The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-09-2021 PacketAgenda He ritage Pre se rvation Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota Virtual Meeting This m ee ting will be held electronically using We be x software. The m e eting will be stream ed live on th e City’s You Tu be ch anne l, YouTube.com /EdinaTV or you can liste n to the m e etin g via teleph one by callin g 1-415-655-0001, Acce ss code: 177 438 4400 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: January 12, 2021 V.Reports/Recommendations A.COA: 4524 Drexel Avenue B.COA: 4618 Arden Avenue C.COA: 4630 Drexel Avenue VI.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.HPC Training: Education VII.Chair And Member Comments A.2021 Work Plan Updates VIII.Sta5 Comments IX.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortable being part of the public proc ess . If you need as sistance in the way of hearing ampli9c ation, an interpreter, large-print documents or s om ething els e, pleas e c all 952-927-8861 72 hours in advanc e of the m eeting. Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : January 12, 2021 Ac tion 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 J anuary 12, 2021 meeting minutes as presented. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes : January 12, 2021 HPC Minutes Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, January 12, 2021 I. Call to Order Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Lonnquist, Pollock, Birdman, Widmoyer (7:03) Nymo (7:04) Everson, Hassenstab, Chair Schilling and student member Lee. Emily Bodeker, staff liaison, and preservation consultant, Robert Vogel were also in attendance. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Hassenstab seconded by Pollock to approve the meeting agenda with the removal of the 4634 Edgebrook Place COA, due to the project being withdrawn by the applicant. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Birdman seconded by Widmoyer to approve the meeting minutes from the virtual December 8, 2020 meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Sketch Plans A. Sketch Plan:4600 Browndale Avenue The applicant’s architect presented the proposed sketch plan for 4600 Browndale Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission provided preliminary non-binding comments on the concept presented. The main points of the presentation discussed were the removal of decorative buttresses on the front façade and the addition of a covered entry/front porch. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. COA: 4630 Drexel Avenue Motion by Hassenstab seconded by Pollock to continue the 4630 Drexel Avenue COA to the February 9, 2021 HPC meeting. All voted aye. The motion carried. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Student Member Lee left the meeting. (7:45) VII. Special Recognitions and Presentations A. Preservation Basics-Section 106 Review Consultant Vogel gave a presentation to the Heritage Preservation Commission. VIII. 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 the Commissioners who are working on the walking tour and hope to have an update at the next HPC meeting. Commissioner Lonnquist asked about the procedure for the continuation of the 4630 Drexel COA. Staff informed the Commission that the Building Official is reviewing the submitted information and will have a memo that will be included in the February 9th HPC packet with his opinion on the structure and what was submitted. The item was continued for staff to review additional information provided by the applicant and go give staff an opportunity to visit the subject property. IX. Staff Comments: None. X. Adjournment Motion by Nymo seconded by Birdman to adjourn the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily BodekerEmily Bodeker Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O A: 4524 Drexel Avenue Ac tion 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 Certificate of Appropriateness request for a new detached garage and changes to the front façade at 4524 D rexel Avenue. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he property owners of the subject property are proposing to tear down their existing attached garage and replace it with a new larger garage. T he applicant is also proposing changes to the front entry of the home. T he proposed changes include the addition of a shallow metal roof, new trim, new doors and sidelights and new second floor windows. B etter Together P age AT TAC HME N T S: Description Applicant Submittal Staff Report Consultant Vogel Memo Aerial Map The home at 4524 Drexel Avenue was built in 1933 and located in the Country Club Neighborhood of Edina. It was built in a classic Colonial Revival style. The overall scope of the project involves the following. - Garage – The existing garage is attached to the back of the home. It has a flat roof and does not aesthetically blend well with the rest of the house. This garage will be removed, and a new, detached garage will be built at the back of the property. The overall architectural style, detailing, and form of the new garage will match the historical details of the original home. - Addition - A two-story addition will be built off the back of the home. The overall form, details, and aesthetic of the addition will and match the original historic home. - Siding and Trim – The siding and trim will be replaced. The new siding will be horizontal lap siding, similar to the original home. The siding will be a painted, cementitious material for durability. The trim will be replaced on all of the doors and windows. Any new trim will maintain the profiles and proportions of the original home. - Roof – The existing roof will be replaced. The new roof will be asphalt, architectural shingles. The new roof material on the window bays, overhang, and entrance portico will be metal, detailed in a traditional manner. - Windows – All of the windows will be replaced on the original home. Where possible, the window configurations, window grille patterns and sizes would match the original home. Any new windows will also match the style and proportions of the original home and would have simulated divided lite grilles. - Shutters – The existing shutters will be removed, and new shutters will be installed in their place. The new shutters will be aesthetically similar to the original shutters on the home, including new era appropriate shutter hardware. - Entrance Portico and Second Story Accent Windows – The details of these two areas will be simplified, yet still allow the home to maintain the overall character and aesthetic of the original Colonial Revival home. The project will not change the overall use of the property. The property will remain a single- family residence. The scale, massing and overall detailing was developed to complement the existing style of the older home on the property, as well as blend in with the other homes in the historical Country Club neighborhood. . GARDENAREANEWGARAGE(663 SF)NEW DRIVEWAY(VERIFY CONCRETE)POSSIBLETURNAROUNDAREAPOSSIBLE TREEPLANTINGSWRAPPED STAIRSREMOVE EXISTINGDRIVEWAY/NEW PLANTINGSHOUSE(1,585TOTAL SF)POSSIBLEGARDENAREAGARB./REC.PADEXISTING STOOP& STEPS 152 SF(INCLUDED)1532 SF(INCLUDED)53 SF(INCL.)INTERIOR FOOTPRINT634 SF(INCLUDED)29 SF(INCL.)5'-0" MIN.SIDEYARD SETBACK7'-0" MIN.SIDEYARD SETBACK(12'-0" TOTAL SIDEYARD)25'-0" REARYARD SETBACK 30'-0"FRONTYARDSETBACK FRONT SETBACKVIA HOUSEALIGNMENT3'-0" MIN. SIDEYARDSETBACK TO EAVE3'-0" MIN.REAR YARDSETBACKTO EAVE NEW BAYTO MATCHEXISTING SIZEDREXEL AVENUENEIGHBORINGGARAGE NEIGHBORINGGARAGENEIGHBORINGHOUSEEXISTING WALKREMOVEEXISTING WALKEAVE DASHEDLOT SIZE =8,443 SFEXISTING HOUSE (TO REMAIN AFTER DEMO) CANTILEVERED BAY WINDOWS (2 THUS @ 10 SF/EACH)ADDITION INTERIOR COVERED ENTRY BAY AT KITCHENGARAGE INTERIOR COVERED ENTRY (NOT INCLUDED)TOTAL COVERAGETOTAL LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PER SECTION 36-438NET LOT COVERAGENEW WRAP AROUND DECK AND STEPS AT REARBONUS 150 SF FOR FIRST 150 SF OF PATIO OR UNENCLOSED DECK PER EDINA ZONING SECTION 36-438 1.D.1NET LOT COVERAGE520 SF53 SF3 SF634 SF29 SF1,009 SF 576 SF663 SF2,247 SF2,250 SF 2 SF152 SF- 150 SF0 SFLOT COVERAGE CALCEXIST'GWDW WELLEXIST'GWDW WELLEXIST'GWDW WELLEXIST'GWDW WELLNEWWDW WELL±9 1/2"±24'-1"±28'-3 1/2"±17'-1"±5'-7"1'-2"EAVE3'-0"1'-2" EAVE3'-0"29'-10"23'-0"5'-0"6'-10"NEW WOODSTEPS & DECKNEW CONCRETEWALK & LANDINGNEWCONC.WALK±6'-0"±1'-2"5'-4"5'-0 1/2"±16'-10"±20'-0"±52'-4 1/2"5'-0" ±5'-1 3/4"NEW DRIVEWAY(VERIFY CONCRETE)LAWN2'-0" CANTILEVEREDBAY WINDOW NEWWDW WELL3'X6' TABLEProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021SITE DIAGRAMA0Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Preliminary Site Diagram1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTION REC. ROOMXXXVERIFY SOFFITFOR DUCTWORK METERDRYER VERIFYEXISTINGELECTRICALPANELLOCATION ORNEW. PROVIDE36 X 36 CLEARAT PANELCLOSE ENOUGHFOR CHIMNEYVENTING ACCESSEXISTING BOILER LOC.EGRESS WINDOWW/ WINDOW WELLBEDROOMXXXBATHXXXSTORAGEXXXHALLXXXWASHERVERIFY NEW CABINETSWITH TOP.VERIFY TOPVERIFY FINALMECHANICALLOCATIONSVERIFY NEW CABINETSWITH TOP. VERIFY TOP VERIFY LAUNDRYCHUTE LOCATION.VERIFY ACCESSFLIPPED TO LAUNDRYROOM SIDEOPTION FORPOCKET DOORVERIFY EXISTINGSTACK. OPTION TORELOCATEUP DNTWO STEPS NEW ENERGYWALLS NEW ENERGY WALLSVERIFY FLOORLANDINGXXXVERIFY FLOORVERIFY FLOORVERIFY FLOORVERIFY FLOORVERIFY SLABVERIFY ENERGYWALLS ATMECHANICAL ROOM±24'-0" OUT TO OUT,INCLUDING EXTERIOR INSULATION±17'-0" OUT TO OUT,INCLUDING EXTERIOR INSULATION±5'-7 1/2"1'-6"5"10'-5 1/2"4 1/2"11'-6 1/2"5"14'-2 1/2"5"5"5'-0"6 1/2"3'-2"4 1/2"10'-8 1/2"5"8'-7"SHOWER:36X50BENCHLINEN5"11'-11 1/2"6 1/2"NEW BATHROOMFIXTURE ABOVE32"WDOOR32"WDOOR32"WDOOR32"WDOOR32"WDOOR±28'-4" EXISTING±32'-11 3/4" EXISTING±24'-4" EXISTING5" 11'-0" 11 1/2" 6'-7" 5 1/4" 11'-2" 5"25'-7"9'-5"CLOSETNEW WINDOW INEXISTING OPG.NEW WINDOW INEXISTING OPG.NEW WINDOW INEXISTING OPG.VERIFYEXISTING WDWNEWWINDOWEGRESSWINDOWW/ WINDOWWELLNEW WDW WELLVERIFY NEWFORCEDAIR SYSTEMVERIFY FINALLAYOUT OFMECHANICALEQUIPMENT &CLEARANCEREQUIREMENTS.MECHANICALROOM TO BE ASSMALL ASPOSSIBLELAUNDRYXXXVERIFY FLOORMECHXXXVERIFY SLABVERIFY WIDENINGOF EXISTING OPENINGIF POSSIBLE.(VERIFY AFTER DEMO)9'-6"10"10"10"VERIFY 1-1/2" CONT. EXT. INSULATIONVERIFY 1-1/2" CONT.EXT. INSULATIONVERIFY 1-1/2" CONT. EXT. INSULATION VERIFY 1-1/2" CONT.EXT. INSULATION10"10"10"POSTABOVEVERIFY FULL FOUNDATIONOR POINT STRUCTURALProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021FLOOR PLANA10Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Lower Level Plan1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTION DININGXXXLIVINGXXXHALLXXXKITCHENXXXLOUNGEXXXMUDROOMXXXENLARGEDOPENING (6'-0"W)BAR AREA W/BEVERAGE REF. &STORAGEABOVECOVEREDENTRYDOWN NEWWINDOWS8'-4" WIDECASED OPENING VERIFY EXISTINGWINDOWSBENCHSTG. BELOWPOWDERXXXVERIFY TV INFRONT OF WINDOW44"W CASEDOPENING NEWWINDOWNEW INTERIORDOORSEGRESS WINDOWWELL BELOWTALL PANTRYSTORAGEUP 1STEPUP 1STEP32"W CASEDOPENING54"W CASEDOPENINGNEW BEAMAT LINE OFEXISTING UP 1STEPTALL MUDROOMSTORAGENEWWINDOWSTALL MUDROOMSTORAGE(LOCKERS/CUBBIES?)UP 3'X6' TABLEGAS FIREPLACEUNIT36"WREF NEW WINDOWS @ NEW BAYENTRYXXXNEW EXISTINGOR NEW TILENEW DOOR AND ENTRY -SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFINISH EXISTINGWOOD FLOORWOODFLOORWOODFLOOR VERIFY TILECABINET WALL/ART WALL REFINISH EXISTINGWOOD FLOORREFINISH EXISTINGWOOD FLOORSUNROOMXXXNEWWINDOWUPUPPERCAB UPPERCABUPPERCABUPPERCABBEVREF42"HDROP ZONECABINETVERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD.7"13'-8"6'-3 3/4"5'-2 1/2"9" 2'-0 3/4"7'-0" 6 1/4" 12'-0"15'-8 1/2"4 1/2"16'-6"4 1/2"5'-2"4 1/2"15'-11"±9'-6"±5'-7"3'-10"13'-1 1/4" 44"W CASEDOPENING 5 1/4"12'-9" EXISTING6'-8 1/2" 4 1/2" 5'-0" 12'-1" EXISTING 5 1/4" 7'-0" EXISTING 5 1/4" 12'-1 3/4" EXISTING 6"23'-5 1/2" EXISTING32"WDOORNEW TOILETABOVE28"WDOOR13'-1"4"9'-3"VERIFYREMOVEEXG. RAD.VERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD. EXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS) EXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS)NEW COMPOSITE(TREX OR EQUAL) STOOP AND STEPS STOOP AND STEPS BARXXXA11Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Main Level Plan1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021FLOOR PLAN NEW INTERIORDOORSSUNROOMXXXVERIFY FLOORINGVERIFY HEATING GIVENEXISTING SLAB FLOORVERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD. 12'-1 3/4" EXISTING 6" 8'-6"23'-5 1/2" EXISTING13'-1"VERIFY NEW WINDOWS ATSUNROOMEXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS) EXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS)A12Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Main Level Plan (Sunroom)1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021FLOOR PLAN BEDROOM 2XXXBEDROOM 3XXXNEW PULLDNATTIC ACCESS?DOWN DOWN MSTR BEDROOMXXXNEWWINDOWNEWWINDOWNEWWINDOWS NEWWINDOWBATHXXXLINENNICHEXXXWIC 1XXXUP(NEW STEPS)NEWWINDOWBEDROOM 1XXX34"X60"TUB/SHOWERLINEN38"X52"SHOWERLEDGE34"X66"TUB W/ DECKNEWWINDOW42"H LINENCABINETNEWWINDOW BATHXXXSHALLOWLINENBOOKSHELVES?TV CAB?VERIFY CLOSETSTORAGE SYSTEMVERIFY CLOSETSTORAGE SYSTEM TIE-IN TOEXISTINGLAUNDRY CHUTETILENEWWINDOWNEWWINDOWVERIFY EXISTINGWOODVERIFY EXISTINGWOODVERIFY EXISTINGWOODCARPETCARPETCARPETTILEEXISTINGRADBATHXXX4'-2"4 1/2"8'-4 1/4"4 1/2"3'-2"4 1/2"5'-11 3/4"4 1/2"MEDCABINET4'-6"4 1/2"7'-2 1/4"32"WDOOR32"WDOOR4 1/2"3'-6"6 1/2"5'-0"8'-0"W CASEDOPENING9'-10"4 1/2"10'-5 3/4"4'-1"±15'-11 1/4"11'-4 1/2" EXISTING12'-11 1/2" EXISTING12'-1" EXISTING 7 1/4" 8'-10" 4 1/2" ±1'-10 1/2"3'-3"4 1/2"7'-8"10'-2 1/2" EXISTING6'-4 1/4" EXISTING16'-8" EXISTING7'-11" EXISTING 3'-8 3/4" EXISTING 7'-0" EXISTING 2'-6 1/2"EXISTING32"WDOOR32"WDOORROOF AT BAY BELOWVERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD.VERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD.VERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD.VERIFY REMOVEEXG. RAD.CARPET EXT. WALLBELOW 13'-5 1/2"6 1/2"±5'-0 1/4"MEDCABINETSLOPED CEILINGSLOPED CEILINGSLOPED CEILINGSLOPED CEILINGVERIFY ±9'-0" HIGHVAULTED CEILINGVERIFY ±7'-8"HFLAT CEILINGVERIFY ±7'-8"HFLAT CEILINGVERIFY±7'-8"HFLATCEILINGVERIFY ±8'-0"HCEILING WITHSLOPED EDGESA13Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Upper Level Plan 1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021FLOOR PLAN ATTIC ACCESS(VERIFY IF STANDARDDROP DOWN OR WIDER.VERIFY LOCATION)17'-5 1/2"5'-0"6'-2"22'-8" 28'-10"23'-0"GARAGEXXXCONCRETE SLABSTORAGEXXXCONCRETE SLABPROPERTY LINE 2'-4"18'-0"2'-4"9'-0"9'-0"11'-6"11'-6"VERIFY IF FIRE-PROTECTED WALLIS REQUIRED PER EDINABUILDING CODEPROPERTY LINE1'-2" EAVE 3'-0"1'-2" EAVE3'-0"6 1/2"6 1/2"27'-9"6 1/2"VERIFY IF FIRE-PROTECTED WALLIS REQUIRED PER EDINABUILDING CODE CONCRETE CURB DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYTRASH/RECYCLINGWXWXWXS 3SVERIFY EXTERIORGARAGE OPENER PADSGARAGEOPENERCXCXCX TO HOUSESWITCHVERIFYCOUNTERHEIGHTVERIFYCOUNTERHEIGHTEXTERIOREXTERIORKNEE WALL = ±3'-10" KNEE WALL = ±3'-10"KNEE WALL = ±3'-10" CEILING = ±7'-7"KNEE WALL = ±3'-10"CEILING = ±7'-7"KNEE WALL = ±3'-10"STORAGEXXXVERIFYFLOORINGACCESS HATCH(VERIFY LOCATION)CXCXCXSProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONPLANSA14EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Plan1Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Upper Plan2 NEW EXTERIOR TRIMAT ALL LOCATIONSNEW SHUTTERS WHERE SHOWN ATFRONT. STYLE TO BE DETERMINEDNEW WINDOWS W/DECORATIVE MULLNEW ENTRANCE DOOR & SIDE LITESWITH NEW TRIM CAP. REMOVEEXISTING ROOF & TRIMWORKNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALL SIDES.NO CORNER BOARDSNEW ASPHALT ARCHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFNEW ASPHALT ARHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFEXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)NEW WINDOWS: 2 @ 2'-0" X 3'-8"NEW SMOOTH/FLAT TRIM PILASTER (TOREPLACE EXISTING GROOVEDPILASTER). REPAIR, REPLACE ANDMATCH EXISTING TRIM AT ENTRY.±7'-1 3/4" MATCH EXISTING 1'-0" 3 1/2"9 1/2"VERIFY SHALLOW PREFIN.METAL ROOF AT ENTRANCEVERIFY NEW PREFINISHED METALROOF AT REPAIRED BAY WDWEXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS)WALLSCONCEWALLSCONCENEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING.EXISTING WELLNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING.EXISTING WELLNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGALL NEW WINDOWS TO BEALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR,COLOR TO BE WHITE.SIMULATED DIVIDED LITEWITH GRILLE PATTERN PERELEVATIONS, WHICH MATCHEXISTINGNEW WINDOWS:EXTERIORELEVATIONSA20Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Front Exterior Elevation1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 NEW WINDOWS: 3 @ EXISTING OPENINGS(VERIFY SIZES)NEW WINDOWS: 2 @ 3'-0" X 4'-6"NEW WINDOW: 3'-0" X 4'-6"NEW WINDOW: 3'-0" X 4'-6"NEW WINDOW: 2'-0" X 3'-0"NEW WINDOWS: 2 @ 3'-0" X 4'-6"ELEC. OUTLETVERIFY ELEC. OUTLETLOCATION AT CEILINGEXISTING BRICKCHIMNEY(PAINTEDTO MATCH PAINTEDBRICK BASE)NEW ASPHALT ARCHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFLINE OF EXISTING REMOVEDLINE OF EXISTING REMOVEDLINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED LINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED ELEVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE(VERTICAL SURFACE ONLY, NOTINCLUDING SLOPED ROOF AREA):EXISTING REMOVED = ±290 SFADDED = ±550 SFNET ADDED = ±260 SFEXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)PREFINISHED METAL AT BASEAT NEW (COLOR TO MATCHNEW BRICK PAINT COLOR)VERIFY METAL AT WINDOWNEW EGRESS WDW:2'-8" X 4'-0"CASEMENT WINDOW W/CHECK RAIL TO MATCHDOUBLE HUNGS. ABBREVIATEDCASINGEXISTING WINDOW(VERIFY) AND WELLNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURECEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALLSIDES. NO CORNER BOARDSNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURECEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALLSIDES. NO CORNER BOARDSEXISTING WINDOW(REPAIR AS REQUIRED)EXISTING WINDOW(REPAIR AS REQUIRED)EXISTING WINDOW(REPAIR AS REQUIRED)NEW COMPOSITE (TREX OR EQUAL) STOOP AND STEPSProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021EXTERIORELEVATIONSA21Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Side Exterior Elevation1 NEW COMPOSITE (TREX OR EQUAL) STOOP AND STEPSNEW COMPOSITE (TREX OR EQUAL)STOOP AND STEPSNEW WINDOW:2'-0" X 3'-0"NEW WINDOWS: 2 @ 3'-0" X 5'-6"NOTE: MUDROOM STEPS DOWN ONESTEP FROM EXISTING MAIN LEVELNEW RECESSED FIXTURES AT UNDERSIDE OF COVERINGELEC.OUTLETELEC.OUTLETNEW ASPHALT ARHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFVERIFY NEW PREFINISHED METALROOF AT REPAIRED BAY WDWVERIFY SHALLOWPREFINISHED METAL ROOFWALLSCONCENEW ASPHALT ARCHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFLINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED LINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED LINE OFEXISTINGREMOVEDLINE OF EXISTING REMOVEDLINE OFEXISTINGREMOVEDELEVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE(VERTICAL SURFACE ONLY, NOTINCLUDING SLOPED ROOF AREA):EXISTING REMOVED = ±375 SFADDED = ±525 SFNET ADDED = ±150 SFEXISTING BAY W/ NEWWINDOW UNITS &NEW SILL AND SIDING(VERIFY DETAILS)EXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)EXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)PREFINISHED METAL AT BASEAT NEW (COLOR TO MATCHNEW BRICK PAINT COLOR)NEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURECEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALLSIDES. NO CORNER BOARDSNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW ALUMINUM CLADFRENCH SLIDING DOORSSYSTEMNEWALUMINUMCLADENTRYDOOREXTERIORELEVATIONSA22Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Rear Exterior Elevation1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 WOOD PANEL WITHGAS FIREPLACE VENTNEW BAY WINDOW UNITNEW WINDOW:2'-6" X 3'-6"NEW WINDOW:3'-0" X 5'-6"NEW WINDOWS: 3 @ 2'-4" X 3'-0"WOOD/COMPOSITEPANELWOOD/COMPOSITEPANELWOOD/COMPOSITEPANELPREFINISHED METAL AT BASEAT NEW (COLOR TO MATCHNEW BRICK PAINT COLOR)NEW WINDOW& WELL TOMATCH EXISTINGVERIFY SHALLOWPREFINISHED METAL ROOFNEW ASPHALT ARCHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOFNEW WINDOWS:2 @ 3'-0" X 4'-6"LINE OF EXISTING REMOVEDLINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED LINE OFEXISTING(KEPT) LINE OFEXISTINGREMOVED LINE OF EXISTING REMOVEDELEVATION SQUARE FOOTAGE(VERTICAL SURFACE ONLY, NOTINCLUDING SLOPED ROOF AREA):EXISTING REMOVED = ±285 SFADDED = ±515 SFNET ADDED = ±230 SFEXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)EXISTING BRICK BASE(PAINTED)NEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING.EXISTING WELLNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURECEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALLSIDES. NO CORNER BOARDSNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURECEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALLSIDES. NO CORNER BOARDSNEW WINDOW ATEXISTING OPENING TOMATCH EXISTING(VERIFY EGRESS)NEW WINDOW @±3'-6" X ±5'-10"NEW WINDOW:3'-0" X 2'-0"NEW WINDOW:3'-0" X 2'-0"EXTERIORELEVATIONSA23Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Side Exterior Elevation1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 DOOR: 7-0"H X 18'-0"W6'-11" ±8'-10 1/2" 7'-0"2'-0" X 3'-0"WALLSCONCEWALLSCONCEWALLSCONCEASPHALT ROOFTO MATCHHOUSE18'-0"8 VIF SLOPE TO MATCHEXISTING HOUSE122'-0" X 3'-0"2'-8" X 3'-6"ASPHALT ROOFTO MATCHHOUSEDOWN SPOUT 2'-8" X 3'-6"2'-0" X 3'-0"8 VIF SLOPE TO MATCHEXISTING HOUSE12ASPHALT ROOFTO MATCHHOUSEDOWN SPOUTNEW 3-1/2" EXPOSURE CEMENTITIOUSLAP SIDING, PAINTED, AT ALL SIDES.NO CORNER BOARDSNEW ASPHALT ARCHITECTURALSHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH HOUSEProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021EXTERIORELEVATIONSA24Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Front Elevation1Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Side Elevation2Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Rear Elevation3Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Side Elevation4 VERIFY 2X8 BOTTOM TRUSS CHORD12VFY. 8 SLOPETO MATCHEXIST'GHOUSE3'-10" 7'-7"1'-2"EAVE3'-10"1'-2"EAVEGARAGEXXXSTORAGEXXXVERIFY 2X8 BOTTOM TRUSS CHORD12VFY. 8 SLOPETO MATCHEXIST'GHOUSE8'-8"9 1/4"8'-6 3/4"18'-0"3'-10"7'-7" 7'-0" DOOR 1'-2"EAVE1'-2"EAVEGARAGEXXXSTORAGEXXXProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021GARAGESECTIONSA25Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Garage Section1Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Garage Section at Dormer2 ±6'-10 1/4" EXISTING SLAB TO JOISTS (VERIFY) 1'-2"OPTION FOR THREE STEPSTO INCREASE CEILINGHEIGHT.VERIFY WITH OWNERVERIFY UNDERPINNING OFEXISTING FOUNDATIONWITH STRUCTURALENGINEERING.REMOVE EXISTINGFOUNDATION ASREQUIRED TO MAXIMIZENEW INTERIOR SPACELINE OF EXISTINGFOUNDATION WALLNEW HEADER AS PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERNEW FRAMING ASREQUIRED±7'-9 1/2" SLAB TOFRAMING (VERIFY)1'-0" TRUSSES(VERIFY W/ENGINEERING)±8'-4 1/2" SLAB TOFRAMING FOR THIRDSTEP OPTION (VERIFY)LINE OF EXISTING HOUSE,REMOVEDNEW FLUSH BEAM PERENGINEERING. VERIFYDEPTH TO MATCHEXISTING FRAMINGVERIFY EXISTING 9 1/2" FRAMING NEW TRUSSES PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGEXISTING RAFTER TAILSCUT AS REQUIREDEXISTING RAFTER FRAMING(VERIFY EXISTING HEEL)LINE OF EXISTING ROOFREMOVED. VERIFY W/STRUCTURAL ENGINEERREC. ROOMXXXSTORAGEXXXHALLXXXKITCHENXXXLOUNGEXXXBARXXXDININGXXXMSTR BEDROOMXXXBATHXXXBEDRM 1XXXSHWRXXXCANTILEVEREDFRAMING AT 1-1/2"OVERHANG.VERIFY WITHSTRUCTURALENGINEERINGOPTION FORTHREE STEPSTO INCREASECEILINGHEIGHT.VERIFY WITHOWNERVERIFYUNDERPINNINGOF EXISTINGFOUNDATIONWITHSTRUCTURALENGINEERING.REMOVEEXISTINGFOUNDATIONAS REQUIREDTO MAXIMIZENEWINTERIORSPACEREC. RM.XXXHALLXXXKITCHENXXXBATHXXXBEDROOM 1XXXREMOVEEXISTINGBRICK ASREQUIRED IFPRESENTEXISTINGFRAMINGNEWFRAMING PERSTRUCTURALENGINEERBUILDINGSECTIONSA26Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Building Section1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Bldg. Sect.2 STORAGEXXXLOUNGEXXXMSTR BEDROOMXXXNEW TRUSSES PERSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGVERIFY CATHEDRALCEILING±9'-2" SUBFLOOR TOBOTTOM OF TRUSS±9'-0 3/4" INTERIORFINISH±7'-9 1/2" SUBFLOORTO BEARING (VERIFY)±10" ENERGY HEEL TO MEETNSULATION REQUIREMENTS(CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY)CANTILEVEREDFRAMING AT1-1/2"OVERHANG.VERIFY WITHSTRUCTURALENGINEERING±6'-10 1/4" VERIFYSLAB TO JOISTS 3/4"±8'-5" SUBFLOORTO JOISTS (VERIFY)±9 1/4"VERIFY 3/4"±8'-2" SUBFLOORTO JOISTS (VERIFY)±9 1/4"VERIFY VERIFY ±5 1/2"EXISTING HEEL BUILDINGSECTIONSA27Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Building Section2Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Exist'g Typ. Sect.1 STORAGEXXXLOUNGEXXXMSTR BEDROOMXXXNICHEXXXCANTILEVERED FRAMINGAT 1-1/2" OVERHANG.VERIFY WITH STRUCTURALENGINEERINGCANTILEVERED FRAMINGAT 1-1/2" OVERHANG.VERIFY WITH STRUCTURALENGINEERINGNEW BEAM ATCOVERED ENTRYNEW POST AT CORNER INFOREGROUNDVERIFY STRUCTUREAT POST W/ STRUCTURALENGINEER. VERIFY POINTSTRUCTURE ORCONTINUOUS FOOTINGNEW STOOP±9'-2" SUBFLOOR TOBOTTOM OF TRUSS±9'-0 3/4" INTERIORFINISH±7'-9 1/2" SUBFLOORTO BEARING (VERIFY)±10" ENERGY HEEL TO MEETNSULATION REQUIREMENTS(CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY) ±7'-8 1/4" INTERIOR FINISH (VERIFY FLAT CEILING) ±10" ENERGY HEEL TO MEET NSULATION REQUIREMENTS (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY) ±6" STEP DOWN ±8'-4"BUILDINGSECTIONSA28Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Building Section1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 #45242-S-F48.020.03.59.314.01.233.19.0 9.0 16.1 4.5 21.5 GARAGEONESTORYGARAGE36" maple48" mapleOHEOHE OHEGARAGE S 89°59'00"W 140.9215" maple26" ash 15" ashN 89°59'00"E 140.34 (meas)140.85 (plat)34.835.15.15.7wpf 0.4' clear sly3.7PPwpf 0.7' clear wly x899.4FFE=900.6SLAB=899.0898.9 x 899.0 x x899.3x898.3x897.7x898.0x897.7x897.7 898.3xx898.6x898.1899.5xx898.8FFE=911.8#45262.5-S-STx897.0x897.0x899.5edge conc. 0.37' over line slyDRILL HOLE INCONCRETE FOUNDmpf 0.7 clear sly60.00 S 0°16'10"E DREXEL AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT111411131210BENCHMARK USED: TNH & NE QUADBRIDGE STREET & DREXEL AVENUEELEV.=897.94 (CITY DATUM)N 0°13'44"E60.00 suspected loca t ion of 3" pvc dra ininv. 3" pvc=898.6898.9x896.8xx896.4x 8 9 6 . 3 897.8xx899.3x899.1x899.3899.7xx899.6x897.5898.8xEXISTINGSITE PLANAB0Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"Existing Site Plan1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 DWWHFECHUTEH20 US=55H=84S=55H=84 S=52H=82 S=52H=82MECHXXXCH=VERIFYHALLXXXCH=82FAMILY RMXXXCH=82STORXXXCH=71STOOPABOVE GARAGEABOVESTUDYABOVEUDUUUUURRRRRS=57H=82-9" FROMEXT.STOOPS=57H=82S=48H=92-1/2S=45H=81-1/2S=11-1/2H=81-1/2S=11-1/2H=81-1/2 S=11-1/2H=81-1/2 S=11-1/2H=81-1/2S=25H=78S=22H=76 S=22H=76 KITCHENXXXCH=99-1/2DININGXXXCH=99-1/2LIVINGXXXCH=99-1/2GARAGEXXXCH=103+7'-2"H+7'-2"HHALLXXXCH=99-1/2STUDYXXXCH=88-1/2EXISTINGFLOOR PLANSAB1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Existing Lower Level Plan1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTIONProject Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Existing Main Level Plan2EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTION DDATTICRRRRRRROOFMEMBRANE/DECKS=26H=79S=26H=79S=26H=79 S=26H=79S=26H=79 S=38-1/2H=79 S=26H=79S=26H=79ROOFBELOWROOFBELOWS=26-1/2H=75 (ARCH)BEDROOM 2XXXCH=96-1/2BEDROOM 3XXXCH=96-1/2BEDROOM 1XXXCH=96-1/2ROOF BELOWEXISTINGFLOOR PLANSAB2Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Existing Upper Level Plan1EXISTINGCONSTRUCTIONNEWCONSTRUCTION EXISTINGEXTERIORELEVATIONSAB3Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Existing Exterior Elevations1Project Number:2017-045© LNA Design, 2020These documents are instruments ofservice and as such remain the property ofLNA Design. Use or publication requireswritten approval from LNA Design.The Schaffer Residence 4524 Drexel Avenue Edina, MN 55424 APPLICATION DRAWINGS | January 18, 2021 Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage 1 2 3 4 February 9, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4524 Drexel Avenue-New Garage and Changes to Front Façade Information / Background: The subject property, 4524 Drexel Avenue is located on the west side of Drexel Avenue, between Bridge Street and Sunnyside Road. The home is a two-story residence built in 1933. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the demolition of an existing attached garage, construction of a new detached garage and changes to the existing front entry. The property owners of the subject property are proposing to tear down their existing attached garage and replace it with a new larger garage. The applicant is also proposing changes to the front entry of the home. The proposed changes include the addition of a shallow metal roof, new trim, new doors and sidelights and new second floor windows. The project includes an addition off the back of the home, new siding, new windows, shutters, and a new roof. Primary Issues: The Country Club District Plan of Treatment allows for the demolition and construction of a new garage with a Certificate of Appropriateness. Garages should match the architectural style of the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. New garages should be subordinate to the house and should be placed in the rear of the lot to minimize the visual impact on adjacent homes and streetscapes. The plan of treatment also suggests that undecorated exterior walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. There is an existing privacy fence located along the west side of the subject property. The proposed garage is located in the southwest corner of the subject property and meets the required side and rear yard setbacks. Based on the zoning requirements, the garage is allowed to STAFF REPORT Page 2 be up to 18 feet in height, measured from average existing grade. The proposed garage is shown at 18’ from proposed grade. Staff has discussed this with the applicant who will make the required changes to the drawings to comply with the 18’ height requirement. The proposed garage height is compatible with the surrounding garages and is within 10% of the average height of existing detached garages on adjacent lots. The proposed garage materials will match the home. There are also proposed changes to the front entry of the home. The applicant is proposing a shallow metal roof, new trim and new second floor windows. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for replacement of the existing detached garage at 4524 Drexel Avenue in the Country Club District. The applicant also proposes to construct a two-story rear addition and replace the existing exterior wall cladding and roofing. The subject property is a two-story Colonial Revival style residence built in 1925. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage. The house is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation but retains sufficient historic integrity of those features necessary to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource in the district. Built in 2006 (with a COA approved by the Edina Heritage Preservation Board), the existing garage is not considered a heritage preservation resource. Construction of new detached garages is considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District when the new construction is compatible with the size, scale, materials and architectural character of the house. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the new garage will comply with district plan of treatment. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. The house has been altered from its original appearance and its historic character has been compromised by the addition of vinyl siding. The proposed replacement with wood siding would be compatible with the standards for rehabilitation, in my opinion. Based on the plans presented, the proposed alterations to the front entry porch appear to be minimal and should not alter the property’s essential historic character. The proposed two-story addition will be constructed on a secondary elevation. The new construction preserves the historic core of the house and appears to be compatible with other historic homes in the neighborhood in terms of design and materials. No important historic features of the property will be destroyed or damaged. In my professional opinion, the proposed façade alterations and addition represent appropriate rehabilitation treatments. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans for 4524 Drexel Avenue, also recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness is consistent with the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Conditions for approval: • The maximum height for the garage is 18’ and is measured from average existing grade. • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. • A date-built plaque is required to be installed on the new garage MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM; Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: February 1, 2021 SUBJECT: COA for 4524 Drexel Avenue I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for replacement of the existing detached garage at 4524 Drexel Avenue in the Country Club District. The applicant also proposes to construct a two-story rear addition and replace the existing exterior wall cladding and roofing. The subject property is a two-story Colonial Revival style residence built in 1925. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage. The house is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation but retains sufficient historic integrity of those features necessary to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource in the district. Built in 2006 (with a COA approved by the Edina Heritage Preservation Board), the existing garage is not considered a heritage preservation resource. Construction of new detached garages is considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District when the new construction is compatible with the size, scale, materials and architectural character of the house. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, the new garage will comply with district plan of treatment. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. The house has been altered from its original appearance and its historic character has been compromised by the addition of vinyl siding. The proposed replacement with wood siding would be compatible with the standards for rehabilitation, in my opinion. Based on the plans presented, the proposed alterations to the front entry porch appear to be minimal and should not alter the property’s essential historic character. The proposed two-story addition will be constructed on a secondary elevation. The new construction preserves the historic core of the house and appears to be compatible with other historic homes in the neighborhood in terms of design and materials. No important historic features of the property will be destroyed or damaged. In my professional opinion, the proposed façade alterations and addition represent appropriate rehabilitation treatments. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, © WSB & Asso ciates 2013 4618 Arden A ve Febr uary 2, 2021 1 in = 35 f t / Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O A: 4618 Arden Avenue Ac tion 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 Certificate of Appropriateness request for a new garage at 4618 Arden Avenue as presented. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he Certificate of Appropriateness request includes the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4618 Arden Avenue. T he proposed 22’ x 26’ garage is slightly larger than the existing 20’ x 26’ garage. B etter Together P age AT TAC HME N T S: Description Applicant Submittal Staff Report Memo from Consultant Vogel Aerial Map 4618 Arden Avenue | Proposed new detached garage The proposed detached garage adheres to Edina’s Historic Country Club District’s Plan of Treatment as it will be efficiently sized in relation to its use and the existing house; the new garage will match both the materiality and details of the house. The existing garage needs to be replaced. The new garage will more closely replicate the original house; the garage will have painted wood lap siding to matching the existing house. The character defining decorative ‘rafter tails’ and soffit brackets found on the original house, will also be replicated at the new garage. The scale of the new garage is in keeping with the existing home and neighborhood. The proposed 22’ x 26’ footprint is slighting larger than the existing structure (existing structure is 20’ x 26’), but overall is a modestly sized 2-car garage by modern standards. Rather than further increase the footprint of the garage for storage; the garage optimizes the rafter space for attic storage. A double hung window punctuates the gable ends of the garage, adding detail and interest to the east and west facades. The 18’ wide by 7’ tall wood garage door will be painted white to match the trim and casing of the existing house. The proposed new garage allows the homeowners to make better use of the garage and enhances the property’s architectural aesthetic. 4616 ARDEN AVE | 19'-6" GARAGE HEIGHT COA APPLICATION 4620 ARDEN AVE | 15' GARAGE HEIGHT 4619 BRUCE AVE | ~13' GARAGE HEIGHT 4618 ARDEN AVE PROPOSED GARAGE HEIGHT = 17'5" PER PLAN OF TREATMENT: 19'-6" (4616 ARDEN) + 15' (4620 ARDEN) + 13' (4619 BRUCE) 3 HEIGHT CALCULATION: =15'-10" + 1'-7" = 17'-5" (10% x 15'-10") GARAGE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS STREET FACING FACADE EXISTING GARAGE AERIAL IMAGE (Hennepin Co) COA APPLICAITON ARDEN AVENUE#43503LICENSE NO.Wayne W. PreuhsDATES1JANUARY 21, 2021Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway No. 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.JOAN & DAVID BOWLINCLIENT/JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEPROPOSED SURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'0210060 JRDRAWING NUMBERSEPTEMBER 8, 2020LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 10, Block 10, Country Club Fairway Section, Hennepin County,Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legaldescription listed above. The scope of our services does not includedetermining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check thelegal description with your records or consult with competent legalcounsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that anymatters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included onthe survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deemnecessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers toestablish the corners of the property.4.Existing building dimensions and setbacks measured to outside ofsiding or stucco.5.Showing and tabulating building coverage of the lot for your reviewand for the review of such governmental agencies that may havejurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shownbefore proceeding with construction.6.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give someindication of the topography of the site. We have also provided abenchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction onthis site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark providedon this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one otherfeature shown on the survey when determining other elevations foruse on this site or before beginning construction.7.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current titlecommitment. There may be existing easements or otherencumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment.Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements orencumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.8.While we show the minimum building setback lines per ourinterpretation of the city's zoning code, said setback lines must beverified by the appropriate city official to be sure that they are showncorrectly. Do this before using the survey to make any decisionsregarding the property.9.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we arenot as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or thebuilder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements andproposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plansbefore construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with localcodes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoningofficials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to saidofficials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over theproposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginningconstruction or planning improvements to the property.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.DATE SURVEYED:JANUARY 21, 2021DATE DRAFTED:4618 ARDEN AVE.EDINA, MNSHEET SIZE: 11 X 17 February 9, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4618 Arden Avenue- new detached garage Information / Background: The subject property, 4618 Arden Avenue, is located on the west side of Arden Avenue between Country Club Road and Bridge Street. The home on the subject property was built in 1931. The Certificate of Appropriateness request includes the demolition of an existing detached garage and construction of a new detached garage at 4618 Arden Avenue. The proposed 22’ x 26’ garage is slightly larger than the existing 20’ x 26’ garage. Primary Issues: The Country Club District Plan of Treatment allows for the demolition and construction of a new garage with a Certificate of Appropriateness which is the reason for the COA application. Garages should match the architectural style of the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. New garages should be subordinate to the house and should be placed in the rear of the lot to minimize the visual impact on adjacent homes and streetscapes. The plan of treatment also suggests that undecorated exterior walls longer than 16 feet should be avoided on elevations visible from the street or adjacent properties. The proposed garage is located in the northwest corner of the subject property and is generally in the same location as the existing detached garage. The proposed survey shows the garage 3 feet from the property line. The survey does not include the overhang of the proposed garage. Staff has spoken with the applicant who will update the survey so that the garage, including the overhang, are not within the required setback area. The survey will be updated for the permit submittal. Based on zoning requirements, the garage is allowed to be up to 18 feet in height, measured from average existing grade on site. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The proposed garage is shown at 17’ 5”. The proposed garage height is compatible with the surrounding garages and is within 10% of the average of the existing detached garage heights on surrounding properties. The proposed garage will match the building materials of the existing home (lap wood siding). Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: “I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for replacement of the detached garage at 4618 Arden Avenue in the Country Club District. The subject property is a two-story Colonial Revival style residence built in 1930 with a detached garage built in 1980. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage. The house is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation but retains sufficient historic integrity of those features necessary to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource in the district. The existing garage is not considered a heritage preservation resource and as a matter of policy construction of new detached garages is considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, no significant historic structures or features will be destroyed and the replacement garage will be visually compatible with the house in size, scale, materials, and texture. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions applicable to new construction.” Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans for a new detached garage at 4618 Arden Avenue, also recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness is consistent with the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Conditions for approval: • The garage setback will be updated on the proposed survey so the garage (including the overhang) is setback a minimum of three feet from the side and rear property lines. • Any changes to the proposed plans would require review from the Heritage Preservation Commission. • A date-built plaque is required to be installed on the new garage MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM; Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: February 1, 2021 SUBJECT: COA for 4618 Arden Avenue I have reviewed the plans and supporting documents submitted in relation to the COA application for replacement of the detached garage at 4618 Arden Avenue in the Country Club District. The subject property is a two-story Colonial Revival style residence built in 1930 with a detached garage built in 1980. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage. The house is not individually eligible for heritage landmark designation but retains sufficient historic integrity of those features necessary to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource in the district. The existing garage is not considered a heritage preservation resource and as a matter of policy construction of new detached garages is considered an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, no significant historic structures or features will be destroyed and the replacement garage will be visually compatible with the house in size, scale, materials, and texture. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions applicable to new construction. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, © WSB & Asso ciates 2013 4618 Arden A ve Febr uary 2, 2021 1 in = 25 f t / Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.C . To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O A: 4630 Drexel Avenue Ac tion 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: Deny the C ertificate of Appropriateness request to remove more than 50% of the exterior walls at 4630 Drexel Avenue. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he current application to the H eritage P reservation Commission includes a request to remove more than 50% of the surface area of the exterior walls at 4630 D rexel Avenue but to still construct the same plans that were approved with remodel/addition approved with the previous certificate of appropriateness. Removing 50% of the exterior walls of the house would be considered a demolition based on the C ountry Club P lan of T reatment. T his house is not eligible to be torn down because it was built in 1924. B etter Together P age AT TAC HME N T S: Description Applicant Submittal Additional Information Submitted by Applicant Staff Report Consultant Vogel Memo Building Official Memo Aerial Map Site Photos Plans approved with September 8, 2020 COA 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 From:Scott Busyn To:David Fisher Cc:Emily Bodeker; rcvogel@pathfindercrm.com; Cary Teague Subject:4630 Drexel Avenue Follow Up Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 1:58:15 AM EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Dave, Thanks for calling with questions regarding our application to obtain a demo permit for 4630 Drexel. Here are the answers to your questions about the deteriorated conditions of the existing home. Mold Report The mold report we submitted showed heavy concentrations of mold in all areas that were tested in the framing walls and the foundation. 7 Types of mold were found throughout the home including: Ascospores, Aspergillus, Basidiospores, Bispora, Cladosporium, Curvularia, and Nigrospora. The testing results showed heavy presence of these molds, averaging over 410,000 mold spores per square centimeter in the sample areas that were tested. Also important to note, the Hyphal Fragment Counts (or actively growing mold colonies) were high in the framing walls and foundation walls tested. Extrapolating these concentrations to all areas of the framing and foundation walls, we would find billions of mold spores in the remainder of the walls. Becky Larson from Minnesota Mold Inspections referred me to the following federal and licensed testing websites to provide information on the health impacts of a heavy presence of mold in homes: https://www.cdc.gov/mold/basics.htm https://www.emsl.com/PDFDocuments/Marketing/EMSLFungalGlossary.pdf Per these sites, the molds present in this home can cause the following health conditions: Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) (chronic exaggerated immune system response) Aspergillus sinusitis (mass growth in sinuses). Aspergilloma (fungal clump growth in a body cavity or lung) and chronic pulmonary aspergillosis in people with lung disease Pneumonitis (lung inflammation) Asthmatic attack Edema (swelling of lungs) Keratitis (inflamed cornea) Onychomycosis (Nail fungus) Pulmonary infections Sinusitis Cerebral abscess Endocarditis (Inflammation of the heart) Mycetoma (skin infection) Pneumonia Skin lesions The heavy presence of mold in these walls is an unhealthy and unsafe condition for the occupants. Per the report from Minnesota Mold Inspections: 1) the mold cannot be removed from the framed walls as the wood is rotten and cannot be cleaned or repaired as the mold has penetrated the wood material, and 2) The cement foundation walls are infested with mold and would be very difficult to clean and repair. It would be more effective to replace the foundation wall. Lead Report The submitted lead report shows that the entire exterior and interior surfaces of the home tested positive for lead. It is true that lead paint is present in many older homes. However, in my experience renovating and tearing down older homes, I have not seen a home where the entire interior and exterior surface of the home tested positive for lead. As you know, if we renovate this home, we will have to follow the RRP guidelines for removing the lead from all surfaces. This will involve a long and laborious process of removing all exterior stucco, interior plaster, windows, etc by hand. It is much safer to remove the lead by removing entire wall sections through the demolition process which does not require following RRP guidelines. Per the submitted letter from TL Erickson Enterprises, an EPA Certified Lead Renovation Firm: " 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.” Structural Report Per the submitted report from Hansen Engineering, the following structural deficiencies were found in the existing home: Ceiling plaster shows significant signs of water intrusion. Rafters and roof sheathing show signs of water intrusion and staining. The mull space between windows is empty with no structure. Sustained deflection is observed in the header. 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. Floor sloping is observed on both levels. 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. Foundation walls have a minor bow of up to approximately 1/2". Wall bow is observable at longer walls and adjacent the window well structures. Foundation is not waterproofed on the exterior. 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. (Footings are undersized). 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. 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. 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. 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. I hope this helps clarify the deteriorated condition of this home. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank you, SCOTT BUSYN President 3939 West 50th Street, Suite 103A, Edina, MN 55424 Direct: 952.807.8765 | Fax: 952.926.1168 scott@greatneighborhoodhomes.com | greatneighborhoodhomes.com February 9, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Request to remove more than 50% of the surface area of the walls at 4630 Drexel Avenue Information / Background: The subject property, 4630 Drexel Avenue is located on the north west corner of Drexel Avenue and Country Club Road. The home built in 1924 is a Mediterranean style. The Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed multiple projects associated with this address that have included sketch plans submittals and Certificate of Appropriateness requests for changes to street facing façades (two separate remodel/addition projects). The two projects associated with the two COA requests had also received setback variances from the planning commission. The most recent Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission included changes to multiple street facing façades and an addition visible from Country Club Road, Wooddale Lane, and Drexel Avenue. It was approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission September 8, 2020. The plans that were submitted and ultimately approved by the HPC in September 2020 showed that more than 50% of the surface areas of the walls would remain during the project. The current application to the Heritage Preservation Commission includes a request to remove more than 50% of the surface area of the exterior walls at 4630 Drexel Avenue but to still construct the same plans that were approved with remodel/addition approved with the previous certificate of appropriateness. Removing 50% of the exterior walls of the house would be considered a demolition based on the Country Club Plan of Treatment. This house is not eligible to be torn down because it was built in 1924. Primary Issues: The Country Club Plan of Treatment classifies houses built within 1924-1944 in the Country Club District as Heritage Preservation Resources. This is the period of time when the developer enforced rigid architectural standards on new home construction through restrictive covenants. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The Plan of Treatment states, “No Certificate of Appropriateness will be approved for the demolition, in whole or in part, of any heritage preservation resource in the district unless the applicant can show that the subject property is not a heritage preservation resource, or no longer contributes to the historical significance of the district because its historic integrity has been compromised by deterioration, damage, or by inappropriate additions or alterations.” This house is considered a preservation resource because it was built in 1924. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel’s Comments: I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to amending the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) previously approved by the HPC for renovation of the house located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in the Country Club District. On January 22 I accompanied Chief Building Official David Fisher on an inspection of the subject property. We found the vacant house in a state of disrepair but did not observe any serious structural problems with the load-bearing exterior walls or foundation. I have some problems with the request to amend the COA. First and foremost, the Country Club District Plan of Treatment states that the preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the district is rehabilitation, which is defined by ordinance as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repairs, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values. The Secretary of the Interior’s general standards for the treatment of historic properties (which are the required basis for COA decisions) require that deteriorated architectural features be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible; if replacement is necessary, the new work should match the original material in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The current standard of practice in heritage preservation is to prevent the removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features and save as much original historic fabric as possible. In this case, the distinctive historic architectural features are the subject property’s exterior walls and their stucco finish, the roof shape and tile roofing, and the pattern of fenestration of the primary (street facing) façade. Previous COAs for renovation and additions were based upon the assumption that important historic character defining features would be preserved and protected as parts of the new home. Based on the plans submitted, the proposed COA amendment would permit demolition of most, if not all, of the original exterior wall surfaces. In my opinion, this would be tantamount to a tear- down, the antithesis of rehabilitation, and therefore inappropriate. If the COA amendment were to be approved, the property’s historic integrity would be irrevocably compromised, and it would no longer qualify as a contributing heritage preservation resource. The request does not make a good case for demolishing the “saved walls.” The walls are not unsound; based on the information provided with the COA request, I would have to concur with the applicant’s engineer, who has opined “the existing structure is generally stable and does not pose any immediate safety risks.” The conditions described in the project narrative are commonly found in early-20th century wood frame construction; indeed, these kinds of problems are inherent in the structural systems of existing homes throughout the Country Club District. The preferred treatment strategy would be stabilization and repair of the damaged structural members, while retaining as much of the original framing and wall cladding as possible and duplicating the original stucco finish. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Regarding the mold problem, the applicant has not provided the scientific data and analysis which would support demolition as the most appropriate mold mitigation strategy. Mold growth caused by moisture and poor ventilation is present in nearly all hundred-year-old wood frame houses. From a best management practices perspective, demolition is the last resort in dealing with mold in historic buildings. The most widely used method for removing mold is to scrub the wood with a solution of water and borax, which removes the mold spores without damaging the wood. Even in the wettest urban environments it is seldom necessary to remove all water-damaged wood during rehabilitation of an historic building. Replacement of the original foundation is not a critical preservation issue unless it will result in a change in total building height. Ordinarily, the foundation walls would not be considered a primary historic character defining feature of a 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival style house, therefore if the applicant needs to repair or replace the foundation, it would be appropriate to replace the existing masonry with new material that duplicates the original as closely as possible. In conclusion, the applicant’s request to amend the COA amounts to a tear-down, which would result in the total loss of the heritage preservation resource. In its present condition, the house retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource when evaluated within the historic context of the Country Club District; it dates from the district’s period of historical significance, clearly shows the influence of the developer’s master plan and is readily identifiable as a specimen of period revival style architecture. Although it does not represent an individually significant architectural resource in its own right and has been altered somewhat from its as-built appearance, the property retains historic integrity of the most important architectural character defining design features associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival style (commonly referred to as “Mediterranean”). Therefore, issuance of a COA for demolition of a substantial portion of the existing structure would not be appropriate. Building Official Memo: At the request of staff, the Building Official, David Fisher, visited the subject property and provided a memo of his findings. The memo is attached to the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting packet. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed request at 4630 Drexel Avenue, denying the applicant’s request to remove more than 50% of the surface area of the walls, and finding that demolishing the existing structure, a preservation resource in the Country Club District, would not be appropriate. Findings supporting the recommendation include: • Edina’s Preservation consultant finds that issuance of a COA for removing more than 50% of the surface area of the walls, the demolition of the home, would not be appropriate. • The house dates from the district’s period of historical significance. • The applicant’s engineer opined “the existing structure is generally stable and does not pose any immediate safety risks.” • The distinctive historic architectural features on the subject property are the exterior walls, STAFF REPORT Page 4 their stucco finish, the roof shape/material, and the pattern of fenestration of the primary street facing façade. • In its present condition, the house retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource when evaluated within the historic context of the Country Club District. MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Brodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: February 1, 2021 SUBJECT: Request to Amend COA to Allow Replacement of Existing Walls on House at 4630 Drexel Avenue I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to amending the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) previously approved by the HPC for renovation of the house located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in the Country Club District. On January 22 I accompanied Chief Building Official David Fisher on an inspection of the subject property. We found the vacant house in a state of disrepair but did not observe any serious structural problems with the load- bearing exterior walls or foundation. I have some problems with the request to amend the COA. First and foremost, the Country Club District Plan of Treatment states that the preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources in the district is rehabilitation, which is defined by ordinance as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repairs, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values. The Secretary of the Interior’s general standards for the treatment of historic properties (which are the required basis for COA decisions) require that deteriorated architectural features be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible; if replacement is necessary, the new work should match the original material in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The current standard of practice in heritage preservation is to prevent the removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features and save as much original historic fabric as possible. In this case, the distinctive historic architectural features are the subject property’s exterior walls and their stucco finish, the roof shape and tile roofing, and the pattern of fenestration of the primary (street facing) façade. Previous COAs for renovation and additions were based upon the assumption that important historic character defining features would be preserved and protected as parts of the new home. Based on the plans submitted, the proposed COA amendment would permit demolition of most, if not all, of the original exterior wall surfaces. In my opinion, this would be tantamount to a tear-down, the antithesis of rehabilitation, and therefore inappropriate. If the COA amendment were to be approved, the property’s historic integrity would be irrevocably compromised and it would no longer qualify as a contributing heritage preservation resource. The request does not make a good case for demolishing the “saved walls.” The walls are not unsound; based on the information provided with the COA request, I would have to concur with the applicant’s engineer, who has opined “the existing structure is generally stable and does not pose any immediate safety risks.” The conditions described in the project narrative are commonly found in early-20th century wood frame construction; indeed, these kinds of problems are inherent in the structural systems of existing homes throughout the Country Club District. The preferred treatment strategy would be stabilization and repair of the damaged structural members, while retaining as much of the original framing and wall cladding as possible and duplicating the original stucco finish. Regarding the mold problem, the applicant has not provided the scientific data and analysis which would support demolition as the most appropriate mold mitigation strategy. Mold growth caused by moisture and poor ventilation is present in nearly all hundred-year-old wood frame houses. From a best management practices perspective, demolition is the last resort in dealing with mold in historic buildings. The most widely used method for removing mold is to scrub the wood with a solution of water and borax, which removes the mold spores without damaging the wood. Even in the wettest urban environments it is seldom necessary to remove all water- damaged wood during rehabilitation of an historic building. Replacement of the original foundation is not a critical preservation issue unless it will result in a change in total building height. Ordinarily, the foundation walls would not be considered a primary historic character defining feature of a 1920s Spanish Colonial Revival style house, therefore if the applicant needs to repair or replace the foundation, it would be appropriate to replace the existing masonry with new material that duplicates the original as closely as possible. In conclusion, the applicant’s request to amend the COA amounts to a tear-down, which would result in the total loss of the heritage preservation resource. In its present condition, the house retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered a contributing heritage preservation resource when evaluated within the historic context of the Country Club District; it dates from the district’s period of historical significance, clearly shows the influence of the developer’s master plan and is readily identifiable as a specimen of period revival style architecture. Although it does not represent an individually significant architectural resource in its own right and has been altered somewhat from its as-built appearance, the property retains historic integrity of the most important architectural character defining design features associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival style (commonly referred to as “Mediterranean”). Therefore, issuance of a COA for demolition of a substantial portion of the existing structure would not be appropriate. February 2, 2021 Cary Teague, Community Development Director David Fisher, Chief Building Official 4630 Drexel Ave – Historical Home Built in the 1924 Registered within the City of Edina Landmark Historical District Information / Background: A request was made for me to do a housing inspection of 4630 Drexel Ave. This is an existing home that was built in 1924 and is located in the City’s Historical Landmark District. One question that is always difficult to answer is, “What is the life expectancy of a single-family-home?” In this case the home is: over 100 years old, is vacant and has been exposed to the elements the past few months. Here are the items I found that permits were issued for: - 2020 Demo permit was issued for an interior only to recycle wood molding, wood flooring & copper. Also removed were hazardous materials including mercury, lead and asbestos. No permit was issued to remove exterior windows or the roof. - 2020 Sewer & water disconnect permit was issued - 2008 Sewer & water permit to repair the sewer - 2004 Roofing permit no inspections - 2003 Roofing permit no inspections - 1998 Boiler permit - 1978 Remodel playroom - 1954 Permit for a water connection For a home this age and size there are not many records of improvements or maintenance of the home. STAFF REPORT Page 2 On January 22, 2021, I did a walk-through of the home. I found the following: - A musty damp smell throughout the home - The house was cold and un-heated - Most of the basement was finished, but I found some mold. The ceiling heights are seven and one- half feet. - Most of the wood molding was removed throughout the home - Most of the plumbing fixtures were removed. - Plumbing that is not code compliant – old style drum traps, may have S traps and under-sized water pipe - The home appeared to have 200 AMP electrical service with mix of green field, BX and romex wiring. - Most of the windows were single pane glass with an exterior storm window. Broken or removed- these types of windows are very drafty and not very energy efficient. - Some of the basement exterior walls were exposed. I did not see any issues, but there was some snow cover. I agree with the reports provided by Great Neighborhoods. It would be very difficult to make this home energy efficient without rebuilding walls. Digging out the basement floor to provide 9-foot ceiling in the basement would make it difficult to keep the existing basement foundation. Everything could be under pinned and reenforced at a high cost, however it still would not be as good as a new poured wall foundation. Conclusion What is the life expectancy of a single-family-home? There is no standard answer to this question therefore these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. I tried to lay out the facts of the deficiencies in this home so an informed decision can be made. Historical vs new are tough decisions to make. Read the Hanson Group’s conclusion. The difficulty here is to keep as much of the existing structure as possible to keep the historical integrity. The comment by Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant would allow the foundation to be replaced as long as the historical integrity of the walls can be kept. This is where I am not sure of how this can be accomplished. Can the walls be taken down, rebuilt as they were and be reinstalled to meet the historical integrity? If this can be done, then I believe then we can achieve the intent of the historical of the dwelling. If not, then it just can’t be done. Below is more info I found that may help with your decision: Choosing an Appropriate Treatment for the Historic Building The Guidelines are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect the nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. For example, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of the historic building should be saved and which can be changed. But, once a treatment is selected, the Standards and Guidelines provide a consistent philosophical approach to the work. Choosing the most appropriate treatment for a building requires careful decision making about a building’s historical significance, as well as taking into account a number of other considerations: Level of Significance. National Historic Landmarks, designated for their “exceptional significance in American history,” and other properties important for their interpretive value may be candidates for Preservation or Restoration. Rehabilitation, however, is the most commonly used treatment for the STAFF REPORT Page 3 majority of historic buildings Reconstruction has the most limited application because so few resources that are no longer extant can be documented to the degree necessary to accurately recreate the property in a manner that conveys its appearance at a particular point in history. Physical condition. Preservation may be appropriate if distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and convey the building’s historical significance. If the building requires more extensive repair and replacement, or if alterations or a new addition are necessary for a new use, then Rehabilitation is probably the most appropriate treatment. Proposed use. Many historic buildings can be adapted for a new use or updated for a continuing use without seriously impacting their historic character. However, it may be very difficult or impossible to convert some special-use properties for new uses without major alterations, resulting in loss of historic character and even integrity. Code and other regulations. Regardless of the treatment, regulatory requirements must be addressed. But without a sensitive design approach such work may damage a building’s historic materials and negatively impact its character. Therefore, because the ultimate use of the building determines what requirements will have to be met, some potential uses of a historic building may not be appropriate if the necessary modifications would not preserve the building’s historic character. This includes adaptations to address natural hazards as well as sustainability. What is an “effect”? What is an “adverse effect”? The term “effect” is defined under 36 CFR §800.16(i) as an “alteration to the characteristics of historic property qualifying it for inclusion in, or eligibility for the National Register.” Consider the project’s impact on the property’s use, character, location, and setting when determining its effect on the historic property. An effect is considered adverse under 36 CFR §800.5(a)(1) when it will endanger those qualities that make the property eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Adverse effects of a project can be direct or indirect. Typical examples include: • physical destruction or damage; • alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; • decommissioning 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. What is an “effect”? What is an “adverse effect”? The term “effect” is defined under 36 CFR §800.16(i) as an “alteration to the characteristics of historic property qualifying it for inclusion in, or eligibility for the National Register.” Consider the project’s impact on the property’s use, character, location, and setting when determining its effect on the historic property. An effect is considered adverse under 36 CFR §800.5(a)(1) when it will endanger those qualities that make the property eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Adverse effects of a project can be direct or indirect. Typical examples include: • physical destruction or damage; STAFF REPORT Page 4 • alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; • decommissioning 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. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 4630 Drexel A ve August 31, 2020 1 in = 50 f t / 4630 Drexel Avenue Refresh and Addition COA Submittal John and Cathy Wolf Narrative We are looking to refresh the residence of 4630 Drexel Ave and bring the design & construction into today's living. We want to achieve this while carrying forward the historic Spanish Colonial elements of the existing home. We are incorporating elements from the Spanish Colonial style including two story wall heights, white stucco wall ﬁnish, compound low pitched gable roofs with gable corbel details, maintaining the street facing chimney, arched windows/openings, and metal balconies/railings. We accomplished this through the support & guidance given by adjacent neighbors' letters and they are all anxious for us to get started on this project. Our goal is to refresh this house and add value to the community that will create a beautiful new home that we and the neighborhood will enjoy for years to come! We were previously granted a COA for this project in January, 2019. After spending more time looking at the approved plans, we realized there were a few changes we wanted to make. The new plan is a better ﬂoor plan for how we live. The new plans are also an improvement for us and the neighborhood in the following ways: 1.We realized that the new garage/upper level addition of the old plan was too massive, blocked signiﬁcant sunlight into the home and blocked all views of our children playing in the driveway/yard area. 4630 Drexel Avenue fronts the main entrance to the Country Club District. The intersection of Drexel/Country Club Road/Wooddale Avenue is sometimes referred to as “spaghetti junction.” There are 6 ﬂows of trafﬁc coming to this one intersection (Drexel Northbound and Southbound, Country Club East and Westbound, Wooddale North and Southbound). Adjacent to 4630 Drexel there are 5 stop signs, 1 yield sign, 2 keep right signs, 1 do not enter sign, 4 bike route signs, 8 driveways and 2 trafﬁc islands). By pulling the mass of the new addition back, the new plan allows better views of our children outside and in the side yard (which is the only “back yard” of this property). This new plan will make the new home safer for our family. It is also a better plan for preventing car headlights from shining into our sleeping areas. 2. The new plan pulls the mass of the rear 2 story addition further away from the street than the old plan. This makes the new home look less massive from Country Club Road and has better articulation than the old plan. The garage addition on the old plan was 32’ from the Country Club Road setback. The garage on the new plan will be approximately 58’ from the Country Club Road setback. As shown on the site plan, this will hide the garage in the rear. The new garage will also be blocked from view by the wing wall of the new addition and a row of trees. It is worth noting that street-facing attached garages are very common in the District (38 out of the 68 corner lots-see attachment). This new garage addition will require a 15’ rear lot line setback variance from the Planning Commission as it is 10’ from the rear lot line. The adjacent attached garage at 4625 Wooddale is 5.3 from their rear lot line so this is a condition existing in the area and other corner lots in the District (5 other corner lot homes in Country Club adjacent to busy trafﬁc islands have attached street-facing garages less than 25’ from the rear for line - see attachment). 3. The new plan is more in character with the existing home. It is a more modest vernacular house that maintains more of the existing design elements. The two story addition on the west end is less massive looking from the street. We feel this will be a better ﬁt for the District than the previous plan. 4. The new plan eliminates the non-conforming 8’ setback on the north side of the home. 5. The old plan had 2 steps down from the foyer to the dining room/kitchen area. The new plan lowers the foyer to create one level ﬂoor with no sunken areas 6. The new plan has a covered entry over the front door. After feedback at the sketch plan review, we made the covered entry shallower and narrower (from 8’ x 12’ to 4’ x 11’). This is a common element on Spanish Colonial/Mediterranean homes in the District such as these examples: Comparing East/Drexel Avenue Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing South/Country Club Road Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing West /Facing 4625 Wooddale Garage Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Comparing North /Facing 4626 Drexel Elevations (existing, old plan, new plan) Existing Streetscapes ExitExisting Front Facing Drexel ExitExisting Front Country Club Road ExitExisting View From in front of 4626 Drexel ExitExisting Front Country Club Road Towards 4625 Wooddale Existing Streetscapes ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to North 4626 Drexel ExitExisting House to North 4626 Drexel ExitExisting Double Lot Between 4630 and 4626 Drexel Existing Streetscapes ExitView North of 4630 Drexel ExitView House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale ExitExisting View House to West 4625 Wooddale Comparing Streetscapes Old Plan to New Plan (Drexel View) Comparing Streetscapes Old Plan to New Plan (Country Club View) Existing Home Site Plan Old Home Plan Site Plan New Home Plan Site Plan New First Floor Plan New Second Floor Plan Materials Brava Tile, Decra Tile, Clay Tile, Asphalt Rooﬁng Options Fine Texture Stucco Black Satin Metal Railing Marvin Ebony-Clad Exterior Windows Black Painted Steel Garage Doors Corner Lot Homes in Country Club District with Street Facing Garages < 25' from Rear Lot Line Other Homes in Country Club District with Street Facing Attached Garages (excludes Sunnyside Road West of Browndale as all homes have front facing attached garages) 4203 Country Club Road Address Garage Faces Approx. Garage Setback from Rear Lot Line Comments 4205 Country Club Road 4621 Edina Blvd.Country Club Road ~ 9.4' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4207 Country Club Road 4601 Browndale Avenue Bridge Street 4209 Country Club Road 4501 Arden Avenue Sunnyside Road ~ 5' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4215 Country Club Road 4632 Arden Avenue Country Club Road 4221 Country Club Road 4901 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road 4225 Country Club Road 4600 Arden Avenue Bridge Street 4229 Country Club Road 4530 Arden Avenue Bridge Street 4625 Country Club Road 4501 Arden Avenue Sunnyside Road 4305 Country Club Road 4500 Arden Sunnyside Road 4409 Country Club Road 4530 Bruce Avenue Bridge Street 4083 Sunnyside Road 4531 Bruce Avenue Bridge Street 4501 Casco Avenue 4634 Bruce Avenue Sunnyside Road 4503 Drexel Avenue 4900 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road 4512 Drexel Avenue 4901 Bruce Avenue Country Club Road 4616 Drexel Avenue 4638 Casco Avenue Country Club Road 4622 Drexel Avenue 4600 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4305 Country Club Road 4531 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4405 Country Club Road 4532 Casco Avenue Bridge Street 4409 Country Club Road 4501 Casco Avenue Sunnyside Road 4624 Wooddale Avenue 4500 Casco Avenue Sunnyside Road 4610 Wooddale Avenue 4501 Drexel Avenue Sunnyside Road ~10' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4606 Wooddale Avenue 4527 Drexel Avenue Bridge Street 4603 Wooddale Avenue 4600 Drexel Avenue Bridge Street 4519 Wooddale Avenue 4633 Drexel Avenue Country Club Road 4612 Edina Blvd 4625 Woodale Avenue Country Club Road ~ 5' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4517 Moorland Avenue 4601 Wooddale Avenue Bridge Street ~ 8' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4615 Moorland Avenue 4523 Wooddale Avenue Bridge Street 4606 Moorland Avenue 4519 Edina Blvd Bridge Street 4506 Sunnyside Road 4601 Edina Blvd Bridge Street ~ 4' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4510 Sunnyside Road 4624 Moorland Avenue Country Club Road 4513 Browndale Avenue 4600 Moorland Avenue Bridge Street 4520 Browndale Avenue 4516 Moorland Aveniue Bridge Street 4604 Browndale Avenue 4517 Moorland Avenue Bridge Street 4614 Edgebrook Place 4500 Moorland Avenue Sunnyside Road 4618 Edgebrook Place 4601 Browndale Avenue Bridge Street ` 10' Adjacent to busy Country Club District Entrance Intersection 4622 Edgebrook Place 4640 Edghebrook Place Browndale Avenue 4626 Edgebrook Place 4629 Browndale Avenue Country Club Road 4630 Edgebrook Place 4218 Sunnyside Road Wooddale Avenue 4634 Edgebrook Place 4638 Edgebrook Place 38 of 68 corner lots in Country Club have attached street facing garages 4619 Browndale Avenue 4901 Browndale Avenue 4905 Browndale Avenue 4909 Browndale Avenue Survey of Street Facing Attached Garages in CC 28"24"36"24"42"54"10"20"16"18"8"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX S SSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSTE2"TOP=895.75BOT=895.25895.50896.00INFILTRATION BASINSTORAGE (895.25-895.75)=75 CFOPTIONAL UNLESS REQUIREDBY CITY.DIRECT DOWNSPOUTDRAINAGE TO INFILTRATIONBASIN, COORD. W/LANDSCAPERINSTALL SILT FENCEDOWNGRADE OF ALLEXCAVATION.INSTALL TREE PROTECTIONFENCING AROUND ALL TREESTO REMAIN, COORD. W/PROPERTY OWNER, TYP.COORD. ALL TREE REMOVALSW/ OWNER PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.ROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCEAVOID COMPACTION OF SOILS INOR NEAR INFILTRATION BASIN.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INLETPROTECTION AT ALLDOWNSTREAM CATCH BASINSCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE INLETPROTECTION AT ALLDOWNSTREAM CATCH BASINSSTORMWATER, SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL CONTACT:CATHY WOLF (HOMEOWNER)4630 DREXEL AVEEDINA, MN 55424612-819-5100SCOTT BUSYNGREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES3939 W. 50TH ST., SUITE 103AEDINA, MN 55424952-807-876501" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"NDENOTES SILT FENCE/GRADING LIMITNOTES:SEE SURVEY, BY HARRY S. JOHNSON CO. INC., DATED 08/17/2020 FOR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & GRADES.DRAINAGE PATTERNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO GRADING PLAN.PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA IS GREATER THAN EXISTING. THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUSAREA IS 566 SF. AN OPTIONAL RAINGARDEN/DEPRESSION IN THE FRONT YARD WILL STORE 75 CF OFSTORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. NO STORMWATER STORAGE IS REQUIREDPER EDINA ENGINEERING POLICY SP-003.RUNOFF RATES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL NOT INCREASE.SOILS ASSUMED TO BE TYPE B SOILS WITH AN INFILTRATION RATE OF 0.45 IN/HR.DENOTES INLETPROTECTION DEVICE,PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING1.INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE OR BIO-ROLL AROUND SITE2.DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IF ANY.3.CLEAR AND GRUB.4.CONSTRUCT NEW STRUCTURE5.WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THESITE IS STABILIZED BY EITHER SEED OR SOD/LANDSCAPING, REMOVESILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL.EROSION PREVENTIONTHE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANING FOR ANDIMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION PHASING,VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, ANDOTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT MINIMIZE EROSION.ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON ASPOSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 14DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THESITE HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED.THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY TEMPORARY ORPERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCH OR SWALE THAT DRAINS WATER FROMANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, OR DIVERTS WATERAROUND THE SITE, MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 20 LINEAL FEETFROM THE PROPERTY EDGE, OR FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGEINTO ANY SURFACE WATER. STABILIZATION OF THE LAST 20 LINEALFEET MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTINGTO A SURFACE WATER.STABILIZATION OF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF ANY TEMPORARYOR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 14DAYS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER ANDCONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION OF THE DITCH HAS TEMPORARILYOR PERMANENTLY CEASED.TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES THAT ARE BEINGUSED AS A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (WITH PROPERLYDESIGNED ROCK DITCH CHECKS, BIO ROLLS, SILT DIKES ETC.) DONOT NEED TO BE STABILIZED. THESE AREAS MUST BE STABILIZEDWITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER NO LONGER BEING USED AS A SEDIMENTCONTAINMENT SYSTEM.PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY ORPERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTERCONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER.SEDIMENT CONTROLSEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROMENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTERSYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS.SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALLDOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LANDDISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN INPLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATEBMPS DURING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIALFOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED.TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHEREFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED INSURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORMWATER CONVEYANCES SUCHAS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHESUNLESS THERE IS A BYPASS IN PLACE FOR THE STORMWATER.VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITEMUST BE MINIMIZED BY A ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. STREETSWEEPING MUST BE USED IF THE ROCK ENTRANCE IS NOTADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THESTREET.TEMPORARY DE-WATERING- DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING (E.G.,PUMPED DISCHARGES, TRENCH/DITCH CUTS FOR DRAINAGE)RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE TURBIDOR SEDIMENT LADEN DISCHARGE WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TOA TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASIN ON THEPROJECT SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THE WATER CANNOT BEDISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THESURFACE WATER, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATEBMP'S SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTTHE RECEIVING WATER, DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS OR WETLANDS.THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THAT DISCHARGE POINTS AREADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SCOUR. THEDISCHARGE MUST BE DISPERSED OVER NATURAL ROCK RIPRAP,SAND BAGS, PLASTIC SHEATHING OR OTHER ACCEPTED ENERGYDISSIPATION MEASURES. ADEQUATE SEDIMENTATION CONTROLMEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE WATER THAT CONTAINSSUSPENDED SOLIDS.FILTER BACKWASH WATERS MUST BE HAULED AWAY FOR DISPOSAL,RETURNED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS, ORINCORPORATE INTO THE SITE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSEEROSION. DISCHARGE OF THE BACKWASH WATER TO SANITARYSEWER IS ALLOWED WITH PERMISSION OF THE SANITARY SEWERAUTHORITYSOIL COMPACTION PRECAUTIONSTHE PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND, UNLESSINFEASIBLE, PRESERVE TOPSOIL. MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION ISNOT REQUIRED WHERE THE FUNCTION OF THE SPECIFIC AREA OFTHE SITE DICTATES THAT IT BE COMPACTED. METHODS FORMINIMIZING COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKEDEQUIPMENT, AND STAYING OFF OF AREAS TO BE LEFTUN-COMPACTED. METHODS TO PRESERVE TOPSOIL INCLUDESTRIPPING AND STOCKPILING TOPSOIL PRIOR TO GRADING OREXCAVATION OPERATIONSINSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCETHE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE AT ALL TIMES FOR THEMAINTENANCE AND PROPER OPERATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL FACILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT A MINIMUM,INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALLEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOILSTABILIZATION MEASURES.BASED ON INSPECTION RESULTS THE CONTRACTOR MAY AND SHALLMODIFY THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN IN ORDER TOPREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM LEAVING THE SITE VIA STORM WATERRUNOFF.POLLUTION PREVENTIONCONCRETE WASHOUT - SHALL OCCUR OFF-SITEHAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AND HANDLING - OIL, GASOLINE, PAINTAND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED,INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKSOR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREASMUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE ANDDISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITHMPCA REGULATIONS.STORMWATERFINAL GRADING OF THE LOT SHALL PROMOTE SHEET DRAINING ANDAVOID CONCENTRATION OF STORM WATER FLOWS.FINAL GRADING SHALL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING STORM WATERDRAINAGE PATTERNS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AND PRACTICAL ASTO NOT CAUSE ANY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL NOTESIMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS:TOTAL SITE AREA = 13,160 SFEXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 4,109 SFPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 4,675 SFDENOTES TREEPROTECTION DEVICE,PROPOSEDREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC1.0 EROSIONCONTROL &STORMWATERMANAGEMENT PLAN............ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION4630 DREXEL AVE EDINA, MN 55424 4630 DREXEL AVE, EDINA, MN 55424 CATHY WOLF PROJECT ..................01/28/19CITY SUBMITTAL08/21/20CITY SUBMITTAL....96*5657+6'56.17+52#4-/0CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200344263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.01/28/19PROJECT NO.: 19032COPYRIGHT 2019 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALLEGEND:PROP. 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES,AND MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUMREQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIREDDURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.DENOTES ROOF DRAINAGE ARROW,EXISTING AND PROPOSEDDENOTES GROUNDDRAINAGE ARROW,PROPOSEDDENOTES STABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE, PROPOSEDPROPOSED 0.25' INFILTRATION BASIN CONTOURCOUNTRY CLUB ROADEXISTINGLOT 135.38.7HOUSE47.7BITUMINOUS45.2PROPOSED ADDITION6045.2DREXEL AVENUE24.02.710.018.523.526.028.54.810.010.08.510.010.210.040.64.911.810.08.312.0PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION (TYP.)PROP. RAIN GARDEN BY OTHERS(896.2)xPROPOSED TREE PROTECTION (TYP.)894895x(895.8)x(895.0)x(896.2)x(896.2)x(897.0)x(896.0)x(896.0)897896PROPOSED DRIVEWAYPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. PORCH896896896949 REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0DETAILS............ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION4630 DREXEL AVE EDINA, MN 55424 4630 DREXEL AVE, EDINA, MN 55424 CATHY WOLF PROJECT ..................01/28/19CITY SUBMITTAL08/21/20CITY SUBMITTAL....96*5657+6'56.17+52#4-/0CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200344263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.01/28/19PROJECT NO.: 19032COPYRIGHT 2019 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cOVERFLOW AT TOP OFFILTER ASSEMBLYOVERFLOW IS 12 OF THE CURBBOX HEIGHTHIGH-FLOW FABRICFILTER ASSEMBLY DIAMETER, 6"ON-GRADE 10" AT LOW POINTEXISTING CURB, PLATE, BOX,AND GRATENOTES:1. REPLACE INLET GRATE UPON COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF INLET PROTECTION FABRIC.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THE SURFACE OF THE SYSTEMAFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND AT THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT.3. REFERENCE APPLE VALLEY STANDARD PLATE ERO-4C.CURB INLET FILTERN T S1FILTER FABRIC WITH WIRE SUPPORT NETAS SPECIFIED.METAL POST ASSPECIFIED.FILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED SECURETO WIRE SUPPORT NET WITH METALCLIPS 12"O.C.SUPPORT NET: 12 GAUGE 4" x 4"WIRE HOOKED ONTOPREFORMED CHANNELS ONPOSTS AS SPECIFIED.EXISTING GROUNDSURFACECARRY WIRE SUPPORT NETDOWN INTO TRENCHDIRECTION OF FLOWANCHOR FABRIC WITHSOIL, TAMP BACKFILLMETAL POSTS 8'-0" O.C.MAX.24"24"24"MIN.6"6"SEDIMENT FENCEN T S2DLTREE PROTECTIONN T S25'FURNISH A AND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREE'S DRIP LINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ASSHOWN ON PLAN, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. WHERE POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25' BEYOND DRIPLINE. PLACE TREE PROTECTION SIGN ON POSTS, ONE PER INDIVIDUAL TREE (FACING CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY), OR ONE EVERY 100' LF ALONG A GROVE OR MULTI-TREE PROTECTION AREA.4FILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIEDEXISTING GROUNDSURFACEDIRECTION OF FLOWWOODEN STAKES 1/2"X2"X16" MIN. PLACED 10' O.C.WHEN INSTALLED ON GROUND. IF INSTALLED ONPVMT. PROVIDE SANDBAGS BEHIND AND ON TOP ATMIN. 10' O.C.8" MIN.SEDIMENT BIO-ROLL / COMPOST FILTER LOGN T SFILLER AS SPECIFIEDNOTE:1. COMPOST FILTER LOGS (BIO ROLLS) SHALL BE FILTREXX EROSION CONTROL SOXX OR APPROVED EQUAL.2. COMPOST FILLER TO BE MADE FROM A COMPOST BLEND 30%-40% GRADE 2 (SPEC 3890) AND 60%-70%PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED WOOD CHIPS, PER MNDOT SPEC 3897.3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE GEOTEXTILE KNITTED MATERIAL WITH MAX. OPENINGS OF 3/8".4. IF MULTIPLE ROLLS NEEDED, OVERLAP BY MIN. 12" AT ENDS AND STAKE.5. SILT SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE IT REACHES 80% OF THE HEIGHT OF THE ROLL OR AS DEEMED NECESSARYBY SITE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION.FILL UPSTREAM BASE EDGE WITH2" OF DIRT OR COMPOST TOEMBED ROLL.3STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS24' (MIN)NOTES:1.PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND UNDISTURBEDROADWAY.2.THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENTONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE OR ADDINGSTONE TO THE LENGTH OF THE ENTRANCE.3.REPAIR AND CLEANOUT MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT.4.ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED ASDIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.5.FINAL LOCATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.6.CRUSHED STONE SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIA. CLOSE GRADED, AND IN ACCORDANCE TO MNDOT SECTION 2118.EXISTING UNDISTURBED ROADWAY35' RPROFILE6" MIN CRUSHED STONE75' MINIMUMPLANFINISHEDGRADETO CONSTRUCTION AREA35' REXISTINGUNDISTURBEDROADWAYN T S30' FROM EDGE OF ROADTO FRONT OF SPEED BUMPGEOTEXTILE FILTERFABRIC4" HIGH, 18" WIDESPEED BUMPTO CONSTRUCTIONAREA5INFILTRATION BASINN T SGRASS PRE-TREATMENT STRIPUNDISTURBED, UNCOMPACTED INSITU SOILSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN BASIN (3"-6" DEPTH)MIN. PLANTING MEDIUM DEPTH 24" WITH A WELL BLENDED MIXTURE(BY VOLUME):70% HOMOGENOUS CONSTRUCTION SAND 30% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST, MNDOT GRADE 2D123PLANT MATERIAL:SOD / LAWNGRASS PRE-TREATMENT STRIP3:1 MAX. SLOPE6"CROSS-SECTION LINEPLANT MATERIAL:SOD / LAWN3H:1L MAX.SEE GRADING PLAN FOR DEPTHCONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 1.INSTALL SILT FENCE AND/OR OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY EROSIONCONTROL DEVICES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING OR ENTERING THEPRACTICE DURING CONSTRUCTION.2.ALL DOWN-GRADIENT PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE IN PLACEBEFORE ANY UP GRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY BEGINS.3.PERFORM CONTINUOUS INSPECTIONS OF EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES.4.INSTALL UTILITIES (WATER, SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRIC, PHONE, FIBER OPTIC, ETC)PRIOR TO SETTING FINAL GRADE OF BIORETENTION DEVICE.5.ROUGH GRADE THE SITE. IF BIORETENTION AREAS ARE BEING USED ASTEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS LEAVE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET OF COVER OVER THEPRACTICE TO PROTECT THE UNDERLYING SOILS FROM CLOGGING.6.PERFORM ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.7.SEED AND MULCH ALL AREAS AFTER DISTURBANCE.8.CONSTRUCT BIORETENTION DEVICE UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTINGDRAINAGE AREA.9.IMPLEMENT TEMPORARY AND PERMENATE EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES.10.PLANT AND MULCH BIORETENTION DEVICE - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND LANDSCAPE11.REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTINGDRAINAGE AREA IS ADEQUATELY VEGETATED.GENERAL NOTES4.IN THE EVENT THAT SEDIMENT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE BMP DURING ORIMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EXCAVATION, THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROMTHE PRACTICE PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION.5.GRADING OF BIORETENTION DEVICES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED USINGLOW-COMPACTION EARTH-MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OFUNDERLYING SOILS.6.ALL SUB MATERIALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED BIORETENTION DEPTH (ELEVATION)SHALL BE UNDISTURBED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7.REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTINGDRAINAGE AREA IS ADEQUATELY VEGETATED.TYPICAL PLAN VIEWTYPICAL SECTION VIEW6 Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: O ther F rom:R obert Vogel, P res ervation C onsultant Item Activity: Subject:HP C Training: Education 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: None. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he training topic for the F ebruary H P C training workshop is education. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Consultant Vogel Memo TO: Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner FROM; Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: February 3, 2021 The topic for this month’s HPC training session is Education. The city’s heritage preservation ordinance authorizes the HPC to provide the public with information about the preservation, protection and use of heritage preservation resources. Historically, this has been accomplished through general interest publications, such as the History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota, and postings on the city’s website. The annual preservation awards given out during Preservation Month have also served an important educational purpose, and the HPC has from time to time partnered with the Edina Historical Society and other community organizations to develop educational programming in the form of tours, exhibits and presentations. Date: F ebruary 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type: O ther F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work P lan Updates Dis cus s ion, 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: C ommissioners will discuss updates to progress on 2021 work plan items. I N TR O D U C TI O N: