75 1.25%DN 897.00 TOS 899.25 TOS DN 901.50 TOS 903.75 TOS 907.50 TOS 907.50 TOS DN DN DN DN CB 905.50 BOS 904.00 BOS 905.50 BOS 906.67 BOS 906.75 905.50 TOS 895.00 BOS 905.00 BOW 905.50 905.50 905.50 905.50 895.25902.00 BOW 906.50 BOW 906.00 906.75905.00 BOW 906.67 BOS 907.17 TOS 907.25 906.62 ME ME 906.62 906.62 BOS 907.12 TOS 907.25 906.75 906.75 906.75 906.50 906.50 907.25 ME ME 894.00 TOS 888.00 BOS 907.17 TOS 907.25 906.62 BOS 907.12 TOS 906.67 BOS 906.25 906.25 906.33 906.75 900.00 BOW 895.00 BOW 895.25 897.25 BOS 899.50 BOS 901.75 BOS 895.00 BOW 905.50 TOS 904.00 BOS 895.00 895.00 902.00 BOW 901.50 BOW 901.50 BOW 89 0 89 2 89 4 89 6 8 9 8 90 0 902 88 8 890 892 902904906 906 888 894 898900905 896 9 0 4 906MINNEHAHA CREEKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEDRIVE PROPERTY LINE EDGEBROOK PLACE AC UPPER TERRACECB CB CB P.E. P.E. P.E. P.E. LAWN 907.00 TOW 2630282836 c.o.36 c.o.30 c.o.36 c.o.36 c.o.36 c.o.28Pair of28 doors303626concealeddoor2840 opng28Pair of 30pocket doors10'-0" w. x 8'-0" h. o.h. door w/perimeter weatherstripping303036 c.o.3040 opng3028 dualaction39 BG G 1 7 QC 10 BG 16 BG 6 TM 1 TM 1 CC 12 TM 22 BG 58 BG 6 QC G 2 G 1 G 1 G 1 G 2 2 CV 14 BG 45 BG 3 4 2 2 21 1 3 MP 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 2 5 4 G 2 G 2 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK 50' LAKESIDE SETBACK 30' FRONT Y A R D S E T B A C K SETBACK 10' SIDEYARD SETBACK FEM A 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D L I N E FEMA 1 0 0 Y E A R F L O O D LI N E10' SIDE YARD SETBACKG 1 G 1 G 1 G 1 G 1 100 BG 16 TO 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 710 11 8 8 8 10 10 10 L101 SITE PLAN 1"= 10'creation date:9/30/2020filepath:/Users/travisvanlierestudio/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/EDGEBROOK PLACE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/1. PERMIT-SET/L101.dwglast saved:travisvanlierestudio September 30, 2020 10:39 AM211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING CITY SIDEWALK - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 5.EXISTING STORM SEWER ACCESS. SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING RIP RAP SHORELINE The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2020 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. NOTE: N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 4 6 3 4 E D G E B R O O K P L A C E E D G E B R O O K P L A C E R E S I D E N C E Sheet: 9/30/2020 date:9/30/2020 AB Rev #Description Date 1 Issued for HPC review 09/25/2020 SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED RETAINING WALL, STEP WITH GRADE 2.PROPOSED COVERED PORCH, SEE ARCH. DWGS. 3.EXISTING DOCK 4.PROPOSED RIP RAP SHORELINE 5.NEW CURB CUT PER CITY OF EDINA STANDARDS 6.PROPOSED CATCH BASINS 7.PROPOSED FRENCH DRAIN 8.PROPOSED POP UP EMITTER 9.PROPOSED FIREPLACE 10.PROPOSED FENCE 11.PROPOSED POTS PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE MP Quercus alba x Q. robur 'Crimschmidt 'CRIMSON SPIRE' COLUMNAR OAK 16 EA.3" CA. B&B CV Chionanthus virginicus WHITE FRINGE TREE 2 EA.3" CA. B&B CC Cercis canadensis Northern Strain Redbud 1 EA.5" CA. B&B SHRUBS KEY NAME QTY SIZE TO Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' 'TECHNY' ARBORVITAE 16 EA.3" CA. B&B HA Taxus cuspidata 'Capitata' 'CAPITATA' UPRIGHT YEW 18 EA.#20 CONT. TM Taxus x media ‘Taunton’ JAPANESE YEW TAUNTON 19 EA.#10 CONT. BG Buxus x ‘Glencoe’ CHICAGOLAND BOXWOO 214 EA. 24"HT. CONT. OR B&B PERENNIAL AREAS KEY NAME QTY SIZE WOODLAND SHADE GARDEN: HYBRID TRILLUMTrillium grandiflorum var. VIRGINIA BLUEBELLS- Mertensia virginica GOLDEN GROUNDSEL -Packera aurea LAVENDER MIST MEADOW RUE-Thalictrum rochebrunianum IRISH LUCK HOSTA- Hosta 'Irish Luck' AUTUMN FERN-Dryopteris erythrosora 937SQ.FT.#1 CONT. SUN BORDERS: ‘MONTROSE WHITE' CALAMINT-:Calamentha nepeta 'BLUE NOTE' BLUE EYED GRASS -Sisyrinchium angustifolium MILLENIUM ALLIUM -Allium 'Millenium 'SEPETEMBER SUN' HOSTA- Hosta 'September Sun' 691SQ.FT.#1 CONT. TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES KEY NAME QTY SIZE G1 SOD 1644SQ.YD. G2 NO MOW FESCUE SEED MIX 2349SQ.FT. TAG QTY SCALE: 1 inch = 0 10'20'5' 10 feet NSCALE:1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN1 NOTE: SEE SURVEY DRAWING FOR PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 4634 Edgebrook Pl January 4, 2021 1 in = 60 f t / 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: October 2, 2020 SUBJECT: New COA for 4634 Edgebrook Place I have reviewed the most recent COA application for construction of a new house at 4634 Edgewood Place in the Country Club District. The HPC has already commented on this project as part of a site plan review. The site plan review addressed design issues relating to the proposed new construction, which the HPC found architecturally compatible with adjacent homes and the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed undertaking includes demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house. The existing house was constructed in 1951 and was identified as a Colonial style house when the district was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. In my opinion, it is not an authentic specimen of the Colonial Revival style, and should be classified as an example of the Neocolonial house form, a late-20th century vernacular mode that is more closely related to the Minimal Traditional or Contractor Modern style. Neocolonial style homes were extremely popular with designers and contractors working in Edina after 1945. The subject property is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark and because it was built after the district’s period of historic significance, it is not considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. While a COA is not required for demolition of a house that has been evaluated as a non-contributing resource, a COA is required for all new homes constructed within the Country Club District. The district plan of treatment applies the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation to construction of new houses. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the proposed new home appears to be compatible with the architectural standards (size, massing, setbacks, etc.) contained in the original (1924-1944) Country Club deed restrictions. The overall design is contemporary but shows the influence of the Colonial Revival style. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards permit contemporary design in historic districts and over the years the HPC has generally viewed “post-modernist” design as appropriate for infill construction in the district. In my opinion, the façade is not replicative of historic homes and does not give a false sense of history; it should not have an adverse effect on the preservation values of nearby historic homes. I recommend approval of the COA with the condition that the new home should be clearly identified as a modern building by means of a plaque or inscription bearing the year of construction. This project provides an important opportunity for the HPC to conduct some useful archaeological work. The predictive model data compiled by Dr. Jeremy Nienow, the HPC’s archaeological consultant, identifies the area bordering Minnehaha Creek as having moderate potential for buried cultural resources associated with ancient Native Americans; the “Mill Pond” area adjoining the Country Club District has also been predicted to contain archaeological evidence of the earliest Euro-American occupation of the Edina Mills community (including 2 Henry Brown’s original Browndale Farm). I believe it would be appropriate for the HPC to request the applicant’s permission to conduct a phase-one archaeological survey of the subject property prior to any construction activities. This investigation could be carried out as a “walk- over” inspection, perhaps coupled with small-scale “shovel-test” excavations, to recover artifacts and other cultural data that might otherwise be destroyed by development activities. The survey could be carried out within a very short timeframe (one or two days) and would not interfere with construction work. Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: R eport and R ec o mmendation F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O A: 4630 Drexel Avenue Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : C ontinue item to the F ebruary 9, 2021 H P C meeting to provide opportunity for staff to visit the subject property and to review additional information submitted by the applicant. I N TR O D U C TI O N : B etter Together page AT TAC HME N T S : Description Applicant Submittal 4630 Drexel Avenue Amendment to COA to request replacing existing walls due to their historic integrity being compromised by deterioration. We are preparing to submit a Residential Addition Permit for the project at 4630 Drexel Avenue. The COA for the project was issued by the HPC on 9/8 and the variance approved by the Planning Commission on 9/23. As part of the COA, we are required to keep 50% of the exterior walls as they were originally built. The COA approved plans show the existing walls we are required to keep as originally built (“saved walls”). After completing the structural blueprints and completing structural testing on the existing structure, we have determined that we need to replace the originally built saved walls. Per the Plan of Treatment, this will require a demolition permit as we will now be removing more than 50% of the existing walls. This was determined by: 1) Approximately 82% of the saved walls will require reframing to maintain the structural integrity of the saved walls. 2) Major structural deficiencies were found in the saved walls in the report done by Hanson Engineering. 3) Heavy presence of mold was found throughout the saved walls and foundation in the report done by Minnesota Mold Inspections. 4) Heavy presence of lead paint was found throughout all interior and exteriors of the saved walls. How did we conclude that we need to replace the saved walls? As required for our permit, we are developing the blueprints showing required structural details, braced wall plans, sheer walls, new window/door openings, and window and door headers. In working with our engineer, they developed the attached braced and sheer wall plans showing the areas of the saved walls we need to reframe (plus all new windows and doors). As you can see, approximately 80% of these saved walls will have to be rebuilt with new materials to meet our code/permit requirements. Reframing of Saved Walls Approximate Areas of Saved Walls Requiring Reframing Only 74 SF of existing wall would remain after new framing Only 378 SF of existing wall would remain after new framing Only 177 SF of existing wall would remain after new framing. Blueprints Showing Reframed Saved Walls: (in green) Calculations of Walls Remain of Existing (saved ) walls after Reframing 4630 Drexel Existing Wall Area Right 820.00 Rear 1,129.00 Front 1,074.00 Left 817.00 Total 3,840.00 4630 Drexel Saved Wall Area Right 673.00 Rear 356.00 Front 652.00 Left 246.00 Total 1,927.00 Percent Saved/ Matched 50.18% 4630 Drexel New Frame or Re-sheath Area at Saved Right 334.00 Rear 224.00 Front 415.00 Left 246.00 Total 1,219.00 Percent of Saved/ Matched 63.26% Remaining untouched saved wall 708.00 Untouched saved wall percentage 18.44% Reframing of “saved walls” is common on similar projects that obtained a COA in the Country Club District. The historical integrity of the streetscape is maintained while allowing a more durable and safe structure. 4604 Browndale (recently completed) 4620 Moorland (completed 2013) In addition, the condition of the existing saved walls is very poor. Per the attached structural assessment by Hanson Engineering Group, there are significant issues with the framing and foundation of the saved walls. Hanson found no structure between windows, substantial plaster cracking, sustained deflection in the window headers, water staining throughout the structure, floor sloping indication structural deficiency, signs of water intrusion and rotting in wall framing, bowed foundation walls, no foundation below lower level windows, insufficient 4” footings, no foundation waterproofing, etc. They concluded it is better to rebuild the saved walls to their original condition and exact dimensions rather than to try and repair them due to the amount of repairs and ultimate reduced performance of the saved walls. Also, they conclude that construction of the new proposed lower basement slab poses undo safety risks that would be mitigated with a completely new foundation that would also address the moisture intrusion issues currently present with the saved walls. Hanson states that “The current condition would indicate that replacement is a more costly effective, long term approach that will result in a better performing residence that meets current standard serviceability criteria." Structural Deficiencies of the Saved Walls Photos of Structural Deficiencies of Saved Walls Historic integrity of saved walls has been compromised by deterioration of structure due to presence of mold throughout the walls and foundation. The attached mold inspection report from Minnesota Mold Inspections reports that mold and wood rot is heavily present in the structural wood of the saved walls and cannot be cleaned and repaired. The report also shows that the concrete foundation below the saved walls tested positive for mold throughout and is crumbling due to water intrusion damage. The report concludes that the foundation would be difficult to clean, and it would be more effective to replace the foundation below the saved walls. The structural engineer also states in his report; "The conclusions of the certified residential mold inspector indicated mold on all surfaces tested, rotten framing members, and additional evidence of water intrusion. These findings suggest more extensive deterioration and required demolition and abatement to achieve the proposed remodel, with the possibility of limited framing to remain.” The presence of mold throughout the saved walls is a threat to public health and safety of the occupants of the home. Health and safety of the saved walls has been compromised by deterioration of structure due to presence of lead paint on all exterior and interior surfaces A full lead survey was completed by Todd Erickson, TL Erickson Enterprises (An EPA Certified Lead Surveying Firm) to review the Lead Paint Analysis of the home. The testing was completed by Techtron Engineering Inc. Mr Erickson states in the attached letter: “It is my professional opinion, upon inspection of the house and review of the report, remediation of the extensive use of Lead Paints on this house will not allow a full remediation to be completed in accordance with the level required.” “The entire interior finishes must be removed, the exterior finishes must be removed, All interior studs and framing would have to be removed to access the cavities in the wood framing. The soil around the house will need to be inspected and a possible replacement of the foundation and soil will have to be completed.” “The only way to ensure all lead paint is removed from this house in accordance with the Federal Regulations is a complete demolition of the building.’ TL Erickson Enterprises 13170 Gemstone Ct Apple Valley, MN 55124 612/325-4393 floyd58523@gmail.com December 19, 2020 Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. 3939 West 50th St. Suite 103A Edina, MN 55424 952/807-8765 fax 952/926-1168 RE: Lead Testing Results Review 4630 Drexel Ave, Edina MN Todd Erickson, TL Erickson Enterprises was requested to review the Lead Paint Analysis of the house at the above address. The Testing was completed by Techtron Engineering Inc. Scope of Study: The survey has indicated that lead paint is located on the internal and exterior surfaces of the house. In accordance with Federal rules and regulations, these materials will need to be addressed during any renovation activities. It is my professional opinion, upon inspection of the house and review of the report, remediation of the extensive use of Lead Paints on this house will not allow a full remediation to be completed in accordance with the level required. The entire interior finishes must be removed, the exterior finishes must be removed, All interior studs and framing would have to be removed to access the cavities in the wood framing. The soil around the house will need to be inspected and a possible replacement of the foundation and soil will have to be completed. The only way to ensure all lead paint is removed from this house in accordance with the Federal Regulations is a complete demolition of the building. If you have any further questions, please call me at 612/325-4393 Sincerely; President As you can see by these reports, the condition of the saved walls has structurally deteriorated and will require us to rebuild these walls with all new materials to their original condition and exact dimension (to be verified by as built survey). We will be adhering to the Country Club Plan of Treatment which states: "Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.” Conclusions The Plan of Treatment as adopted in 2008 supports rebuilding the existing structure if its historic integrity has been compromised. At the 4/15/08 City Council Meeting, the HPB testimony supported allowing homeowners to rebuild their exact homes in these situations. Comments from the video record of the meeting included (paraphrased): “The POT would allow person to rebuild the existing home and upgraded for modern living.” “While the POT doesn't define deterioration, the intention of the POT was to allow homeowners to tell us about their properties when they are planning projects since they know the most about them.” “The POT is not trying to wind the clock backwards..” “The goal of the POT is to keep the home recognizable from the street..” Conclusions (cont.) We feel rebuilding the saved walls to the exact spec as the original home will best maintain the historic integrity of the District, upgrade the home for modern living and make for a more durable and safe home. Documentation of exact specifications and dimensions of the existing saved walls will be used to rebuild the walls to their original dimensions and architecture. The city already requires as built surveys during construction and will be used when rebuilding the walls. Thank You!   Revised December 10, 2020  Revised November 17, 2020  October 14, 2020    Great Neighborhood Homes  3939 W 50th Street #103A  Edina, MN 55424      Subject:  Structural Assessment ‐ 4630 Drexel Ave, Edina, MN    Hanson Group Project: 0.589    To Whom It May Concern:  The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a structural engineering assessment of the  existing single family residence at the above address.  ASSIGNMENT  The Hanson Group has been retained to provide a structural engineering assessment of the existing  single‐family residence located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in Edina, MN, as directed by Scott Busyn of  Great Neighborhood Homes, the builder for the project.  BACKGROUND  The existing house is a 2‐story wood‐framed structure with a full basement and a detached slab‐on‐ grade garage.  The home was reportedly constructed in 1924.  The current owners are proposing to  completely remodel and add onto the existing structure, with limited reuse of existing framing and  foundations.  Due to existing condition concerns the builder is investigating the structural integrity  of the existing exterior walls that were originally being saved as part of the remodel.  The builder  requested an independent structural engineering assessment of the existing house to aid in this  investigation.  This report represents our professional engineering opinion of the current condition  of the observable structure and the implications of the proposed construction.    OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS  1. The following information was obtained through site visits on October 8, 2020 and  December 8, 2020 by Trevor Axner, PE of The Hanson Group:    a. The site visit included visual observations of the exposed single‐family residence and  only.  Removal of finished materials was not performed unless specifically noted.  I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report  was prepared by me or under my direct supervision  and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer  under the laws of the State of Minnesota.                        Trevor Axner  Date:             12‐10‐20        Minnesota Registration No. 45470   4630 Drexel Ave, Edina, MN  Hanson Group Project: 0.589  October 14, 2020 – Revised November 17, 2020 and December 10, 2020  Page 2    b. Preliminary remodel and addition concept plans and elevations prepared by Nelson  Residential Design were provided to assist with our assessment.  These plans were  reportedly approved by the Edina Heritage Preservation Committee.  The intent of  our assessment is to review the structural systems currently intended to be kept  intact as part of this remodel.  c. During the second visit the roof system was observed.  The roof is hand‐framed with  2x6 rafters at 16" on center with an intermediate knee wall support bearing on the  ceiling joists.  Ceiling joist sizes could not be verified.  No sagging of the members is  observed.  Ceiling plaster shows significant signs of water intrusion.  Rafters and roof  sheathing show signs of water intrusion and staining.  d. Exterior wall construction is 2x4 members, reportedly balloon framed.  e. The builder exposed the structure at one of the front main level window openings.   The existing header is a (2) 2x6.  The mull space between windows is empty with no  structure.  Sustained deflection is observed in the header.    f. Minor plaster cracking is observed throughout the residence on all levels.  g. The existing main level floor is framed with 2x10 joists at 16 inches on‐center.   h. Floors are sheathed with diagonal planking on the main level and perpendicular  planking on the upper level.  Water stains are observed on the upper level plank ends  near the exterior walls.  i. Floor sloping is observed on both levels.  j. Water stains are evident within the structure, particularly below flat roofed areas  where the upper level is set back from the main level exterior walls.     k. The foundation is constructed of 12" concrete block.  Portions of the inside of the  foundation were covered by finished materials.  Existing lath near the base of the  wall shows signs of water intrusion and rotting.  Foundation walls have a minor bow  of up to approximately ½".  Wall bow is observable at longer walls and adjacent the  window well structures.  l. The builder exposed the footing in two locations at the inside of the structure and  one location at the outside of the structure.  Footings appear to extend  approximately 4” beyond the edge of the concrete block walls and are a minimum of  4” deep.  Foundation is not waterproofed on the exterior.   m. The foundation has concrete window wells adjacent lower level window openings.   The base of the window well walls do not appear to be dropped to frost depth.  n. Exterior stucco appears in poor condition with numerous hairline cracks throughout  and rust staining in areas.  o. Soils appear to be sand near the footing elevation and sand with fines in the backfill  zone.  p. Windows appear to be in poor condition.  q. The proposed plans indicate a newer open floor plan.  The adjusted layout will result  in new concentrated loads on the existing foundation.  Underpinned pad footings  would be required due to existing footing sizes.  r. The builder reportedly will be lowering the basement floor slab to allow for a nine‐ foot basement ceiling height.  Although feasible, excavation directly adjacent an  existing foundation requires significant shoring, bracing, and labor to accomplish.   The sand soils at this depth will increase the safety risks associated with this  construction.  4630 Drexel Ave, Edina, MN  Hanson Group Project: 0.589  October 14, 2020 – Revised November 17, 2020 and December 10, 2020  Page 3    s. The exterior walls indicated in the conceptual plans as being saved may require  additional sheathing and / or fastening to meet new braced wall requirements  under the current Code.  t. The existing balloon framing is more challenging to address new loading and to tie  into new systems, and further investigation and framing will need to be performed  to adequately track new loads associated with a new full span trussed roof system  and longer beam spans.  u. 2x4 wall thicknesses compound these load path concerns in addition to providing  reduced width for insulation.    v. Shallow window wells pose a risk to the foundation from surcharge of the adjacent  backfill soils and frost heaving.  Removal should be done with care so as not to  damage the foundation.  w. Removing soils around the existing foundation during excavation to allow for proper  waterproofing, exterior insulation, and drain tile may cause damage to the  foundation system.  CONCLUSIONS  2. It is our professional engineering opinion that the existing structure is generally stable and  does not pose any immediate safety risks.  However, conditions observed throughout the  residence appear deficient and in need of significant repairs to accomplish the remodel  presented.  Saving portions of the existing exterior wall framing and foundations will require  significant strengthening and new structure added while achieving reduced performance.   Saving the existing hand‐framed roof requires support for the interior walls currently  supporting the ceiling joists but being modified as part of the remodel.  Specific construction  associated with lowering the floor slab poses undo safety risks that could be mitigated with  a completely new foundation.  The current condition would indicate that replacement is a  more cost effective, long term approach that will result in a better performing residence  that meets current standard serviceability criteria.      Furthermore, following the initial report submittal, Great Neighborhood Homes contracted  for a supplemental investigation by Minnesota Mold Inspection.  Refer to the report dated  October 27, 2020 for additional information.  The conclusions of the certified residential  mold inspector indicated mold on all surfaces tested, rotten framing members, and  additional evidence of water intrusion.  These findings suggest more extensive deterioration  and required demolition and abatement to achieve the proposed remodel, with the  possibility of limited framing to remain.          GENERAL  3. The observations and opinions expressed in this report are based on our professional  engineering judgment and professional practice, as well as limited visual observations of  exposed materials only.  No testing or removal of materials was performed to determine  physical condition and state of structural components, nor compliance with the present  Building Code.  Contact The Hanson Group should evidence contrary to the above  observations and findings noted be found.     4630 Drexel Ave, Edina, MN  Hanson Group Project: 0.589  October 14, 2020 – Revised November 17, 2020 and December 10, 2020  Page 4    4. No other engineering was performed or requested for this project.  This document pertains  to the limited structural assessment of the existing residence.    5. These conclusions are based on preliminary and limited examination and analysis described  above.  We reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these findings and/or opinions  should new information become available.  Concealed discrepancies and/or defects limit  the accuracy and scope of this report.  No warranty, either expressed or implied, for any  portion of the structure is given.    If you have any questions, please contact us.      The Hanson Group            Trevor Axner, PE MLSE  TL Erickson Enterprises 13170 Gemstone Ct Apple Valley, MN 55124 612/325-4393 floyd58523@gmail.com December 19, 2020 Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. 3939 West 50th St. Suite 103A Edina, MN 55424 952/807-8765 fax 952/926-1168 RE: Lead Testing Results Review 4630 Drexel Ave, Edina MN Todd Erickson, TL Erickson Enterprises was requested to review the Lead Paint Analysis of the house at the above address. The Testing was completed by Techtron Engineering Inc. Scope of Study: The survey has indicated that lead paint is located on the internal and exterior surfaces of the house. In accordance with Federal rules and regulations, these materials will need to be addressed during any renovation activities. It is my professional opinion, upon inspection of the house and review of the report, remediation of the extensive use of Lead Paints on this house will not allow a full remediation to be completed in accordance with the level required. The entire interior finishes must be removed, the exterior finishes must be removed, All interior studs and framing would have to be removed to access the cavities in the wood framing. The soil around the house will need to be inspected and a possible replacement of the foundation and soil will have to be completed. The only way to ensure all lead paint is removed from this house in accordance with the Federal Regulations is a complete demolition of the building. If you have any further questions, please call me at 612/325-4393 Sincerely; President Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Report of Findings October 27, 2020 Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. Re: 4630 Drexel Avenue Edina, Minnesota Report prepared by: Vickie Swenson, Certified Residential Mold Inspector Certification listed at: www.acac.org Introduction: This house was inspected and tested for mold on 10/20/20. The house is getting ready for major remodeling. Water has entered the basement several times during heavy rains (evident by the rotting wooden framing studs). The windows at the front of the house (living room and dining room) have been affected by leaking windows over the years; much of the wood is dark and some of the wood is so rotten that it breaks away in chunks. A mold inspection was ordered to find out if mold is present and collect details for a clean-up plan if needed. Observations: • There was a musty odor in the basement • The framing studs in the basement are dark and rotten • The window frames in the living room and dining room are dark and rotten Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Mold Testing Summary: Swabs were used to test the following areas: Living room window frame Dining room window frame Basement cement wall All swabs tested positive for mold. Please see attached lab sheets for levels, types and locations of mold spores. The tests were sent to AEML, Inc. in Pompano Florida and examined under the microscope to determine if spores were present. The results of those tests are attached to this analysis. Conclusions: It is my professional opinion, based on visual inspection and testing, that mold is present in the following areas: Living room window Dining room window Basement cinder block wall While mold is present on all tested areas, it should also be noted that the wood is rotten and cannot be cleaned or repaired. The cement wall is affected by mold as well. This wall would be difficult to clean; it would be more effective to replace the wall. The following steps are recommended to remove mold conditions: Cleaning recommendations are made per the IICRC S-520 standard, the most widely adopted mold removal guideline in the industry. Personal protective gear should be worn: eye protection (safety goggles), a N95 Respirator or mold mask and gloves; clothing should be washed in hot water and Borax after cleaning. Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Plastic sheathing should be hung to isolate the area being cleaned. Overlapping plastic can be used to create a doorway (cover door with plastic, cut a slit in the middle, install another layer of plastic over the door), or a zippered doorway can be purchased. No plastic wall are needed; the entire house will be cleaned after all mold has been removed. An air scrubber (large HEPA air filter) should be run on the main level and basement for 2 – 3 days after all rotten framing has been removed and new windows have been installed. Air scrubbers can be rented at Barker-Hammer Associates in Edina. The non-moldy walls, floor and ceilings in the living room, dining room and basement should be vacuumed with a HEPA filtered vacuum and wiped with a damp rag dampened with vinegar, bleach, hydrogen peroxide or dawn dish soap; HEPA vacuum the walls, ceilings and floor a second time (this is called HEPA Sandwich…vacuum, wipe, vacuum); textured ceilings cannot be wiped, just vacuumed. Front of house on 10/20/20 Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Living room window is moldy and rotting Dining room window and sheathing is moldy and rotting Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Close up of rotting wood Another view of rotting and moldy wood Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way, Independence, MN 55359 612-508-2742 Basement wall is wet, moldy and crumbling AEML, Inc. 601 E. Atlantic Blvd. Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Batch: Phone: (954) 333-8149 AEML Test: S001 Swab Analysis email: customerservice@aemlinc.com %%% ――― ――― ―1 1 1 2 1 ――1 ――― ――96 ――― ――― 99 98 1 ――1 ――― ――― ――― ――― ――1 ――― ――― ――― ――― ――― ――― ――― ――― * Excessive debris. Reported results may be affected. 2,204 352,640 3,097 495,520 1,884 ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― 12 1,920 ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― 12 1,920 24 3,840 ―― 2,120 339,200 ―― ―― 12 1,920 12 1,920 ―― 212 33,920 1,884 287036-03 Bsmt Wall 0.25 Swab Analyzed at 600X Magnification Raw Count Count/cm² ―― ―― 12 1,920 ―― ―― 1,884 301,440 ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― 1,837 293,920 ―― ―― ―― 1,884 287036-02 Dining-Window Frame 0.25 Swab Analyzed at 600X Magnification Raw Count Count/cm² ―― ―― 12 1,920 35 5,600 ―― 3,603 576,480 71 11,360 ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ―― ― 3,556 568,960 ―― Detection Limit ―― ―― 47 7,520 ―― ―― ―― ―― ― Torula Ulocladium Unidentified Spores Total Spores Hyphal Fragments Oidium/Peronospora Pithomyces Rust Smut/Myxomyces/Periconia Stachybotrys Epicoccum Fusarium Ganoderma Memnoniella Nigrospora Bispora Botrytis Chaetomium Cladosporium Curvularia Arthrinium Ascospores Aspergillus/Penicillium-Like Basidiospores Bipolaris/Dreschlera Vickie Swenson Minnesota Mold Inspection 6360 Warren Way Maple Plain,MN 55359 (612) 508-2742 Fax: (954) 333-8151 Report Date:10/22/2020 Sampled:10/20/2020 Received:10/22/2020 Analysis Date:10/22/2020 Project:4630 Drexel Ave Edina 287036 Sample ID:287036-01* Alternaria ―― Sample Analysis:Analyzed at 600X Magnification Raw Count Count/cm²Spore Types Media:Swab Client Sample ID:LR-Window Frame Area Swabbed (cm2):0.25 Results submitted pertain only to the samples as presented on the accompanying Chain of Custody. This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety and with the written approval of AEML. Page 1 of 1 Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: O ther F rom:R obert Vo gel, P reservation C ons ultant Item Activity: Subject:P res ervation Bas ics-S ec tion 106 R eview Info rmatio n C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : N one. I N TR O D U C TI O N : T he topic for this month’s H P C education/training workshop is design review (sometimes referred to as “design review and compliance”). B y ordinance, the H P C is required to review all applications for city permits for certain types of work to be carried out at E dina H eritage L andmarks; no city permits may be issued for demolition, new construction, moving a building, or excavation in areas believed to contain archaeological resources without a certificate of appropriateness (C O A) approved by the H P C (see C ity C ode S ec. 36-722). C O As are not required for remodeling work unless the project could result in the loss of significant historic character defining features. P ublic works and other development projects funded, sponsored or assisted by the C ity of Edina are also subject to design review. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Cons ultant Vogel Memo Section 106 Review MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: January 4, 2021 SUBJECT: Education/Training Workshop for January 12 HPC Meeting The topic for this month’s HPC education/training workshop is design review (sometimes referred to as “design review and compliance”). By ordinance, the HPC is required to review all applications for city permits for certain types of work to be carried out at Edina Heritage Landmarks; no city permits may be issued for demolition, new construction, moving a building, or excavation in areas believed to contain archaeological resources without a certificate of appropriateness (COA) approved by the HPC (see City Code Sec. 36-722). COAs are not required for remodeling work unless the project could result in the loss of significant historic character defining features. Public works and other development projects funded, sponsored or assisted by the City of Edina are also subject to design review. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are the required basis for COA decisions. HPC members should familiarize themselves with the standards, which are referenced in the city’s comprehensive plan and may be downloaded from the National Park Service website (www.nps.gov). The Secretary of the Interior’s standards are the cornerstone of the city’s design review process; however, they are neither technical nor prescriptive, and cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make critical COA decisions. To implement the standards, city policy requires development of a plan of treatment for each Edina Heritage Landmark that provides property-specific guidelines (“best management practices”) for design review. Because the Country Club District and other Edina heritage landmarks are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the HPC also has a role to play in the review process mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to consider the effects of their projects, activities and programs on National Register properties and authorizes local preservation commissions to participate in the interagency consultation process. Instead of COAs, federal regulations provide for consultation among responsible agencies and interested parties to reach consensus on ways to avoid or mitigate (i.e., reduce) adverse effects on historic resources—the process results in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the consulting parties, which often include state and local government entities. For more information about Section 106 review and compliance, commissioners should read the attached document from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the federal government’s HPC), “A Citizen’s Guie to Section 106 Review.” Preserving America’s Heritage ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties: A CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO SECTION 106 REVIEW Protecting Historic Properties WWW.ACHP.GOV Protecting Historic Properties 1 The mission of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is to promote the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s historic resources, and advise the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. The ACHP, an independent federal agency, also provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and policies that affect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key role in carrying out the Preserve America program. The 23-member council is supported by a professional staff in Washington, D.C. For more information contact: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street, NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001-2637 (202) 517-0200 www.achp.gov CONTENTS 4 What is Section 106 Review? 5 Understanding Section 106 Review 8 Determining Federal Involvement 12 Working with Federal Agencies 14 Influencing Project Outcomes 18 How the ACHP Can Help 20 When Agencies Don’t Follow the Rules 21 Following Through 22 Contact Information About the ACHP COVER PHOTOS: Clockwise, from top left: Historic Downtown Louisville, Kentucky; Section 106 consultation at Medicine Lake, California; bighorn sheep petroglyph in Nine Mile Canyon, Utah (photo courtesy Jerry D. Spangler); Worthington Farm, Monocacy Battlefield National Historic Landmark, Maryland (photo courtesy Maryland State Highway Administration). 2 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 3 Proud of your heritage? Value the places that reflect your community’s history? You should know about Section 106 review, an important tool you can use to influence federal decisions regarding historic properties. By law, you have a voice when a project involving federal action, approval, or funding may affect properties that qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s official list of historic properties. This guide from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the agency charged with historic preservation leadership within federal government, explains how your voice can be heard. Each year, the federal government is involved with many projects that affect historic properties. For example, the Federal Highway Administration works with states on road improvements, the Department of Housing and Urban Development grants funds to cities to rebuild communities, and the General Services Administration builds and leases federal office space. Agencies like the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense make decisions daily Introduction The Bureau of Land Management worked with a large group of consulting parties to craft solutions to protect fragile rock art and other historic properties from the effects of increased truck traffic when natural gas wells were permitted near Nine Mile Canyon. (photo courtesy Jerry D. Spangler, Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance) about the management of federal buildings, parks, forests, and lands. These decisions may affect historic properties, including those that are of traditional religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Projects with less obvious federal involvement can also have repercussions on historic properties. For example, the construction of a boat dock or a housing development that affects wetlands may also affect fragile archaeological sites and require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. Likewise, the construction of a cellular tower may require a license from the Federal Communications Commission and might compromise historic or culturally significant landscapes or properties valued by Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations for traditional religious and cultural practices. These and other projects with federal involvement can harm historic properties. The Section 106 review process gives you the opportunity to alert the federal government to the historic properties you value and influence decisions about projects that affect them. Consultation Matters 4 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 5 In the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Congress established a comprehensive program to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the nation as a living part of community life. Section 106 of the NHPA is crucial to that program because it requires consideration of historic preservation in the multitude of projects with federal involvement that take place across the nation every day. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties. Also, federal agencies must provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on such projects prior to the agency’s decision on them. Section 106 review encourages, but does not mandate, preservation. Sometimes there is no way for a needed project to proceed without harming historic properties. Section 106 review does ensure that preservation values are factored into federal agency planning and decisions. Because of Section 106, federal agencies must assume responsibility for the consequences of the projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties and be publicly accountable for their decisions. What is Section 106 Review? Regulations issued by the ACHP spell out the Section 106 review process, specifying actions federal agencies must take to meet their legal obligations. The regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” and can be found on the ACHP’s Web site at www.achp.gov. Federal agencies are responsible for initiating Section 106 review, most of which takes place between the agency and state and tribal or Native Hawaiian organization officials. Appointed by the governor, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordinates the state’s historic preservation program and consults with agencies during Section 106 review. Agencies also consult with officials of federally recognized Indian tribes when the projects have the potential to affect historic properties on tribal lands or historic properties of significance to such tribes located off tribal lands. Some tribes have officially designated Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), while others designate representatives to consult with agencies as needed. In Hawaii, agencies consult with Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) when historic properties of religious and cultural significance to them may be affected. To successfully complete Section 106 review, federal agencies must do the following: gather information to decide which properties in the area that may be affected by the project are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (referred to as “historic properties”); determine how those historic properties might be affected; explore measures to avoid or reduce harm (“adverse effect”) to historic properties; and reach agreement with the SHPO/THPO (and the ACHP in some cases) on such measures to resolve any adverse effects or, failing that, obtain advisory comments from the ACHP, which are sent to the head of the agency. Understanding Section 106 Review The Owe’neh Bupingeh Preservation Project has had a profound impact on the Ohkay Owingeh community in New Mexico and is heralded as a model planning effort for Native American communities in historic settings. (mud plastering workshop photo by Tania Hammidi) Stewardship 6 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 7 What are Historic Properties? In the Section 106 process, a historic property is a prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within these National Register properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, so long as that property also meets the criteria for listing in the National Register. The National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of properties recognized for their significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. It is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior has established the criteria for evaluating the eligibility of properties for the National Register. In short, the property must be significant, be of a certain age, and have integrity: Significance. Is the property associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past? With the lives of people who were historically important? With distinctive architectural history, landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it have the potential to yield important information through archaeological investigation about our past? Age and Integrity. Is the property old enough to be considered historic (generally at least 50 years old) and does it still look much the way it did in the past? During a Section 106 review, the federal agency evaluates properties against the National Register criteria and seeks the consensus of the SHPO/THPO/tribe regarding eligibility. A historic property need not be formally listed in the National Register in order to be considered under the Section 106 process. Simply coming to a consensus determination that a property is eligible for listing is adequate to move forward with Section 106 review. (For more information, visit the National Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr). When historic properties may be harmed, Section 106 review usually ends with a legally binding agreement that establishes how the federal agency will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. In the very few cases where this does not occur, the ACHP issues advisory comments to the head of the agency who must then consider these comments in making a final decision about whether the project will proceed. Section 106 reviews ensure federal agencies fully consider historic preservation issues and the views of the public during project planning. Section 106 reviews do not mandate the approval or denial of projects. SECTION 106: WHAT IS AN ADVERSE EFFECT? If a project may alter characteristics that qualify a specific property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property, that project is considered to have an adverse effect. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance, based on its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and include the following: physical destruction or damage alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties relocation of the property change in the character of the property’s use or setting introduction of incompatible visual, atmospheric, or audible elements neglect and deterioration transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property out of federal control without adequate preservation restrictions 8 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 9 If you are concerned about a proposed project and wondering whether Section 106 applies, you should first determine whether the federal government is involved. Will a federal agency fund or carry out the project? Is a federal permit, license, or approval needed? Section 106 applies only if a federal agency is carrying out the project, approving it, or funding it, so confirming federal involvement is critical. Determining Federal Involvement IS THERE FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT? CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITIES: Is a federally owned or federally controlled property involved, such as a military base, park, forest, office building, post office, or courthouse? Is the agency proposing a project on its land, or would it have to provide a right-of-way or other approval to a private company for a project such as a pipeline or mine? Is the project receiving federal funds, grants, or loans? If it is a transportation project, frequent sources of funds are the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration. Many local government projects receive funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides funds for disaster relief. Does the project require a federal permit, license, or other approval? Often housing developments impact wetlands, so a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required. Airport projects frequently require approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Many communications activities, including cellular tower construction, are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Hydropower and pipeline development requires approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Creation of certain new bank branches must be approved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The National Register offers a rich diversity of properties such as Chicano Park in San Diego, California. (mural restoration photo by Ricardo Duffy, courtesy Caltrans) National Register 10 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 11 Interstate 70 at the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark, Colorado. Impacts to the historic mountain towns were expected due to the planned expansion of the interstate. (photo courtesy J.F. Sato & Associates) Federal Funds Sometimes federal involvement is obvious. Often, involvement is not immediately apparent. If you have a question, contact the project sponsor to obtain additional information and to inquire about federal involvement. All federal agencies have Web sites. Many list regional or local contacts and information on major projects. The SHPO/THPO/tribe, state or local planning commissions, or statewide historic preservation organizations may also have project information. Once you have identified the responsible federal agency, write to the agency to request a project description and inquire about the status of project planning. Ask how the agency plans to comply with Section 106, and voice your concerns. Keep the SHPO/THPO/tribe advised of your interest and contacts with the federal agency. MONITORING FEDERAL ACTIONS The sooner you learn about proposed projects with federal involvement, the greater your chance of influencing the outcome of Section 106 review. Learn more about the history of your neighborhood, city, or state. Join a local or statewide preservation, historical, or archaeological organization. These organizations are often the ones first contacted by federal agencies when projects commence. If there is a clearinghouse that distributes information about local, state, tribal, and federal projects, make sure you or your organization is on its mailing list. Make the SHPO/THPO/tribe aware of your interest. Become more involved in state and local decision making. Local planning reviews may indicate whether there is federal involvement in a proposed project, so be mindful. Ask about the applicability of Section 106 to projects under state, tribal, or local review. Does your state, tribe, or community have preservation laws in place? If so, become knowledgeable about and active in the implementation of these laws. Review the local newspaper for notices about projects being reviewed under other federal statutes, especially the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, a federal agency must determine if its proposed major actions will significantly impact the environment. Usually, if an agency is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA, it must also complete a Section 106 review for the project. 12 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 13 Throughout the Section 106 review process, federal agencies must consider the views of the public. This is particularly important when an agency is trying to identify historic properties that might be affected by a project and is considering ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to them. Agencies must give the public a chance to learn about the project and provide their views. How agencies publicize projects depends on the nature and complexity of the particular project and the agency’s public involvement procedures. Public meetings are often noted in local newspapers and on television and radio. A daily government publication, the Federal Register (available at many public libraries and online at www.federalregister.gov), has notices concerning projects, including those being reviewed under NEPA. Federal agencies often use NEPA for purposes of public outreach under Section 106 review. Agencies may also coordinate their NEPA and Section 106 reviews. Federal agencies also frequently contact local museums and historical societies directly to learn about historic properties and community concerns. In addition, organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) are actively engaged in a number of Section 106 consultations on projects around the country. The NTHP is a private, non- profit membership organization dedicated to saving historic Working with Federal Agencies places and revitalizing America’s communities. Organizations like the NTHP and your state and local historical societies and preservation interest groups can be valuable sources of information. Let them know of your interest. When the agency provides you with information, let the agency know if you disagree with its findings regarding what properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or how the proposed project may affect them. Tell the agency—in writing—about any important properties that you think have been overlooked or incorrectly evaluated. Be sure to provide documentation to support your views. When the federal agency releases information about project alternatives under consideration, make it aware of the options you believe would be most beneficial. To support alternatives that would preserve historic properties, be prepared to discuss costs and how well your preferred alternatives would meet project needs. Sharing success stories about the treatment or reuse of similar resources can also be helpful. Applicants for federal assistance or permits, and their consultants, often undertake research and analyses on behalf of a federal agency. Be prepared to make your interests and views known to them, as well. But remember the federal agency is ultimately responsible for completing Section 106 review, so make sure you also convey your concerns directly to it. Hangar 1, a historic dirigible hangar at Moffett Field at NASA Ames Research Center, California. The unique nature of this historic resource has drawn wide public, and some congressional, interest. Learn About the Project 14 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 15 In addition to seeking the views of the public, federal agencies must actively consult with certain organizations and individuals during review. This interactive consultation is at the heart of Section 106 review. Consultation does not mandate a specific outcome. Rather, it is the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of consulting parties about how project effects on historic properties should be handled. To influence project outcomes, you may work through the consulting parties, particularly those who represent your interests. For instance, if you live within the local jurisdiction where a project is taking place, make sure to express your views on historic preservation issues to the local government officials who participate in consultation. Influencing Project Outcomes You or your organization may want to take a more active role in Section 106 review, especially if you have a legal or economic interest in the project or the affected properties. You might also have an interest in the effects of the project as an individual, a business owner, or a member of a neighborhood association, preservation group, or other organization. Under these circumstances, you or your organization may write to the federal agency asking to become a consulting party. WHO ARE CONSULTING PARTIES? The following parties are entitled to participate as consulting parties during Section 106 review: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; State Historic Preservation Officers; Federally recognized Indian tribes/THPOs; Native Hawaiian organizations; Local governments; and Applicants for federal assistance, permits, licenses, and other approvals. Other individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the project may participate in Section 106 review as consulting parties “due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking’s effects on historic properties.” Their participation is subject to approval by the responsible federal agency. Residents in the Lower Mid-City Historic District in New Orleans express their opinions about the proposed acquisition and demolition of their properties for the planned new Department of Veterans Affairs and Louisiana State University medical centers which would replace the facilities damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Speak Up 16 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 17 When requesting consulting party status, explain in a letter to the federal agency why you believe your participation would be important to successful resolution. Since the SHPO/THPO or tribe will assist the federal agency in deciding who will participate in the consultation, be sure to provide the SHPO/ THPO or tribe with a copy of your letter. Make sure to emphasize your relationship with the project and demonstrate how your connection will inform the agency’s decision making. If you are denied consulting party status, you may ask the ACHP to review the denial and make recommendations to the federal agency regarding your participation. However, the federal agency makes the ultimate decision on the matter. Consulting party status entitles you to share your views, receive and review pertinent information, offer ideas, and consider possible solutions together with the federal agency and other consulting parties. It is up to you to decide how actively you want to participate in consultation. MAKING THE MOST OF CONSULTATION Consultation will vary depending on the federal agency’s planning process and the nature of the project and its effects. Often consultation involves participants with a wide variety of concerns and goals. While the focus of some may be preservation, the focus of others may be time, cost, and the purpose to be served by the project. Effective consultation occurs when you: keep an open mind; state your interests clearly; acknowledge that others have legitimate interests, and seek to understand and accommodate them; consider a wide range of options; identify shared goals and seek options that allow mutual gain; and bring forward solutions that meet the agency’s needs. Creative ideas about alternatives—not complaints— are the hallmarks of effective consultation. Section 106 consultation with an Indian tribe Get Involved 18 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 19 Under Section 106 review, most harmful effects are addressed successfully by the federal agency and the consulting parties without participation by the ACHP. So, your first points of contact should always be the federal agency and/or the SHPO/THPO. When there is significant public controversy, or if the project will have substantial effects on important historic properties, the ACHP may elect to participate directly in the consultation. The ACHP may also get involved if important policy questions are raised, procedural problems arise, or if there are issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Whether or not the ACHP becomes involved in consultation, you may contact the ACHP to express your views or to request guidance, advice, or technical assistance. Regardless of the How the ACHP Can Help scale of the project or the magnitude of its effects, the ACHP is available to assist with dispute resolution and advise on the Section 106 review process. If you cannot resolve disagreements with the federal agency regarding which historic properties are affected by a project or how they will be impacted, contact the ACHP. The ACHP may then advise the federal agency to reconsider its findings. CONTACTING THE ACHP: A CHECKLIST If you have questions about Section 106 that the SHPO/THPO/federal agency cannot answer, you may contact the ACHP. Try to have the following information available: the name of the responsible federal agency and how it is involved; a description of the project; the historic properties involved; and a clear statement of your concerns about the project and its effect on historic properties. If you suspect federal involvement but have been unable to verify it, or if you believe the federal agency or one of the other participants in review has not fulfilled its responsibilities under the Section 106 regulations, you can ask the ACHP to investigate. In either case, be as specific as possible. A panel of ACHP members listen to comments during a public meeting. Collecting Comments 20 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 21 A federal agency must conclude Section 106 review before making a decision to approve a project, or fund or issue a permit that may affect a historic property. Agencies should not make obligations or take other actions that would preclude consideration of the full range of alternatives to avoid or minimize harm to historic properties before Section 106 review is complete. If the agency acts without properly completing Section 106 review, the ACHP can issue a finding that the agency has prevented meaningful review of the project. This means that, in the ACHP’s opinion, the agency has failed to comply with Section 106 and therefore has not met the requirements of federal law. A vigilant public helps ensure federal agencies comply fully with Section 106. In response to requests, the ACHP can investigate questionable actions and advise agencies to take corrective action. As a last resort, preservation groups or individuals can litigate in order to enforce Section 106. If you are involved in a project and it seems to be getting off track, contact the agency to voice your concern. Call the SHPO or THPO to make sure they understand the issue. Call the ACHP if you feel your concerns have not been heard. When Agencies Don’t Follow the Rules After agreements are signed, the public may still play a role in the Section 106 process by keeping abreast of the agreements that were signed and making sure they are properly carried out. The public may also request status reports from the agency. Designed to accommodate project needs and historic values, Section 106 review relies on strong public participation. Section 106 review provides the public with an opportunity to influence how projects with federal involvement affect historic properties. By keeping informed of federal involvement, participating in consultation, and knowing when and whom to ask for help, you can play an active role in deciding the future of historic properties in your community. Section 106 review gives you a chance to weigh in when projects with federal involvement may affect historic properties you care about. Seize that chance, and make a difference! Following Through Milton Madison Bridge over the Ohio River between Kentucky and Indiana. Bridge projects can affect a variety of cultural and historic properties. (photo courtesy Wilbur Smith Associates/Michael Baker Engineers) Stay Informed 22 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 23 Contact Information National Park Service Heritage Preservation Services 1849 C Street, NW (2255) Washington, D.C. 20240 E-mail: NPS_HPS-info@nps.gov Web site: www.nps.gov/history National Register of Historic Places 1201 Eye Street, NW (2280) Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 354-2211 Fax: (202) 371-6447 E-mail: nr_reference@nps.gov Web site: www.nps.gov/nr National Trust for Historic Preservation 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (800) 944-6847 or (202) 588-6000 Fax: (202) 588-6038 Web site: www.preservationnation.org Office of Hawaiian Affairs 560 North Nimitz Highway Suite 200 Honolulu, HI 96817 Phone: (808) 594-1835 Fax: (808) 594-1865 E-mail: info@oha.org Web site: www.oha.org Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Federal Agency Programs 401 F Street, NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001-2637 Phone: (202) 517-0200 Fax: (202) 517-6381 E-mail: achp@achp.gov Web site: www.achp.gov The ACHP’s Web site includes more information about working with Section 106 and contact information for federal agencies, SHPOs, and THPOs. The ACHP also publishes Section 106 Success Stories at www.achp.gov/sec106_successes.html. National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers P.O. Box 19189 Washington, D.C. 20036-9189 Phone: (202) 628-8476 Fax: (202) 628-2241 E-mail: info@nathpo.org Web site: www.nathpo.org National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 342 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 624-5465 Fax: (202) 624-5419 Web site: www.ncshpo.org For the SHPO in your state, see: http://ncshpo.org/shpodirectory.shtml 24 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 25 Beneath the Surface Ohio Department of Transportation workers made an unanticipated archaeological discovery while working just north of Chillicothe along state Route 104. It is a remnant of an Ohio & Erie Canal viaduct. (photo courtesy Bruce W. Aument, Staff Archaeologist, ODOT/Office of Environmental Services) TO LEARN MORE For detailed information about the ACHP, Section 106 review process, and our other activities, visit us at www.achp.gov or contact us at: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street, NW, Suite 308 Washington, DC 20001-2637 Phone: (202) 517-0200 Fax: (202) 517-6381 E-mail: achp@achp.gov Preserving America’s HeritageWWW.ACHP.GOV Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I I.A. To:Heritage P res ervatio n C o mmis s ion Item Type: O ther F rom:Emily Bo d eker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work P lan Updates Dis cus s io n, Information C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED : N one. I N TR O D U C TI O N : U pdate from C ommissioners on 2021 work plan items. AT TAC HME N T S : Description Marri Os kam Preservation Statements 1/3/21 Responses from Marri Oskam, regarding the decision she made to have the Marri and Hendrick Oskam House at 6901 Dakota Trail designated as an Edina Heritage Landmark 1. Why did you choose to have your home preserved as an Edina Heritage Landmark? I felt that the house merited it because of its aesthetics, functionality and the way it was placed on a very difficult, steep hill where no fill was allowed. Although it is a small house, it has a spacious feeling and lots of light.. Elizabeth Close achieved that by designing the upper floor like a medieval hall where many activities take place in one large space: eating, cooking, studying, relaxing by the fireplace (this was all with us agreeing to the concept). The way she achieved that was with placing a wide stairwell to the lower floor in part of the upper space with a skylight above, separating the study and sitting room and putting a partial separation between kitchen and dining. The wall of windows facing SE with clear story windows above brings in lots of light during the day, and well placed lighting makes for a pleasant ambiance at night. I had the good fortune to grow up in a well-designed, spacious house in the Jugendstil style, built in 1901, that got the Dutch equivalent of a Heritage Landmark a century later. (Both my husband and I came to the USA in 1958 from The Netherlands, when he joined the engineering and physics departments of the U of M.) 2. Were you concerned that losing the ability to tear down your home would affect its value or salability? No, that was no concern, since I felt that the house should be preserved as an example of The International Style or Midcentury Architecture. 3. How did you find the process of working with city staff to develop a Plan of Treatment for your home? Working with the city staff took considerable time, but was very pleasant. 4. Why do you think preservation of significant properties matters to our community? Preserving significant properties is important for a city; it expresses its values and is of historical significance. Summary statements that Marri approved for HPC/City Use: I felt that this house merited preservation as an Edina Heritage Landmark because of its aesthetics, functionality and the way it was placed on a very difficult, steep hill. I wanted the house to be preserved as an example of The International Style or Midcentury Architecture and had no concern of the impact of this decision on the future sale of the house. Working with the city staff to develop a plan to guide future changes to the house was very pleasant. Preserving significant properties is important for a city; it is an expression of the city’s history and its values.