Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-14-2022 HPC Packet
Ag enda Heritage Preservation Commission City Of E dina, Minnesota Com munity R oom, E dina City Hall Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:00 PM I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approva l Of Meeting Min u tes A.Ma y 10, 2022 Min u tes V.Com m u n ity Com m ent During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. G enerally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.Up d ate to COA H-20-6: 4630 Drexel Ave, Cha n ges to Bu ild ing Ma teria l and Replacem en t of Ch im ney B.COA: 4909 Su n n y sid e Roa d C.COA: 4506 Su n n y sid e Roa d VII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents VIII.Sta1 Com m ents A.City Cou n cil W ork Session Rem in d er-Ju n e 21 IX.Adjournm en t The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli9cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: June 14, 2022 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:May 10, 2022 Minutes 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 May 10, 2022 H eritage P reservation Commission minutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description May 10, 2022 HPC Minutes Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Heritage Preservation Commission Tuesday, May 10, 2022 I. Call to Order Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were Chair Schilling, Commissioners, Cundy, Everson, Nymo, Hassenstab, Pollock, Kmetz-Sheehy and student member Maheshwari. Staff present: HPC Staff Liaison Emily Bodeker, Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel, and City Manager Scott Neal III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion made by Cundy seconded by Nymo to approve the meeting agenda as presented, removing item 6C and switching items 6A & 6B. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion made by Pollock seconded by Kmetz-Sheehy to approve the April 12, 2022, meeting minutes. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Community Comment: None VI. Reports/Recommendations A. COA: 3911 W 50th Street, Edina Theatre Sign Motion made by Cundy seconded by Hassenstab to approve the COA for the Edina Theatre sign updates as presented. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. 4909 Sunnyside Road Sketch Review Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: The architect, Ryan Fish presented sketch review plans for 4909 Sunnyside Road. The property owners were also in attendance. The HPC provided feedback on the plans presented. C. Grange Hall and Cahill School Plan of Treatment Document The commissioners directed questions about the Plan of Treatment documents to consultant Vogel. The commissioners asked to table the education discussion. VII. Chair and Member Comments: None. VIII. Staff Comments: Chair Schilling presented the Edina Heritage Award to Town Hall Station at the May 4th Council meeting. IX. Adjournment Motion made by Pollock seconded by Hassenstab to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 pm. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Emily Bodeker Date: June 14, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.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:Update to C O A H-20-6: 4630 Drexel Ave, C hanges to Building Material and R eplacement of C himney Action C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: A case could be made for approval and denial of the replacement of the roofing material. T he staff report offers options for the Heritage P reservation C ommission to consider. Approve of the reconstruction of the chimney as presented by the applicant. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4630 Drexel Avenue is located on the northwest corner of Drexel Avenue and C ountry C lub R oad. T he home built in 1924 is a Mediterranean style. A certificate of appropriateness for the project at 4630 Drexel Avenue was approved S eptember 8, 2020. One of the conditions of the original C O A was that asphalt shingles were not an allowable roofing material. At that time, the applicant was agreeable to that condition. T he original C O A listed B rava T ile, D ecra Tile or Clay Tile as options for the approved roofing material. T he H eritage P reservation Commission is asked to review the proposed roofing material and how the chimney is replaced and rebuilt. T he commission can review comments received on Better Together Edina. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Applicant Submittal-Roof Material Applicant Submittal-Chimney Replacement Applicant Submittal-Additional Information on Chimney Replacement-exterior gas insert Staff Report Memo from City Attorney Consultant Vogel Memos Memo from Building Official Notice to Properties within 300 feet David Petrocchi 222 Ferndale Road South, Unit 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 April 20, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission c/o Emily Boedecker – Assistant City Planner City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Subject: Amendment to COA for 4630 Drexel Avenue – Material Change I am the owner of the home under renovation at 4630 Drexel Avenue. My family and I are very excited to move into the Country Club District and are looking forward to the completion of our renovation project. I am submitting a request to change the roofing material that was submitted with the COA application for the home. The COA application was submitted for a previous homeowner and I subsequently purchased the home after the COA was issued. There were no roof shingles on the home at the time of my purchase as the previous homeowner had removed them for donation to Better Futures Minnesota. The original COA submittal (attached) included options for roofing material including: Brava Tile, Decra Tile, Clay Tile, or Asphalt Shingles. The COA was issued with the requirement that we use Brava Tile, Decra Tile, or Clay Tile. I am requesting that we have the option to use Camelot Black Roof Shingles. This is an asphalt luxury roof shingle that has been used on many homes in the District. Attached please find several pictures of homes in the District with similar roof shingles (including the home across the street at 4632 Drexel). It is a thicker multi-layer shingle that has authentic depth and dimension as well as the random look of an older home roof I hope you will agree that it is a very nice look that blends in well with the historic character of the District. I prefer this roofing material for the following reasons: 1) It is more aesthetically appealing to me than the original materials proposed. I think the barrel-look tile, while often found on Spanish Colonial style homes in the District, looks better on the more ornate Spanish Colonial homes such as 4509 Moorland and 4625 Wooddale (see attached photos). 4630 Drexel is a Spanish Colonial home with cleaner lines and a cottage influence. 2) Building costs have gone up dramatically since I started this home. Every component has gone up dramatically in price since we started. The Camelot shingle, while a luxury asphalt shingle, is less costly than a tile roof. I understand that cost savings are probably not that important to the Heritage Preservation Committee, but I do have a limited budget and the rising costs are forcing me to make some tradeoffs. I would like to direct the savings from the roof towards the landscaping, which will have a lasting positive impact on the District. 3) Roof access for future improvements. A flat roof that can be walked on will facilitate future improvements such as solar. 4) I feel this roof shingle will blend well with the historic character in the district as it is found on many other homes. I spent time driving through the Country Club District and noticed how common you find asphalt roof shingles like we are proposing. I counted approximately 375 out of 554 homes in the District had some type of asphalt roofing. Even the Historic Baird House has asphalt shingles (see attached photo). In looking at Spanish Colonial homes similar to Drexel, I counted approximately 16 out 65 that had some type of asphalt roof shingle. I attached photos of the Spanish Colonial homes with asphalt roof shingles. Thank you for considering this amendment to the COA. Attachments: Photos of Home with Similar Roofing Photos of Spanish Colonial Homes with Asphalt Roofing Photo of Baird House Material Selection Board Elevations of Home Comparing East/Drexel Avenue Elevations (existing, new plan) Comparing South /fCountry Club Road Elevations (existing, new plan) Comparing West /Facing 4625 Wooddale Garage Elevations (existing, new plan) Comparing North /Facing 4626 Drexel Elevations (existing, new plan) Scott Busyn Great Neighborhood Homes, Inc. 3939 West 50th Street, Suite 103A Edina, MN 55424 May 4, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission c/o Emily Bodeker – Assistant City Planner City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Subject: Deteriorated Chimney at 4630 Drexel Avenue Thank you to Chief Building Official Dave Fisher and yourself for meeting us at the 4630 Drexel Avenue job site to review the existing chimney. Recapping our discussion, we pointed out to you and Dave that the existing chimney was structurally unstable due to decades of water intrusion from the top of the chimney and improper flashing. We pointed out that the structural brick was mushy and crumbly throughout the chimney structure. There were also structural cracks throughout the chimney. One of our workers stated he could move the chimney by leaning on it while working on the roof. Dave Fisher inspected the chimney and ruled that the chimney was structurally unsafe and should be removed due to it being a hazard. I attached photos of the deterioration as well as an inspection report from the mid-1980s (source Edina Historical House Record Card) that that basement had a “Severe, very noticeable water problem, very frightening to a prospective buyer.” The inspection report also stated the windows had “some rotted wood.” Dave Fisher also stated at the meeting that he would be issuing a recap of his observations. Our plans are to rebuild the chimney to the exact measurements per the attached schematic drafted by DFP Planning and Design (attached). The chimney will be reconstructed with framing materials and finished with stucco and stone fireplace surround per the schematic to match the original structure. The homeowner will be installing an exterior gas fireplace in the location of the fireplace surround as this area will be landscaped as an exterior terrace per the survey. The homeowner will also be planting trees to create privacy for the terrace. Obviously, removing and rebuilding this chimney creates significant unintended costs for the homeowner. The intent of replacing the chimney is to create a safe and functional structure while making a compatible use of the chimney that meets the objectives of Edina’s Historic Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Cc: Dave Fisher – Chief Building Official Attachments: Photo of original chimney Photos of chimney deterioration Photos of existing chimney measurements used for schematic Schematic of rebuilt chimney ASSESSMENT SUMMARY LAND VALUE COMPUTATIONS Valuation changes to b entered on next line. Indicate year and authorit y — A«=«^r • Frontage Figured Average Depth Unit Price Unit Percent Front. Ft. Price Top. Intl. Tot YEAR MARKET VALUE OF LAND MARKET VALUE OF STRUCTURES TOTAL MARKET VALUE FULL VALUE OF LAND FULL VALUE OF STRUCTURES TOTAL VALUE OF LAND AND STRUCTURES HOME- STEAD Yes No . ma ..uutuez u, saoaremenr, etc. ASSESSED VALUES HOMESTEAD 25% REMAINDER (it 40% TOTAL ,I 0 • 1911 . 1, WIMUMIIM 0 0 0 I ? 74'40 I coasi) 261 4 19?:_ / I %cr'' 266.04 I ' 6 MiiiiMii 26 (I ' IMIIIIRLMI4EMIIIIIMI 9' 0909 22610J 297cO9 SALES INFORMATION Date Consideration Kind of Inst. Remarks Contract for Deed held by: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORD AND APPRAISAL CARD STREET ADDRESS 4630 Drexel Avenue ASSESSMENT DIST. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1:91.7:17g - tt, • COUNTRY CLUBBLBYSTiii CT FAiliWAY SECTION/ 7) ADD. BUILDING PERMIT RECORD Amount Purpose bLAA,ry )•-°. ( ' , URBAN LOT RECORD TOPOGRAPHY IMPROVEMENTS Level Sidewalks High 'A Curb & Gutter Low City Water Sanitary Sewer Gravel LOT 16 7 Dote Number STREETS Asphalt Concrete Brick Parcels covered by same homestead. List parcel numbers. DRAINAGE Good-Fair-Poor LOCATION Corner Lot Inside Lot Storm Sewer Nat'l Gas Residential Dbl. Bung. Dirt with alley ZONING OR USE Commercial Industrial Multi-Family General Desirability: Good Fair Poor Other: Roof Exterior PARCEL NO. OTHER STRUCTURES GARAGE Grade Yr. Built Att. Det. Bsrnt. Found. Floor ' Finish Overhead Door /( Auto Control ROOF PLUMBING ROOMS WIRING FOUNDATION Concrete Flat City Water .. Living Room , BX CABLE BREEZEWAY ../ Describe: ,e---,.., , '1..., 3-7- .,-'7,),' 7 ,4 /7 ,,.,4 Conc. Blk. V Goble .., Well Cr Pump Dining ,......- Rigid Conduit Brick Hip Sewer , - Kitchen L.,., BUILT-INS - /--k/ 1 7 ( ,1 - .•.:-." ,' . x J-7, i ,i) Y ) Irregular Septic Tank Bedrooms / I Breakfast Nook ,./ EXTERIOR WALLS Shingle, Asphalt Cesspool Den or Study 1...,- Bookcases V YARD IMPROVEMENTS Driveways, Fences, Ret. Walls, Barbecue Pits, Siding and Sheating Shingle, Wood Baths (3 Fist.) Rec. Room China Closet Wood Shakes Slate Half Bath (2 Fixt.) Utility Extra Kit. Cabts. Describe: i ef;45,777- Patios, Swimming Pools, Etc. Composition Shakes Tile .---- Single__Ejxtures Refrigerator '9.A.' Redwood Roll, Composition ,Hot W,..,)-Elec.—Gas— Range Cy Oven - 5-1C.."7.dc- "(AN _ e•-• 4, ‘..t) e. ..-_--. ei-C t <-- ye 7.4( tr.,- •:"."4/e' Stucco L.,--- Shakes Water Softner ' --- ,...- INTERIOR FINISH Dishwasher fr"-- Brick Veneer Tar and Gravel --- Hdwd. Floors iv Garbage Disp. V --77/- z__ /g4" Ae",,C "Afris?-7-- I Corn. or Rug. Insulated HEATING Softwood Floors OUT BUILDINGS Roman or Face Fireplaces Inside Concrete Floors TILING (Sq. Ft.) Sheds, Cabins, Boathouses, Shops, Greenhouses, Etc. Stone BASEMENT Fireplaces Outside / Linoleum Floors. Cer. Plas. Describe: None Full Hot Air: Pipeless Carpeted Floors 1.,' Bath Hall ,.• 41 -,.7./ ----'-:- < Insulated Yes- No Partial % Piped (Gravity) Hardwood Trim t-Kitchen ' S 'eV . e X ,5!"--7 --'4./ ' ? r ''' PORCHES Unfinished Forced Circurtn Softwood Trim Glazed: Partitioned Steam ----Th Plastered Int. MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING DIAGRAM AND OUTBUILDINGS Screen: Finished % HrWater-/or Vapor Drywall Int. Incinerator Draw to scale and show dimensions Open: Walkout % Radiant Concealed„ Laminated Swim. Pool ........................... Oil— Coal— ..,,s...2 Date of Appraisal By: . Interior Inspected Ye V No STRUCTURAL VALUE COMPUTATIONS ST:ZUCTURES DIMENSIONS AREA SQ. FT. RATE/S.F. DEP. Cr OBS. ct6 OFF NET RATE/S.F MARKET VALUE ) ...5XIC ' . S /0 x .. er 7'.....? 77:..- ..,...,.. ',..., 1,...._.......------.7./.. HOU?r- - CI X 9 C f VcC1 1,3 9 /4/4 27' / '''' '-'' " Flat Charges Basement Finished Rept. _Cost z .. - ' 47e; 1/ .3- ,-,?\.t- ( / 41 X 3.,( .4, 71:: -t --7../ '-At-tie 1-;,,Ued - 1,"141'''.--Cf;Nr) ''''''; 4 '''.. Extra Plumbing ' 5 7 ,,,- , -z. 4(X /.,-,- - / . 5 . /..5- - / ,c7cq ...-- -. 6 .,,,, 5 A5 . 471;1 / rr:/ 411%. • . ->. - (i '4•14er 4V/rid', 4.\ Built-ins G. Misc. ...1-- ID Porches / X , - 46711/ .3 7F? .f:-' . TOTAL 5 „.74,147z :- TOTAL FLAT CHARGES AREA = / ,.....1.--, ,5 GARAGE ,--1( X /9 -7 `i 4, ,,,:, A'. / f., ' .' .^.' . P\ •••••• .--- .--1 I / 1 (o ElliftEZEWAY X _.-742cr -. I YARD IMPS. , 4.74( o ..., 2-...,,,-:5- ..,:,-,- - ,. -43 Ye,I - • n Ric 11 R vv\ L ._, au /--"S ..... - _...., v.k., rq OUTBUILDINGS le00 n 19 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF STRUCTURES -7 1 4' 'Future Adjustments: /•-2.7c,.• "JAI. „5-,r _ --/--c Y'-. - ..- , Grade No. of Stories _7 Const. Cost h sic& Condition: Good_ Normal ..„/ Fair__ Poor Mo. Rental ,oat .• Cost Cs• Fn%•______ Poor__ Me. Rentof__ Peng: Oven 7i.nasher Giritroqc Disp. Concrete r;oors TILING lSi. Fioi,,. Sortw7ro—Floor I NT:RIOR ...loiter-, Floors BA rire,..eces Outs•Je P-Ru ,.:TUKES DIMCNS1ONS Describe: 3 3 S=ir c, r, 4'102 BUILDING DIAGRAM AND OUTBUILDINGS Draw to stoic and shoo' dimensions or. Inas Both Moil Kitchen MISCELLANEOUS 'nom/tato? Swim. Pool No Gil— Coal-- Gas— Cote of Appraisal STRUCTURAL VALUE COMPUTATIONS Interior Inspected Ye, -r; rAt _ tvl F /5tfb Fpv-.•,.5".5"3 I r CC': .•1S i WIPING ± r--- Li.,4,,, Reorr. i--.,-, ..4::___, „x CABLE BREEZEWAY -I Describe: / 5- ),. r--xt.? of --4-el•re- .9', 5-Z774 —6" 1-r- ...,- 514. r C.:...... ---1-1‘L.V.-:li WC.2;tirwo Dining Rigid Conduit 17,;-k i .1,2 I f 5.,....i. • Kirchto C.1.1iLT-IN:: —__ ,: . 1,,oric -rank 1.4,icorlis 1- -TProakfosi Nook /IfiC 23 2 a-C.— 5"-(146 „.,„•. 7 . -----.xiE- .. ,-y...- 7•T,.ILS 7 • ..,!s.,,,,i,:. , -ss,Lror , L.. Doi Den or Trudy 7----Ii „..0.1,re YARD IMPROVEMENTS! Driveways, Fences, Re,. Wags, oiliacJe Pits, S.i:•,4 cno !".h.,...;,...,, r— :r -ng:.., "A, ood i • onr.,, 15 F.xt,t krt. I.toon_fjp: A-- Chino Close. • liir oar, .i.•..• ... ; ....loft • 1-1,-;i E.oiri , 2 FixI.I Utility i.xi•to Tat cr,:bt , Describe: Potius, S'4;rnming rook, Etc Cr‘ririiirilicr F //\( frm../ OUT BUILDINGS Sheds, Cabins, Boothouses, Shops, Greenhouses, Etc. _ Found.__ _ _ -Exterior_ jo 0 Finish ‘,>2.4,_ALL,:iUs ence.3 Doo, _ ...2----J- Ili ,-7 -773.-574 1 4 „ a .5 X-WA 3io sp .1.1 -11., 0-074, / gy 3 I 1 - 3'1 '8 SC 3 ,7 5” E., Cha,,,, TAT,T—c.,, 2... / 5—, 1 zi.se.,e, F;,:i,,,c:f I 25-70 7 $ X 12 . M. 2. .t.. t Li 6.-14 0 t w o I r T ''S WPI I # I SO I - S/ E.?-ri Plumbing eal_2-3 12 • i O X_3--..9 00 ;2 G-,g _7..sviit_i,,s. & micc. ,0 c, I -.6. ,if,2) 0..41 '4. ........ j1.-- - t9(1.-.---"" "arches 1 -- Ai---X / 5— 575",---- 70TAL $ Z300 TOTAL FLAT CHARGES /AREA = -•:VitZEWA Y X r;-- TnTAL MARKE: VALUE OF STRUCTURES $ 7utu:.e AcrtustmeM3. AREA DEP. Cr C. NET PATE/S.F. SQ. FT. % OFF RATt/S.F +41 337( P.AGE B. I, 2./ X /9 3 99 V/ Xts. IMPS. MARKET VALUE fr: !If et Cr' c X-e4 3 (0 • , 1 1 2-1 1q° 5-0 1396 10 3 '9'7 4 Go 334. s-1-7 E• SKETcht .... ..... . .. ....... . . ........ . —Sry • ......... „,4 • • • 12.062 v E az„ YAR 6 X-tx : --744. /S X /9 ". es' .33-7 1'77-1 2.5= /0e, 7 0 X 2- ie' '3Er0 144,0 t="5t74 3x y - 9-7 / 57 -Y u ivE}cc- c-i x - o S Irtalottd Yes N ES keen: urns Not W.—Elcc.—Cos— 'tia ter ,:itster Piiek yrrrti ood . • Pr rian c. ',act t I irepiaces Insidt Srecco L i Sn-ss None Not Air: Piceiess Carpeted iioors Porr.ol Co Piped iG.trityi Hordwotil Trio; Ulltill.;.,•• 1 Ftlf 4,1 i..11CtIrtrl POri,r1Ontd 1 a.,tecon Finial-1o.: C.; i 1 N. Water or Vapor raTfici.lt ..oriceoled Prou: co.. Softwood Trim Plastered Int. Drywoli Int. lam noted 0.5- 700 a•sry aAyEx • . 7 X'/9-' ='8^+V S ki 403 54 60 . I-4 b. /W. 4:t4 , ,c) 11 • 54 4.' bb pates <i , Q. -us y,o-Y 40=' 151" it -tt; /40.05 (39) Z 4„ • Aniacilf g ze.o P 137(-4 1257f L, • vt,u :3143.1r 01) 3 ;75.5 04 4 r r‘a7 q45 141.78 4 113.) 14C. Vt' :4 ' 5 1Z5, • 27 I _174 ; 04)4 741' 7 155.9" A ' 4 151M 5 A /40. 13 133 _ 13. 2 A 1344i 1e 4413, 2 0 0 24 t.35. '1 22 I 10) .131 7 f38.114 (g.)4A2 Z437-0'11 /*P . 1 3) 1 : 35.0-• 444 4 33,41. `i 134.9515 134,f V-4; 16 9 17/117 41-0 /1 43.2,__14 ,r-tya 'ft ,66pzf I3CIP4i %% .334 8d... 4'• o. .0°8 Ta j! - 8 to td 51. 1)8 - Ma 7 - 14246 " (ONO 144.38 4 1. /2 140. ,k0°)12 A,f,1 14 k_Azi 15 .0 /44 /70 ,o-tx If 41 13 • tp, zif,qt.uPp o ,001 I j36.0i t,e 2Z 6A .1)1)1 A leto..14" 135.48 1 -1) 4e. Ri-DGEsz's - 131.( 1 : 4 6) , 2 k4744 21 l'135.25 0. 33(4. • .32 (A) 03 44c ,`! 1_7.3 5 /0(19)' 1/ 4 23 • ,Z1 2(90)1, (cicilz 4,1? 01,2 /4(6t& (e6)2/ 34)-. 8{I$1= 3001 /obi)), 2,eY. 11 z8(~. IZ 27(0,(f , 26(34 y 14@A), 7)5 ° • 4'-) 7 31.44 1)8 ‘P' 133 3 4_0)9 132.33 0)1° Id 132 'CA r- (16 )11 0. -131-5 1-)I 2 0 3i 4.0 6p C -05 5,1 „413,?1,:,,,,I ,z3iik6.,1467-j ft" 1 :47 i:41' 12Z. (41?). L.34.14 "4 lot 6.11 '411 TRY 3.6 so )434 sa • 38.. nY24 ) -1:11 7 ‘41‘tft a. .ut i2(!°") • 45 if 060 132 142.2 945 — .2. L. - 13—/i7 n io.) I ri.rie Nhor 0614 6. 6 /IC: 1:344 C:- qz:d--- 7 q I eY 4630 Drexel is located in Country Club district of Edina an area designated on the National Registry of Historic Homes. This Property is at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue, Country Club Road and Drexel Avenue. Confluence of roads is a liability to property value because the market is mainly to young families with children. Placement of the house on the lot compounds the difficulty of a lack of play yard protected from streets and traffic. All grassy areas are to the front of this house. Orignal oil hot water furnace converted to gas fuel. Tile, original Front step, driveway and garage floor are cracked and need to be replaced. 00TOR STUCCO Acceptable condition with some calking. INDOWS Some rotten wood, most are in acceptable condition, storms and screens are old style wood. BASEMENT Severe, noticeable water problem, very frightening to a pro- spective buyer. LANDSCAPING Needs redoing. INTERIOR While offering generous spaces in back room, the house is in need of new window treatment, floor coverings, and paint a total redecorating. KITCHEN Obsolete, needs total replacement. too DACE NCRETE Edina Realty 9 z 0 z 0 - -4 -f rn ,0 Drexel and 4116 Sunnyside were offered to the market both needing reriovations. Some work had already been done in both houses. price realized was: $155. per main level square foot and $156. per main level square foot r giese homes are better located than 4630 Drexel offering less trafficed locations and back yards for children. If 4630 were in perfect condition it would sell at $183,000. - $185,000. in present market. Work needed will cost $35,000. to $40,000. If it were listed today with the basement repainted, we would ask you to list at $169,000. expecting a sale at $152,000. - $155,000. N - z • k I I I ION GRIP OTHER STRUCTURES OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE Const. Cost No. of Stories Fair Poor Mo. Rental Good Normal PLUMBING ROOMS WIRING City Water Living Room BX CABLE Well & Pump Dining Rigid Conduit Sewer Kitchen BUILT-INS ROOF Flat Gable Hip FOUNDATION oncrete .onc. Blk. rick Grade Yr. Built Cesspool Rcc. Room China Closet Half Bath (2 Fixt.) Utility Extra Kit. Cabts. Single Fixtures Refrigerator Hot W.—Elec.—Gas— Range Cr Oven Water Softner INTERIOR FINISH Dishwasher Tar and Gravel Hdwd. Floors Garbage pisp. Insulated HEATING Softwood Floors Fireplaces Inside Concrete Floors TILING (Sq. Ft.) BASEMENT Fireplaces Outside Linoleum Floors Cer. Plas. Baths (3 Fixt.) Den or Study Bookcases Bedrooms Describe: Septic Tank Breakfast Nook Irregular Shingle, Asphalt Shingle, Wood Slate Tile Roll, Composition Shakes EXTERIOR WALLS !ding and Sheeting /ood Shakes omposition Shakes edwood tucco rick Veneer orn. or Rug. omen or Face 'one Hall Bath None Full Carpeted Floors Hot Air: Pipeless Partial Kitchen Forced Circul'tn Softwood Trim Steam Plastered Int. H. Water or Vapor Drywall Int. Radiant Concealed Laminated Swim. Pool Oil— Coal— Gas— Piped (Gravity) Hardwood Trim Unfinished Partitioned Finished Walkout MISCELLANEOUS Incinerator 'sulated Yes No PORCHES lazed: creen: pen: BUILDING DIAGRAM AND OUTBUILDINGS Draw to scale and show dimensions ..................... 'ate of Appraisal By: Interior Inspected Yes No AREA SQ. FT. MARKET VALUE NET RATE/S.F RATE/S.F. DEP. & OBS. % OFF DIMENSIONS Rept. Cost Basement Finished Extra Plumbing Built-ins & Misc. Porches x x x x ........................................... TOTAL $ /AREA = TOTAL FLAT CHARGES ARAGE x x 19 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF STRUCTURES $ INGLE DWLG. Yr. Built Grade AULTI. DWLG. Observed Physical Condition: Floor Overhead Door Att. Det. Bsmt. Roof Exterior Auto Control GARAGE Found. Finish STRUCTURAL VALUE COMPUTATIONS PARCEL NO i•LAT NO 0 • )-1 • cd • U ° ri cu rl 7 //6 /bcx _rettetiET — _zro6 13 caA) —0 1 0 a00 GL.2- 9Z 7 Le , -7SM qq, 7 , or -0-7---,;47 ,.-x_._,, 2--- .., tiete "7/630 , <- I.. 4(.24 - -i-'',,--C-)* JeLLAL„ ,--7,toc, 0 , /75, 00 0 , \ .,,, 6-,,,,,,, • 49afe_. 423>-)221 t, / / .::i I32 /:::? iti .15 /3y9 --, /s PO C 4 ,30,-, 0 igsat 3 stqao 37 g od 7?., Lf' 7 cin prO-#0eittri "syleat..). 4* 1/4,eieeeViizev ‘,8150zLa,;0 41-1P-A6) 112 SZA) 275 ;-av:44-40- 1 q 2-C , - cd*-- ... 1 ____)-7 -6-6' (2P-4d-e;' _ — -- 'Z' 44-1"' Fei, (,*cert- D 1 • 3_e_ 1 ' K-I rt112-yi cacC°5P) .',3 4., •;+ e7, ., on44- Acrelice .:. 1-$ SZsr• , _ , ; RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORD AND APPRAISAL CARD INICG b5 1/ I i--260 M.r2 I-I 1-2i+-vie 4) C../^-p Zzo,44vo 1-44445 4:71- PLAT NO. PARCEL NO Bsmt. INGLE DWLG. Yr. Built , Grade 471 -fr No. of Stories Const. Cost Mo. Rental Fair Poor IULTI. DWLG. Observed Physical Condition: Good Normal Slate Utility Tile Single Fixtures Refrigerator Hot W.—Elec.—Gas-se' Range Er Oven Half Bath (2 Fist.) Extra Kit. Cabts. Shakes Hdwd. Floors Garbage Disp. HEATING Softwood Floors Fireplaces Inside Concrete Floors TILING (Sq. Ft.) Fireplaces Outside Linoleum Floors Cer. Plas. Water Softner INTERIOR FINISH Dishwasher Partial 96 Hardwood Trim Kitchen Unfinished Softwood Trim Partitioned Plastered Int. MISCELLANEOUS Finished Drywall Int. Incinerator Walkout Laminated Swim. Pool WIRING BX CABLE Rigid Conduit BUILT-INS Breakfast Nook Bookcases China Closet Bath Hall ROOF Flat Gable Hip Irregular Shingle, Asphalt Shingle, Wood Roll, Composition Tar and Gravel Insulated BASEMENT None Full PLUMBING City Water Well Cr Pump Sewer Septic Tank Cesspool Baths (3 Fixt.) Hot Air: Pipeless Piped (Gravity) Forced Circul' n S H. Water Vapor nY Concealed Oil— Coal— Gas- FOUNDATION 'oncrete „onc. Blk. rick EXTERIOR WALLS iding and Sheating 'food Shakes omposition Shakes edwood tucco rick Veneer .0m. or Rug. oman or Face tone nsulated Yes No PORCHES lazed: creen: 'pen: ROOMS Living Room / Dining Kitchen /A,', Bedrooms / Den or Study Rec. Room fL Carpeted Floors „, By: Tate of Appraisal Interior Inspected Ye No ADDRESS DESCRIPTION OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE C,M7Te.e,ei 18-028-24-13-0014 BRIGHT M. DORNBLASER 4630 DREXEL AVE EDINA MN S5424 )44°111-,1. Z fr,c (.5'04.1ts)c_r- uffc7 4-4%1. c',4 -(2414.41,11-. BUILDING DIAGRAM AND OUTBUILDINGS Draw to scale and show dimensions --)Col-kx ........... .... I Q-1,44.436.1:1 X 2 ARAGE ............... ................................. 4, AREA SQ. FT. MARKET VALUE NET RATE/S.F RATE/S.F. DEP. Cr OBS. % OFF DIMENSIONS 7;1 )357 _30 X Basement Finished "2-04 AREA = Repl. Cost Extra Plumbing Built-ins Cr Misc. Porches TOTAL $ esr -v" °PA o -> TOTAL FLAT CHARGES Mt -:- • /1 q.0 4? 1 • • • I eo 1 715 STRUCTURAL VALUE COMPUTATIONS ,g40 .3 OTHER STRUCTURES tenor 3rd Floor Interior: Trim: Floor: Avg. Clear. Height: # of Fireplaces: Fplc. Quality: 3rd Baths (#/Quality) Spa: Dlx: Full: 3/4: 1/2: 3rd Room Count Bedrooms: Baths: Other: Total Rooms: Totals 11.1111111.1 Res. Cond: Fair Int. Layout: Manual Assess: Actual Age: Effective Age: Renovated Age: Functional %: Economic %: Standard N 1924 1960 Unfin. 1st GBA: Unfin. 2nd GBA: Unfin. 3rd GBA: Unfin. GBA: 1st Floor Area: 1,172 2nd Floor Area: 1,301 3rd Floor Area: Total GBA: 2,473 Total Rooms Length Dimensions Width Sq Ft Bedrooms: 4 0 0 0 Baths: 4 0 0 0 Family: 1 0 0 0 Living: 1 0 0 0 Dining: 1 0 0 0 Kitchen: 1 0 0 0 Other: 2 0 0 0 Total: 10 Last Sale Date. Price: Code: Desc: r ust Inspection Appraiser ID: Appraisal Date: Reason: Result: Appraiser ID: Appraisal Date: Reason: Result: Left Tag: Yes / No Flat Value Value: Desc: RCN 05/16/2006 Quintile Review Interior City of Edina PID: 18-028-24-13-0014 Property Type: R - Residential Residential Field Card Property Address: 4630 Drexel Ave Zoning: R-1 Printed: 06/13/2007 Lot / Block: 016 / 007 Dwelling Type: Single Family Assessment Year: 2007 Addition: Country Club District Fairway Section Owner(s): Bright M Domblaser Version: 2 District: 03 Model: 009-004-140 Neighborhood: 0114 Zoning: R-I Area Rating: Very Good Site Rating: Good Land Quality: Contamination: Flood Plain Map Ref: PUD Ref: Allowable Units: Excess Land (SqFt): Zoning Variance: Frontage: 87 Left Side: Rear Side: Right Side: 141 Effective Width: 87 Effective Depth: 141 Effective Water: 0 Property Area (SqFt): 12,923 Acreage: Park: Park Quality: On Lake: Lake Quality: On River: River Quality: Landscape Quality: Average Attributes Curbs Gas Gutter Paved Street Sewer Available Sidewalk Water Available Influences Thru Street Partial Const (%): Model: Dwelling Type: Adjacent Property: View: Arch./Appeal: Quality: Shape: Style: ConstruCtion: Exterior Walls: Exterior Trim: Roof Type: Roof Cover: Window Type 1: Window Type 2: Air Conditioning: Dormer Length: Dormer Quality: # Patio Doors: Placement: # of Cars: Floor Area: Condition: Exterior Walls: Garage #2 Placement: # of Cars: Floor Area: Condition: Exterior Walls: Porch Glazed Area: Quality: Screened Area: Quality: Open Area: Quality: Patio Patio 1 Area: Quality: Patio 2 Area: Quality: Deck Deck 1 Area: Quality: Deck 2 Area: Quality: Pool Pool 1 Area: Quality: Pool 2 Area: Quality: Amenities Sprinkler Systems Basement Area (SqFt). 1,158 Type: Regular Finished (%): 80 Quality: Fair # of Fireplaces: 1 Fplc. Quality: Average Avg. Clear. Height: Elec. Svc: Standard Htg. Svc: Hot water, gas fired W.O. Type: W.O. Quality: Basement Baths (#/Qual.) Spa: Dlx: Full: 3/4: 1/2: 1 / Fair Basement Room Count Bedrooms: Baths: 1 Family: 1 Kitchen: Other: 1 Total Rooms: 2 1st Floor Kitchen Rating: Substandard Interior: Plaster Trim: Painted Floor: Wood Avg. Clear. Height: # of Fireplaces: 1 Fplc. Quality: Average 009-004-140 Single Family Equal Equal Average BOI Square Two Story Wood Frame Stucco Gable Slate Tile Double Hung No Built-In 2 420 Average Stucco 142 Average 1st Baths (4/Quality) Spa: Dlx: Full: 3/4: 1/2: 1 / Fair 1st Room Count Bedrooms: Baths: 1 Family: Living: 1 Dining: 1 Kitchen: 1 Other: 1 Total Rooms: 4 2nd Floor M'' 16, Interior: Plaster Trim: Painted Floor: Wood Avg. Clear. Height: # of Fireplaces: Fplc. Quality: 2nd Baths (#/Quality) Spa: Dlx: Full: 1 / Fair 3/4: 1 / Fair 1/2: 2nd Room Count Bedrooms: 4 Baths: 2 Other: Total Rooms: 4 Comments MEDITERRAINIEN STYLE. 19.0' ole 1/B 127 13.0' Deck 4.0' 1/0 18-028-24-13-0014 2nd flr OH 1.0' Deck /G- L° 13.0' 1/B 9.0 Ld 2/B 25.0' 20.0' 2nd/Garage 7.0' 12.0 15.0' City of Edina PID: 18-028-24-13-0014 Property Type: R - Residential Residential Field Card Property Address: 4630 Drexel Ave Zoning: R-1 Printed: 06/13/2007 Lot / Block: 016 / 007 Dwelling Type: Single Family Assessment Year: 2007 Addition: Country Club District Fairway Section Owner(s): Bright M Domblaser Version: 2 District: 03 Model: 009-004-140 Neighborhood: 0114 Sketch by Apex 1\r" Edina Country Club District: Historic and Architectural Survey Form Summer, 1980 Address: L-kl0-3c)-Z%.1-e_xe_ PIN# Parcel#: Lot: Block: -1 Owner: Occupant: Use: Condition: Date of Construction: Original Owner: Architect/Builder: Subsequent Owners: O Original Use: Historical Information (if available): • e_k.c& sr- v... \p‘s, c.r Style: Definitive Style Features: - - \ Number of Stories: Roof Shape & Roofing Materials:(7,..-k.A_e ,,--e.&•"-x-e- Additions/Alterations: - Size & Spacing of Windows: Garage/Outbuildings: Setback from Sidewalk: (30,..reg"*". . Building Materials & Building Colors: Scale: f71,..--',,L.J" Size & Spacing of Doors: Distinctive Landscape Features: Comments: Status within District: Pivotal Complementary Intrusion Photographs Roll#: Frame#: Surveyor: Lynne VanBrocklin Spaeth, Heritage Preservation Associates, Inc. Date: Summer, 1980 1 Emily Bodeker From:Scott Busyn Sent:Wednesday, June 8, 2022 12:45 PM To:Emily Bodeker Cc:Cary Teague Subject:Re: Fireplace Clarification EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Emily, Here is the information on the outdoor fireplace. The original home had a faux fireplace detail on the chimney per the elevations. There is a terrace proposed on the project survey that comes off the doors on either side of the chimney. We would like to add an outdoor gas fireplace in the faux fireplace opening. I attached the brochure of the fireplace, the schematic showing the fireplace in the faux fireplace spending, and a photo of this finished on another Spanish colonial home. The homeowner will also have landscaping and trees to create privacy for the patio and fireplace area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, SCOTT BUSYN President 3939 West 50th Street, Suite 103A, Edina, MN 55424 | greatneighborhoodhomes.com 2 3 4 On Jun 8, 2022, at 8:55 AM, Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: Scott, Do you have information clarifying the fireplace request? Can you please have that submitted to us by the end of the day so we can include it for the HPC packet next week? The packet will be posted tomorrow. Thank you! <image001.gif> Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0462 | Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. | Edina, MN 55424 EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov June 14, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Amendment to COA H-20-6, 4630 Drexel Avenue, proposed roof material and replacement/reconstruction of chimney Information / Background: The subject property, 4630 Drexel Avenue is located on the northwest corner of Drexel Avenue and Country Club Road. The home built in 1924 is a Mediterranean style. A certificate of appropriateness for the project at 4630 Drexel Avenue was approved September 8, 2020. One of the conditions of the original COA was that asphalt shingles were not an allowable roofing material. At that time, the applicant was agreeable to that condition. The original COA listed Brava Tile, Decra Tile or Clay Tile as options for the approved roofing material. Since the original approval of the COA, ownership of the property has changed. The new property owner would like to use Camelot black roof shingles as the roofing material. Staff was contacted by the contractor on Wednesday, April 27th who requested a meeting on site. Staff met the contractor and site supervisor at the subject property. The contractor pointed out that the existing chimney was structurally unstable. After a review on site, the Chief Building Official deemed the existing chimney a life safety issue and ordered it to be removed. (See memo from Building Official, David Fisher, attached). Commissioners have raised issues regarding the process and the 50% rule on this site; therefore, staff asked the city attorney to provide a legal opinion. That legal opinion is attached and is the basis for staff’s findings. Primary Issue: The Heritage Preservation Commission is asked to review the proposed roofing material and how the chimney is replaced and rebuilt. STAFF REPORT Page 2 The objective of the Country Club Landmark District is preservation of the existing historic house facades and streetscapes. The city has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation when reviewing certificate of appropriateness applications. Staff believes the following standards of rehabilitation are pertinent to the review of the amendment to COA H-20-6: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The HPC approved the removal of the original roofing material with the original COA application approved September 8, 2020. The existing chimney has been removed from the subject property due to health and safety reasons and the demolition was ordered by the city’s Chief Building Official. The applicant is proposing to replace the chimney by constructing the new chimney with framing materials and finish it with stucco and stone to match the original structure. Additional information was submitted to the city on June 8, 2022, clarifying the applicant’s chimney request. The applicant is requesting to replace the chimney structure to match the original chimney but is also requesting a gas fireplace insert be placed on the outside of the chimney structure. A COA would not be required for the construction of an exterior fireplace. The standards for rehabilitation address this kind of small-scale structural additions by requiring them to be designed in a way that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. This house does not meet the definition of demolition in the Country Club plan of treatment. With the order from the Chief Building Official that the chimney be replaced, more than 50% of the walls were removed during construction. However, this project does not meet the definition of demolition due to the fact a large portion of those walls were removed and repaired or replaced in the same location to maintain structural integrity of the house. As advised by the city attorney, staff does not recommend a new home process for this site, even if the 50% rule were exceeded. The STAFF REPORT Page 3 country club plan of treatment includes the following definition of demolition: Demolition – For purposes of design review and compliance with City Code §850.20 Subd. 10, demolition shall mean the physical alteration of a building that requires a city permit and where: (a) 50% or more of the surface area of all exterior walls, in the aggregate, are removed; or (b) 50% or more of the principal roof structure is removed, changing its shape, pitch, or height; or (c) A front porch, side porch, vestibule, dormer, chimney, attached garage, or porte- cochere is removed or destroyed. This definition does not include removal of existing siding, roofing, trim, fascia, soffit, eave moldings, windows, and doors. Preservation Consultant Vogel reviewed the application and has written memos that are attached in the heritage preservation commission packet. Staff Recommendation & Findings: A case could be made for approval and denial of the replacement of the roofing material. Below provides options for the heritage preservation commission to consider: Approval (roofing and chimney) Approve the amendment to COA H-20-6 allowing the use of Camelot black roof shingles and approval of the reconstruction of the chimney using finishing materials to match the original structure. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed roofing materials meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. 2. Asphalt shingles are appropriate for both new construction and rehabilitation projects in the country club district. 3. The original shape of the roof is maintained. 4. The finishing materials of the chimney would match the original chimney. 5. The chimney was required to be replaced by the city building official for health and safety reasons. 6. A COA for an exterior fireplace would not be required. The standards for rehabilitation address small scale structural additions by requiring them to be designed in a manner that if it were to be removed in the future, the essential form and the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Denial for Roofing (approval for chimney) Deny the proposed roofing materials and approval of the reconstruction of the chimney based on the following findings: 1. The existing tile roof was a distinguishing feature of the home. Camelot asphalt shingles do not match the features of the original roof in design, texture, or other visual qualities. 2. The finishing materials of the chimney would match the original chimney. STAFF REPORT Page 4 3. The chimney was required to be replaced by the City building official for health and safety reasons. 4. The chimney materials meet the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. 5. A COA for an exterior fireplace would not be required. The standards for rehabilitation address small scale structural additions by requiring them to be designed in a manner that if it were to be removed in the future, the essential form and the integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Staff recommends the approval of the reconstruction of the chimney to match the materials and detailing of the original chimney as proposed by the applicant based on the findings above. 221820v2 M E M O R A N D U M FROM: DAVID KENDALL, CITY ATTORNEY TO: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CC: CITY PLANNING AND BUILDING STAFF DATE: MAY 25, 2022 RE: PROPERTY AT 4630 DREXEL AVENUE, EDINA FACTS On September 8, 2020 the City of Edina issued a Certificate of Appropriateness (“COA”) for renovation of the property located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in Edina (the “Property”). This Property includes a Spanish-style home built in the 1920s. This home is located within the Country Club District (“District”) in the City of Edina. Renovations to homes in this District are subject to review by the Edina Heritage Preservation Commission (“HPC”). When the City issued the existing COA, the COA authorized removal of the old roofing materials and installation of new roofing materials. The new roofing materials approved by the COA issued by the HPC were limited to Brava Tile, Decra Tile, and Clay Tile. Following approval of the existing COA, the applicant removed and donated the existing roofing material, which was permissible under the COA because that COA authorized the use of new roofing material. The City has now received an application to revise the approved roofing materials authorized by the COA. The COA stated that changes to the approved plans would require review by the HPC. The application to amend the COA states that the home has been sold to a new owner who would like to amend the COA to allow the new owner to use an asphalt shingle product for the roofing material. Use of this roofing material was not authorized by the existing COA, which specifically states that asphalt roofing is not an acceptable roofing material. The new owner of the Property is now applying to use asphalt shingles. This is a change to the approved plans, which requires review by the HPC. Based on safety concerns, the Chief Building Official has ordered the property owner to remove the fireplace and chimney of the home. Removal of the chimney was not authorized by t he COA but was nonetheless required by the Chief Building Official due to health and safety concerns. The Chief Building Official determined the chimney to be structurally unsound and determined that it had to be removed immediately because it could collapse and cause injury to workers onsite or to members of the public. In addition to the application to add asphalt shingles as an acceptable roofing material, the owner of the Property has applied for review of the proposed replacement materials for the chimney. Orders of the Chief Building Official to preserve health, safety and welfare must take priority over the requirement on the COA that the chimney was not to be removed. Now that the Property owner has removed the chimney under orders from the City, the HPC must determine which replacement materials would be permissible from the perspective of heritage preservation. The 221820v2 two issues before the HPC in this application are the replacement roofing material and replacement chimney material. DISCUSSION 1. Timing of Review Minnesota statutes governing Time Deadline for Agency Action (“The Sixty Day Rule”) applies to this application. Minn. Stat. § 15.99. The HPC must rule on this application within 60 days of the date it was deemed complete by the City, unless the applicant requests an extension or unless the City requires an extension and provides written notice to the applicant stating the reason for the extension and the anticipated length of the extension, which may not exceed 60 days. Minn. Stat. 15.99, subd. 3(f). The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that an application to a heritage-preservation commission for a certificate of appropriateness is considered a “written request relating to zoning,” which requires the commission to approve or deny the application within 60 days under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a). 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287, 288 (Minn. 2013). In the present case, the applicant first submitted an application for review of permissible roofing materials but then supplemented their application later when the Chief Building Official ordered the chimney removed on an emergency basis. Following that event, the applicant submitted an amended application to include additional review of proposed materials to replace the chimney. The City deemed the application complete upon receipt of the amended application to replace the chimney and must therefore issue a decision on both the roofing material and the replacement chimney material within 60 days of completion of the application, unless the City requires an extension and gives written notice of the reason for that extension. There is also a City Code provision which states that the city planner and the heritage preservation board shall complete their review of applications for city permits requiring certificates of appropriateness within 45 days of the date of the application. Edina Code of Ordinances Sec. 36-722(d). It is unclear what the remedy would be for violation of City Code 36-722(d). The remedy for violation of the Sixty Day Rule will be automatic approval of the application, unless the City granted a valid extension. If the City fails to act upon an application within the required time, the request is deemed approved without further City action. 2. Application Part 1 to Add Asphalt Shingles as Approved Roofing Material The first issue raised in this application is whether the list of permitted roofing materials in the COA may be revised to include a luxury asphalt shingle product. The existing tile roof has been removed with permission. Removal of this material and replacement with a different material was 221820v2 authorized by the City under the existing COA. Both HPC’s Plan of Treatment1 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards2 suggest preservation and retention of original historical features when feasible. When preservation of existing features is not feasible, the Plan of Treatment and the Secretary of the Interior Standards prioritize the shape of the roof being preserved and new roofing material that matches the old in composition, size, shape, color and texture. With respect to approval of roofing materials, the HPC may not make a decision which is arbitrary and capricious. The HPC must apply the standards in the Plan of Treatment. Under the existing COA the HPC has already elected to authorize removal and replacement of the roofing material and has authorized several different styles and brands of tile for the replacement material. In response to the current application, the City has received an opinion Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel. Mr. Vogel states that after removal of the old roofing material, the preferred approach would be to install new roofing material that matched the old in composition, size, shape, color and texture. The HPC may deny the use of asphalt shingles if the Brava Tile, Decra Tile, and Clay Tile it has already authorized were all historically acceptable materials and these materials complied with the Plan of Treatment, and the proposed asphalt shingles would not be historically acceptable as compared to the roofing materials the HPC authorized. The applicant claims that the material is historically acceptable and has provided examples. The HPC will have to make a determination after weighing these factors. The consultant opinion from Mr. Vogel further states: “The subject property has already been substantially altered from its as -built appearance and in my opinion historic architectural integrity has been compromised by the ongoing demolition and renovation work. The applicant (who was apparently not responsible for removing the original roof) is essentially creating a new house, not rehabilitating an old one…” Mr. Vogel goes on to state that if the HPC accepts this premise that the application should be treated as a new COA for a new project rather than an existing COA for the existing project, asphalt shingles would be an appropriate roofing material. However, I do not recommend that the HPC assume that the existing COA has been somehow eliminated or extinguished based on this observation from Mr. Vogel, nor do I recommend that the HPC approve asphalt shingles as a roofing material on that basis. The HPC should rule on this application by applying the required standard: the roofing material should sufficiently match the historic material in composition, size, shape, color and texture. 3. Application Part 2 to Approve Materials for Reconstruction of Chimney It appears that Mr. Vogel made this observation based upon the fact that the Chief Building Official ordered the Property owner to remove the chimney, which in turn resulted in a calculation that 1 https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10454/Country-Club-District-Plan-of- Treatment 2 https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment -guidelines-2017.pdf 221820v2 50% or more of the surface area of all exterior walls, in the aggregate, are removed. This removal of the chimney was not authorized by the existing COA but was ordered by the Chief Building Official of the City of Edina. I understand that the Chief Building Official determined the chimney to be structurally unsound and determined that it had to be removed immediately because it could collapse and cause injury to workers onsite or to members of the public. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Property owner to come back before the HPC and seek guidance on acceptable replacement material for the chimney. In light of the order from the Chief Building Official, compliance with term of the existing COA requiring preservation of the chimney was not an option. The Chief Building Official ordered the Property owner to remove the chimney to preserve health, safety and welfare of the public, and to preserve the structural integrity of the home. It would be improper and inequitable, and likely a violation of due process, for the City to then count this action against the Property owner and utilize this action as a basis to declare that the Property owner must start their application over and apply for a completely new COA rather than apply to amend their existing COA. It would be unwise for the City to penalize the Property owner for complying with orders from the City necessary to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. The existing COA states that any changes to the proposed plans must come back before the HPC for review. It does not state that any changes to the proposed plans must result in a completely new application as if this were a new project. This could lead to an absurd result. The plain terms of the existing COA should control in this situation. Mr. Vogel’s opinion does not address the standard the HPC should apply to the Property owner’s application for approval of replacement materials for the chimney. City Staff may not have asked Mr. Vogel that question due to timing issues. It is not clear when City staff asked Mr. Vogel to opine on the roofing material and when City Staff received the amended application to address replacement materials for the chimney, in addition to replacement materials for the roofing. It seems likely that the same standard would apply to the chimney as to the roofing materials: the replacement chimney materials should sufficiently match the historic material in composition, size, shape, color and texture. The HPC should confirm that this is the correct standard to apply to the question of chimney materials as well as roofing materials. CONCLUSION I recommend that the HPC rule upon the first portion of the application and either grant or deny permission for the asphalt roofing material. I recommend that the HPC rule on the second portion of the application regarding what type of replacement material is permissible for the chimney. The HPC must rule on this application as required under the deadlines established by Minn. Stat. § 15.99, the “Sixty Day Rule”. If the City does not rule on the application within required time frames, the application may be deemed granted without further City action. MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: May 2, 2022 SUBJECT: COA change – 4630 Drexel Avenue I have reviewed the request to amend the COA for 4630 Drexel Avenue to allow for use of asphalt shingles instead of clay tile roofing. The subject property has already been substantially altered from its as-built appearance and in my opinion historic architectural integrity has been compromised by the ongoing demolition and renovation work. The applicant (who was apparently not responsible for removing the original roof) is essentially creating a new house, not rehabilitating an old one; therefore, the design standards for new construction should apply to any COA decisions. With resp ect to roofs and roofing materials, the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines require preserving the original roof shape and retaining the original roofing material whenever possible. Ordinarily, if the original roof ing has to be removed, the preferred approach would be to install new roofing material that matched the old in composition, size, shape, color and texture; however, if you believe the house at 4630 Drexel no longer qualifies as a heritage preservation resource, it would be appropriate to allow an alternative material that does not match the original roofing but is visually compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. COAs for homes and garages in the Country Club District have generally treated asphalt or composition shingle roofs as appropriate for both new construction and rehabilitation projects. MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: May 25, 2022 SUBJECT: COA Amendment for 4630 Drexel Avenue (demolition and reconstruction of chimney) I have reviewed the information you provided regarding treatment of the chimney on the house located at 4630 Drexel Avenue in the Edina Country Club District. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing chimney, which appears to be original construction and represents a distinctive (i.e., historic character defining) architectural feature, and replace it with a new chimney that matches the original. The photographs and written information provided by the applicant document the extent of physical deterioration and make a strong case for replacement of the old fireplace and chimney. The city’s building official has also determined that the existing structure is unsafe. As we discussed earlier, the chimney and roofing issues can be handled as amendments to the current COA. The proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which are the required basis for COA decisions (and are incorporated in the Country Club District Plan of Treatment). The preferred treatment strategy for dealing with failed structural systems is repair rather than replacement; however, in this case it seems clear that total replacement of the chimney is necessary in order to comply with current building safety code requirements. The standards for rehabilitation state that whenever replacement of a deteriorated building feature is necessary, the new construction should match the architectural characteristics of the feature being replaced. The current standard of practice is to retain as much original maso nry as possible while replacing the exterior finish (stucco) with new material that duplicates the original as closely as possible. In my opinion, demolition of the existing chimney is an appropriate treatment for this property. Based on the plans presented, the new chimney will match the original in size, shape, material, and surface finish, restoring an important historical detail that would otherwise have been lost. 1 Emily Bodeker From:Robert Vogel <rcvogel@pathfindercrm.com> Sent:Thursday, June 9, 2022 9:19 AM To:Emily Bodeker Subject:Re: Fireplace Clarification EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Emily, No, a COA would not be required for construction of an exterior fireplace. The standards for rehabilitation address this kind of small-scale structural addition by requiring it to be designed in such a manner that if it were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure (in this case, the exterior wall chimney) would be unimpaired. Robert From: Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:44 PM To: Robert Vogel <rcvogel@pathfindercrm.com> Cc: Cary Teague <cteague@EdinaMN.gov>; DKendall@ck-law.com <DKendall@ck-law.com> Subject: FW: Fireplace Clarification Robert, Please see the additional information regarding the fireplace replacement on Drexel. They are proposing to put an exterior facing gas insert. If we had that request on its own, in your opinion would a COA be required? Please let me know what you think! Thanks, Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0462 | Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. | Edina, MN 55424 EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov From: Scott Busyn <scott@greatneighborhoodhomes.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 12:45 PM To: Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Cary Teague <cteague@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Re: Fireplace Clarification EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Emily, 2 Here is the information on the outdoor fireplace. The original home had a faux fireplace detail on the chimney per the elevations. There is a terrace proposed on the project survey that comes off the doors on either side of the chimney. We would like to add an outdoor gas fireplace in the faux fireplace opening. I attached the brochure of the fireplace, the schematic showing the fireplace in the faux fireplace spending, and a photo of this finished on another Spanish colonial home. The homeowner will also have landscaping and trees to create privacy for the patio and fireplace area. Please let me know if you have 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 3 4 5 On Jun 8, 2022, at 8:55 AM, Emily Bodeker <EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov> wrote: Scott, Do you have information clarifying the fireplace request? Can you please have that submitted to us by the end of the day so we can include it for the HPC packet next week? The packet will be posted tomorrow. Thank you! <image001.gif> Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner 952-826-0462 | Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W. 50th St. | Edina, MN 55424 EBodeker@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov May 4, 2022 Cary Teague, Community Development Director David Fisher, Chief Building Official 4630 Drexel Avenue – Chimney Report for the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) Information / Background: On April 27, 2022, I was requested to inspect a dilapidated chimney at 4630 Drexel Avenue. I observed the chimney brick that was crumbling and the stucco that was falling down off of the chimney. It appeared that the stucco was installed many years ago to cover the existing spalling brick. In addition, it looked like moisture had been get behind the stucco for years. Some of this can be seen in the photo. The contractor’s mason stated, “he could not work with this existing brick because of its crumbling”. The chimney also has become unstable because of the crumbling brick and is now a life safety issue. The whole chimney needs to be removed and rebuilt. The contractor has already under pinned the existing chimney foundation and had it inspected so this shouldn’t be the reason for the chimney being unstable. It is my responsibility as the Chief Building Official to protect the public from harm from a structure that may fall down and hurt someone. In this case the chimney needs to be removed as soon as possible. In addition to the brick crumbling and being removed there will be some studs and sheathing board that will need to be replaced. I don’t think repairing the chimney is an option and it could be dangerous. The HPC will need to determine how the chimney gets rebuilt. It was stucco. To rebuild the chimney it could be framed with wood, sheathed with wood, lathed, cemented, brown coated with plastered and stucco. When the chimney is complete the chimney will look very close to what it looked like in the past. The chimney could be rebuilt with block or brick then lathed, cemented, brown coated with plastered and stucco. Again, it will look the same as it did in the past. Because of the shape of this chimney the historical architect was not required to make this discission. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Notice of a COA Review through Better Together Edina Heritage Preservation Commission Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 7:00 PM Community Room, Edina City Hall, 4801 W 50th Street An amendment to a certificate of appropriateness application that was previously approved at 4630 Drexel has been submitted with building material changes. Due to life safety issues the existing chimney was removed; the request also includes the replacement of the chimney. Share your thoughts and opinions on the project! P ROPERTY A DDRESS : 4630 Drexel Avenue C ASE F ILE: Amendment to H-20-6 T O : Property owners within 300 feet of 4630 Drexel Avenue A PPLICANT : David Petrocchi, property owner R EQUEST : The request includes changes to the proposed roofing material. The proposed material is Camelot Black roof shingles. The original chimney was removed due to life safety issues. How the chimney is replaced is included in the updated request. H OW TO P ARTICIPATE : Review the proposed plans at www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/COA Public participation can be provided in a variety of ways to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Options 1 and 2 are available now: 1) Leave a comment online at www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/COA 2) Leave a voicemail at 952-826-0377. Option 3 is available the night of the meeting: 3) Attend the HPC meeting. M ORE I NFORMATION : Contact Assistant City Planner, Emily Bodeker, City of Edina Planning Department, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424, 952-826-0462. Also, you can visit the Better Together Edina website, www.BetterTogetherEdina.org/COA D ATE OF N OTICE : June 3, 2022 COA Process: Date: June 14, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.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: 4909 S unnyside R oad 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 as submitted by the applicant. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4909 S unnyside R oad, is located on the south side of S unnyside R oad, west of Browndale Avenue. T he existing home on the property is a one and a half story residence, categorized as a Cope Cod C olonial Revival that was built in 1940. T he Certificate of Appropriateness request includes changes to the street facing façade associated with a renovation and addition. P roposed changes to the street façade include the addition of a covered entry and new front facing dormers. C omments can be found on B etter Together E dina. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Applicant Narrative Applicant Submittal Staff Report Consultant Vogel Memo Updated Plan Page-6/13/22 • • • HPC CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION 4909 SUNNYSIDE RD. DATE: 06/14/2022 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Location 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Historic Conditions 2007 - Google Street View1959 - Edina HPC 2018 - PKA.2011 - Google Street View 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Existing Conditions VIEW FROM BACKYARD VIEW OF DRIVEWAY ENTRY PATH VIEW FROM STREETVIEW OF ADDITION VIEW OF SCREENED PORCH FROM BACKYARDVIEW FROM SIDE OF GARAGE ADDITION 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 SUNN Y SI D E R D. MINNEHAHA CREEKSITE PLAN A-050 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO PRINT IN COLOR O 11"x17" TABLOID SHEETS. IF THIS DRAWING IS PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZED SHEET OR IN GREYSCALE, DRAWING SCALES MAY NOT BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED OR INFORMATIO MAY NOT BE PRESENTED AS INTENDED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©2021 PKA. ARCHITECTURE DUMONSAU RESIDENCE 4909 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 INTRODUCTION Existing Site Plan Projected Garage Addition with Forward Facing Gable creates a focus on the garage instead of the house (and is against the Plan of Treatment). 1 3/4 Story with No Dormers/ Daylighting to Street Facade creates an inefficient use of small spaces that lack proper daylighting. 1 3/4 form is an atypical style with either 1 1/2 or a full 2-story being more prevalent. Federal Floodplain Level does not allow any construction within it. The existing house is within .1’ of current level. Lack of Covered Entry which is both atypical in the neighborhood and creates an asymmetrical facade and front facade entry, which is lost in the facade. Current Exterior Color is Non- Traditional Nor Original whereas previous colors were more in line with traditional schemes. Exterior Maintenance Neglected As Rental Property Roofing, cedar shake siding, and exterior trim are very deteriorated and need to be replaced fully. Storm Sewer Easement runs through property and prevents additions to the creekside 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 SUNN Y SI D E R D. MINNEHAHA CREEKSITE PLAN A-050 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO PRINT IN COLOR O 11"x17" TABLOID SHEETS. IF THIS DRAWING IS PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZED SHEET OR IN GREYSCALE, DRAWING SCALES MAY NOT BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED OR INFORMATIO MAY NOT BE PRESENTED AS INTENDED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©2021 PKA. ARCHITECTURE DUMONSAU RESIDENCE 4909 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 INTRODUCTION Proposed Site Plan New Shingle Siding with White Trim highlights the cedar shingles and trim that will be more fitting within historical precedent, traditional color schemes, and the neighborhood as a whole. Front Facing Dormers provides traditional detailing where dormers stack above main level windows. It also allows proper daylighting and egress to upper level bedrooms. Front Covered Porch provides friendlier street presence and neighborhood interaction with covered open porch. The front entry is highlighted over garage face. Reduced Garage Presence Shedding the garage roof of a forward facing gable, combined with the new covered porch allows the house to have a more symmetrical facade that is a hallmark of Cape Cod Colonial Revival homes. 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Local Neighborhood Style Precedents 4519 Wooddale Avenue 4514 Bruce Avenue 4920 Sunnyside Road 4919 Arden Avenue 4633 Bruce Avenue 4920 Arden Avenue 4617 Edina Boulevard 2015 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 2017 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 2011 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 2019 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 2019 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 2019 - American Colonial Revival with Cape Cod Colonial Revival Influence 2011 - Cape Cod Colonial Revival 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Cape Cod Colonial Revival Precedents 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 INTRODUCTION Precedents of Change 1928 - Pueblo 1925 - Mediterranean 2004 - English Cottage 2006 - English Cottage Properties Within the Period of Significance but not aesthetically contributing to the neighborhood and have considerable front facade changes for the better. 1925 - Mediterranean 2003 - Tudor 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Perspective View From Street 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Perspective View From Street 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Perspective View From Backyard 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Perspective View From Backyard 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Aerial View From Street 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Aerial View From Backyard 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 1,289 SF PRESERVED ROOF STRUCTURE (51.4% OF 2,509 SF) 1,220 SF DEMOLISHED ROOF STRUCTURE WITH DORMERS (48.6% OF 2,509 SF) PLAN OF TREATMENT Preserved + Demolished Roof Structure With Dormers Percentages View from Yard View from Street 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Preserved Exterior Walls SCREENED PORCH TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED WITH LARGER WINDOW AND WILL ALIGN WITH NEW SET HEAD HEIGHT EXISTING ROOF OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND GARAGE TO BE REMOVED TO ALLOW FOR DORMERS, BUT EAVE LINE WILL REMAIN THE SAME FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE REMOVED TO CREATE COVERED PORCH AND EXTEND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO THE GARAGE NEW FRONT DOOR AND WINDOW TO BE ADDED STOOP TO BE EXTENDED NEW WINDOW ADDED EXISTING ROOF OF GARAGE PRESERVED WINDOW CHANGED TO ALIGN WITH HEAD HEIGHT WINDOW MOVED AND CHANGED TO ALIGN WITH HEAD HEIGHT SCREENED PORCH TO REMAIN UNCHANGED STREETSIDE EXISTING ROOF OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED SOUTH WING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED CREEKSIDE EXISTING ROOF OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO BE PRESERVED WINDOW TO BE MOVEDAND REPLACED TO ALIGNWITH HEAD HEIGHT SCREENED PORCH TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING ROOF OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING PRINCIPAL AND GARAGE ROOF TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED SOUTH WING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED WITH LARGER WINDOWS AND WILL ALIGN WITH NEW SET HEAD HEIGHT AND ADDED DORMER DORMER ADDED TO ALLOW FOR MOREDAYLIGHTING WINDOW ADDED EXISTING ROOF OF WEST WING TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING GARAGE ROOF TO BE REMOVED GARAGE TO REMAINUNCHANGED EXISTING GARAGE ROOFTO BE PRESERVED EXISTING WALL REMOVED FOR NEW CHIMNEY LOCATION Area of building exterior above ground to remain: 2,981.06 SF (84.4%) Area of building exterior above ground to remain but altered: 342.09 SF (9.7%) This drawing, diagramming the exterior wall surfaces of the building, is guided by the "Edina Historic Country Club District Plan of Treatment" section "Certificate of Appropriateness - Definitions, paragraph "Demolition." DEMOLITION CALCULATION Demolition - For purposes of design review and compliance with City Code, demolition shall mean the physical alternation of a building that requires a city permit and where: a)50% or more of the surface area of all exterior walls, in the aggregate, are removed; or b)50% or more of the principal roof structure is removed c)A front porch, side porch, vestibule, dormer, chimney, attached garage, or porte-cochere is removed or destroyed. This definition does not include removal of existing siding, roofing, trim, fascia, soffit, eave, moldings, windows, doors. Area of building exterior above ground to be removed: 209.03 SF (5.9%) 4909 SUNNYSIDE RD. Edina, MN 55424 ARCHITECTURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE: 06/14/2022 © 2022 PKA. ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM PAINTCLOSETENTERTAINMENT RM STORAGE/ MECH MECH 12'-7 1/2"21'-6 5/8"14'-0"7'-0 3/4"UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED 3'-3 1/2"6'-6 5/8"13'-2 3/8"UP 4" STRUCTURAL MEMBER 26'-6 1/8" 13 R EXISTINGDECK STAIRUP 15ROFFICE 19'-5"WATER SERVICE ELEC SERVICE UNEXCAVATED SCALE:1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO PRINT IN COLO 11"x17" TABLOID SHEETS. IF THIS DRAWING PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZED SHEET OR GREYSCALE, DRAWING SCALES MAY NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED OR INFORMA MAY NOT BE PRESENTED AS INTENDED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©2021 PKA. ARCHITECTURE DUMONSAU RESIDENCE 4909 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 FLOOR PLANS A-100 Maintained Existing Exterior Wall highlighted with red dashed-line LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16” = 1’-0” PLAN OF TREATMENT Plans 4909 SUNNYSIDE RD. Edina, MN 55424 ARCHITECTURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE: 06/14/2022 © 2022 PKA. ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM LIVING ENTRY DINING PWDR MUD RM GARAGE FRONT PORCH SCREENED PORCH T&C 42 F.P.UP UP DN 20'-10 3/8"21'-0 1/2"22'-5 1/4"13'-3 1/2"22'-9 1/8"11'-5"5'-1"5'-6 1/4" 5'-8 1/4"4'-6"9'-1 3/4" B A R 15 R13 R DECK EXISTING STAIRDOWN 15R13'-6 1/2"12'-8" 10'-5" KITCHEN DW 36" REF. STAIR RISE 7 14"STAIR RISE 7"DEN 17'-1 1/8"11'-6" 24" REF. DN SCALE:1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO PRINT IN COLO 11"x17" TABLOID SHEETS. IF THIS DRAWING PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZED SHEET OR GREYSCALE, DRAWING SCALES MAY NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED OR INFORMA MAY NOT BE PRESENTED AS INTENDED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©2021 PKA. ARCHITECTURE DUMONSAU RESIDENCE 4909 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 FLOOR PLANS A-101MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16” = 1’-0” Removed Exterior Wall highlighted with blue dashed line Maintained Existing Exterior Wall highlighted with red dashed-line PLAN OF TREATMENT Plans 4909 SUNNYSIDE RD. Edina, MN 55424 ARCHITECTURE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE: 06/14/2022 © 2022 PKA. ARCHITECTURE 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM UPPER FAMILY RM PRIMARY BEDROOM 4'-0" BEDROOM 3 14'-2"11'-3"11'-3"BEDROOM 1 3'-0" BATH 1 17'-11 1/8"7'-1"6'-0 5/8" 11'-3"13'-2"6'-3 1/2"6'-1"9'-5"3'-5"5'-3"11'-0"14'-2"6'-5 1/2"7'-2"5'-0"11'-3 1/2"15'-0"3'-0 1/2"3'-9" BEDROOM 2 CLOSET LAUNDRY SCALE:1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" 2919 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 612.353.4920 WWW.PKARCH.COM THIS PAGE IS INTENDED TO PRINT IN COLO 11"x17" TABLOID SHEETS. IF THIS DRAWING PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZED SHEET OR GREYSCALE, DRAWING SCALES MAY NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED OR INFORMA MAY NOT BE PRESENTED AS INTENDED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©2021 PKA. ARCHITECTURE DUMONSAU RESIDENCE 4909 Sunnyside Rd. Edina, MN 55424 FLOOR PLANS A-102UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3/16” = 1’-0” Maintained Existing Exterior Wall highlighted with red dashed-line Removed Exterior Wall highlighted with blue dashed line Removed Knee Wall highlighted with green dashed line PLAN OF TREATMENT Plans 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT Regulation + Review - Edina’s Historic Country Club District Plan of Treatment - Robert Vogel, Sketch Plan Review for 4909 Sunnyside Memorandum The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices. They are regulatory only with respect to Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition and new construction; for work that is not subject to design review, they are advisory. The standards for rehabilitation are: ... I have reviewed the plans submitted in relation to renovation of the existing house at 4909 Sunnyside Avenue in the Country Club District. The subject property is a one-and-one-half story residence built in 1940. At the time the district was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, the house was categorized as an example of the “Cape Cod Colonial Revival” style. This mid-century modern house form is relatively rare in the Country Club District, where the earlier period revival styles (Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival and Spanish Eclectic) are prevalent. The house has been altered from its as-built appearance and does not qualify for individual designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark; it is considered a heritage preservation resource solely because it was constructed during the district’s period of historical significance (1924-1944). The owner proposes to substantially alter the street-facing façade, including removal of the existing attached garage (which is not original) and construct additional second-floor living space. Homes with attached, street-facing garages are fairly common in the neighborhood, especially in relation to houses constructed after the mid-1930s—that is, after the developer stopped approving new house construction plans (Thorpe Bros. having delegated responsibility for enforcing the architectural controls in the restrictive covenants to the district’s homeowners association in 1934). Based on the plans presented, the new garage appears to be compatible with the property and should not have an adverse effect on the historic character of the streetscape. The addition of second-floor living space will substantially alter the house’s street façade and remove some of its original Cape Cod detailing. However, most of the proposed alterations (e.g., the new front entry porch, dormers and windows) appear to be compatible with those found on nearby historic properties and the materials described in the plans presented are also common throughout the district. Perhaps most importantly, the shape of the main roof will be retained as well as the original exterior wall cladding material. In my opinion, the new two-story façade with its Post-Modernist detailing should make the house more architecturally compatible with the older homes in the neighborhood. Finally, the proposed exterior modifications on the creek-side elevations will not be visible from the street. There is ample precedent for certifying this kind of new construction in Country Club, where the street facades constitute the primary architectural character defining features. Historically, Minnehaha Creek was not perceived as a significant aesthetic amenity for Country Club homeowners until after the Mill Pond was transformed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the late 1930s. i) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATEMENT Comparison of Form + Roof Lines 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 6’-8”RIDGELINE NEW DORMER HEIGHT EAVE HEIGHT Existing Design New Design 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT North Elevation (Front) 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION Large Central Chimney and Fireplace located to one end of the home, a classic feature of the Revival style. Central Shed Roof Dormer Over Porch provides balance, way- finding, and, symmetry to street facade. Divided Lites and Double Hungs align vertically with floor above and match the Revival style Main Roof Eave matches exisitng home’s eave. Asphalt Shingle Roof Cedar Shingle Siding similar to existing home and aligns with Revival style Garage Facade Reworked so that it is secondary to front entry Front Porch Added with colonial columns and match brick base detailing as original home. Material Palette Cedar Shake Asphalt Shingle Roof Existing Brick Veneer Traditional-Style Windows 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT West Elevation 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION Large Central Chimney and Fireplace located to one end of the home, a classic feature of the Revival style. Painted Wood Trim is a classic feature of the Revival style. Material Palette Cedar Shake Asphalt Shingle Roof Existing Brick Veneer Traditional-Style Windows 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION PLAN OF TREATMENT South Elevation Existing Kitchen Addition to remain in Phase 1, but is slated to change to match more traditional language with a future phase currently in planning Existing Screened Porch to remain Existing Deck to remain in Phase 1 Existing Roofs Divided Lites and Double Hungs match the Revival style and align vertically with the windows above. Exisitng Dormer Roofline detail carried through to creek side of house Material Palette Cedar Shake Asphalt Shingle Roof Existing Brick Veneer Traditional-Style Windows 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 PLAN OF TREATMENT East Elevation 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION Existing Screen Porch retained. Front Porch Added with matching brick base detailing as original home Large Central Chimney and Fireplace located to one end of the home, a classic feature of the Revival style. Material Palette Cedar Shake Asphalt Shingle Roof Existing Brick Veneer Traditional-Style Windows 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 4909 Sunnyside Rd. DATE: 06/14/2022 HPC CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION THANK YOU June 14, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 4909 Sunnyside Road-Changes to Street Facing Facade Information / Background: The subject property, 4909 Sunnyside Road, is located on the south side of Sunnyside Road, west of Browndale Avenue. The existing home on the property is a one and a half story residence, categorized as a Cope Code Colonial Revival that was built in 1940. The Certificate of Appropriateness request includes changes to the street facing façade associated with a renovation and addition. Proposed changes to the street façade include the addition of a covered entry and new front facing dormers. Primary Issues: There are proposed changes to the street facing façade which is why the proposed project requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. The objective of the Country Club Landmark District is preservation of the existing historic house facades and streetscapes. The city has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation when reviewing certificate of appropriateness applications. Staff believes the following standards of rehabilitation are pertinent to the review of the certificate of appropriateness: • The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. • Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. STAFF REPORT Page 2 • Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. • Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. • New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historical materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. This house does not meet the definition of demolition in the Country Club plan of treatment. The proposed project keeps more than 50% of the surface area of the exterior walls and is keeping more than 50% of the principal roof structure. The country club plan of treatment includes the following definition of demolition: Demolition – For purposes of design review and compliance with City Code §850.20 Subd. 10, demolition shall mean the physical alteration of a building that requires a city permit and where: (a) 50% or more of the surface area of all exterior walls, in the aggregate, are removed; or (b) 50% or more of the principal roof structure is removed, changing its shape, pitch, or height; or (c) A front porch, side porch, vestibule, dormer, chimney, attached garage, or porte- cochere is removed or destroyed. This definition does not include removal of existing siding, roofing, trim, fascia, soffit, eave moldings, windows, and doors. Preservation Consultant Vogel reviewed the application and has written a memo that is attached in the heritage preservation commission packet. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans at 4 909 Sunnyside Road, 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. • The proposed Certificate of Appropriateness meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. Conditions for approval: • All roofs, exterior walls, doors, and windows are required to be kept weather tight through the construction process. This is to protect the integrity of the structure. STAFF REPORT Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: June 6, 2022 SUBJECT: COA for 4909 Sunnyside Road I have reviewed the plans and supporting documentation submitted for the COA application, which is essentially a modified version of the renovation concept presented for “sketch plan review” at last month’s HPC meeting. In my opinion, the proposed design changes are minimal and the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. The façade alterations described in the plans are consistent with the general standards for historic preservation projects and the design review guidelines contained in the district plan of treatment. No important historic architectural details will be destroyed and the proposed façade alterations are, in my opinion, compatible with the original design of the house and its setting. Indeed, a good deal of original architectural fabric will be retained as well as the essential form of the 1940 house—the district plan of treatment does not require the owner to accurately recover the original form and details of the house as it appeared in 1940. And I should point out that the Secretary of the Interior’s standards discourage façade alterations which seek to make houses appear older than they actually are (and allow for contemporary design of alterations and additions which do not destroy essential aspects of historical integrity). Therefore, I stand by the comments in my May 2 memorandum and recommend approval of the COA. Date: June 14, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.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: 4506 S unnyside R oad 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 as submitted by the applicant. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4506 S unnyside R oad, is located on the north side of Sunnyside Road, north of the intersection of Sunnyside Road and M oorland Avenue. T he existing home on the property is a two-story home with an attached garage that is classified as an example of C olonial architecture, and was built in 1942. T he Certificate of Appropriateness request includes changes to the street facing façade associated with a renovation including the demolition of an attached garage and the construction of a detached garage, and a two- story addition. C omments can be found on B etter Together E dina. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Project Narrative Applicant Submittal Staff Report Consultant Vogel Memo NORTH ARROW ARCHITECTURE / www.northarrowarch.com / (612)850-2469 / 2460 Zealand Ave, Golden Valley MN 55427 Hertz Residence, 4506 Sunnyside Road, Edina, MN 55424 5/27/2022 Project Narrative The scope of work for this project is the removal of an existing attached front-facing garage, construction of a new detached garage in the rear yard, and construction of a new addition on the side of the home. The removal of the current attached garage will bring the home in line with the other homes on the side of Sunnyside, as the majority of other homes in the area feature detached or rear-yard garages. Materials used for both the addition and garage will match the existing- siding profiles, exposure, and trim to match. Roof lines and pitches will match the existing home. The two-story addition starts at the same setback as the existing garage. Window sizes and proportions have been selected to be compatible with the existing home. Siding profiles and selections will match the current finishes. Since the existing stonework on the south face is only on most forward face of the south side of the primary massing, the addition will feature lap siding to be consistent with the existing architecture. The form of the addition is subservient to the existing street façade, preserving the integrity of the existing street side elevation. The new detached garage will be entirely in the rear of the property and will be mostly obscured from the road. It will be constructed with the same lap siding and molding profiles as the current home. The garage door will match the character of the home, as well as other garages in the area. The structure itself will be no taller than other detached garages in the neighborhood. ADDITION- SIDING AND ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING TRIM PROFILES AND DETAILS ROOF SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOFLINE ROOF SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOFLINE (VIF) 9'-8 1/2"8'-6"3'-0"7'-0"17'-5"SIDING AND ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILES ON HOME MATCH EXISTING TRIM PROFILES AND DETAILS ON HOME 17'-5"ROOF SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOFLINE- 8:12 (VIF) 8'-6"9'-8 1/2"17'-5"SIDING AND ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING PROFILES ON HOME MATCH EXISTING TRIM PROFILES AND DETAILS ON HOME 17'-5"DECORATIVE GABLE VENT- TO MATCH ROUND WINDOW IN HOUSE GABLE ROOF SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOFLINE- 8:12 (VIF) DECORATIVE GABLE VENT- TO MATCH ROUND WINDOW IN HOUSE GABLE SOUTH-FACING ELEVATION EAST-FACING ELEVATION NORTH-FACING ELEVATION WEST-FACING ELEVATION 26'-6 1/2" EXISTING ELEVATION PORTION OF GARAGE TO BE REMOVED- 136 SF ± PROPOSED AREA OF ADDITION TO BE ADDED- ABOVE CURRENT GARAGE ROOF PEAK- 96 SF ±9'-2"8'-10" PREVIOUS TOTAL STREET FACADE SF: 1463 SF PROPOSED TOTAL STREET FACADE SF: 1423 SF 2.7% CHANGE June 14, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner Certificate of Appropriateness: 45 06 Sunnyside Road-Changes to Street Facing Facade & Construction of a New Detached Garage Information / Background: The subject property, 4506 Sunnyside Road, is located on the north side of Sunnyside Road, north of the intersection of Sunnyside Road and Moorland Avenue. The existing home on the property is a two-story home with an attached garage that is classified as an example of Colonial architecture, and was built in 1942. The Certificate of Appropriateness request includes changes to the street facing façade associated with a renovation including the demolition of an attached garage and the construction of a detached garage, and a two-story addition . Primary Issues: The request includes the demolition of an attached garage and the construction of a new detached garage which is why the proposed project requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. The objective of the Country Club Landmark District is preservation of the existing historic house facades and streetscapes. The city has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation when reviewing certificate of appropriateness applications. Staff believes the following standards of rehabilitation are pertinent to the review of the certificate of appropriateness: • The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. • Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. STAFF REPORT Page 2 • New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historical materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Garages on properties surrounding the subject property are attached garages. The proposed garage does not have undecorated walls longer than 16 feet. Preservation Consultant Vogel reviewed the application and has written a memo that is attached in the heritage preservation commission packet. Staff Recommendation & Findings: Staff concurs with Consultant Vogel’s evaluation of the proposed plans at 4 506 Sunnyside Road, 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. • The proposed Certificate of Appropriateness meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. Conditions for approval: • An as built date plaque should be installed on the exterior of the new garage. • All roofs, exterior walls, doors, and windows are required to be kept weather tight through the construction process. This is to protect the integrity of the structure. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant DATE: June 6, 2022 SUBJECT: COA for 4506 Sunnyside Road I have reviewed the plans and other information provided in relation to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for renovation of the house located at 4506 Sunnyside Road in the Country Club District. The subject property was built in 1942 and is therefore considered a contributing heritage preservation resource. When the district was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982, this house was classified as an example of “Colonial” architecture; however, many architectural historians would classify it as “Neocolonial” or “Contractor Modern.” Similar Country Club homes built before 1945 comprise a small proportion of the historic housing in the Country Club District. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing attached, street-facing garage and replace it with a two-story addition; a new detached two-car garage will be constructed behind the house. . Based on the plans submitted with the COA application, the two-story addition appears to be compatible with the house’s original design and meets the general standards for rehabilition projects in the district. It should complement the architectural character of other 1940s vintage homes in the neighborhood. Based on the plans presented, the new exterior siding, windows and roof are appropriate to the house and the neighborhood and none of the property’s original historic character defining architectural features will be destroyed or obscured. In my opinion, the addition will have minimal impact on the historic streetscape; therefore, the new construction is appropriate. Construction of new detached garages is regarded as an appropriate undertaking in the Country Club District when the new accessory building is designed to be compatible with the house in size, scale, massing, and materials. The new garage being proposed for 4506 Sunn yside meets the design guidelines outlined in the district plan of treatment, matches the architectural character of the house, and will not be visible from the street. I recommend approval of the COA with the usual conditions. Date: June 14, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI I 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:C ity C ounc il Work S es s ion R eminder-June 21 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: I N TR O D U C TI O N: