HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2022 HPC PacketAg enda
Heritage Preservation Commission
City Of E dina, Minnesota
Com munity R oom, E dina City Hall
Tuesday, September 13, 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.Au gu st 11, 2022 Herita ge Preserva tion Com m ission m in u tes
V.Special Recogn ition s An d Presentation s
A.W elcom e Studen t Com m ission ers Maheshw ari a n d Vara d h an
VI.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.
VII.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s
A.W ood d ale Bridge-Sec. 106 Review
B.2023 W ork Pla n HPC
VIII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents
IX.Sta/ Com m ents
X.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 ampli2cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: S eptember 13, 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:August 11, 2022 Heritage P res ervation C ommis s ion
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 August 11, 2022 Heritage P reservation C ommission minutes as presented.
I N TR O D U C TI O N:
AT TAC HME N T S:
Description
Augus t 11, 2022 Minutes
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date: X/XX/22
Minutes
City of Edina, Minnesota
Heritage Preservation Commission
Thursday, August 11, 2022
I. Call to Order
Chair Schilling called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were Chair Schilling, Commissioners Everson, Hassenstab, Pollock, Lonnquist, Cundy
(arrived at 6:50 p.m.), and student member Maheshwari.
Staff present: HPC Staff Liaison Emily Bodeker, Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel, Building Official David
Fisher, and Community Engagement Manager MJ Lamon (virtual)
III. Approval of Meeting Agenda
Motion made by Commissioner Hassenstab, seconded by Commissioner Everson, to approve the
meeting agenda, moving the Century Homes work plan update to after VIA. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion made by Commissioner Pollock, seconded by Commissioner Lonnquist, to approve the July 12,
2022, meeting minutes. All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. Community Comment: None
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. COA H-22-5 4505 Drexel Ave- Front Door Overhang (continued from July 12)
Staff Liaison Bodeker refreshed members on the Front Door Overhang that was shown to the
Commission in July.
The Commission discussed the approval of the continued certificate of appropriateness request from
the applicant.
Motion made by Commissioner Lonnquist, seconded by Commissioner Hassenstab, to
approve the COA as submitted. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date: X/XX/22
B. Century Homes Work Plan Update
Commissioners Lonnquist and Hassenstab and Student Commissioner Maheshwari discussed the
opportunity statement and updated the group on the Century Homes workplan. Commissioners asked
questions relating to what the application fee covers and grant money. The commission was encouraged
to look at the HouseNovel website before the next meeting.
C. Update to COA H-21-6 4633 Arden Avenue- Update to building materials, addition of
new second floor window, and changes to the front dormer (continued from July 12)
Staff Liaison Bodeker gave an overview of property and discussed the proposed application. The
applicant was in attendance and showed the Commissioners and Staff the options for the building
materials:
Option #1- Tundra Brick
Option #2- Modular Winter Mist
Option #3- Welshire Tumbled Brick with painted finish
The Commission discussed the property and asked questions of the applicant relating to brick corbels,
insulation options, material and size of dormers, and alterations to the approved COA.
Motion made by Commissioner Lonnquist to approve the amended plans as submitted with
confirmation that the bay window is built rounded as it is today, approving options 2 & 3 of the
full brick building materials. The motion received no second. The motion failed.
Motion made by Commissioner Hassenstab to deny the amended COA and enforce the original
COA as approved with Chicago Brick, denying all three building material options. Th e motion
received no second. The motion failed.
Motion made by Commissioner Pollock, seconded by Commissioner Hassenstab, to deny the
proposed COA changes and approving option 2, Modular winter mist full brick as the approved
building material. Commissioners Everson, Lonnquist, Pollock, Hassenstab, and Schilling voted
aye. Commissioner Cundy voted nay. The motion carried.
D. Advisory Communication: Subcommittee Recommendations
Commissioner Lonnquist outlined the goals and recommendations from the subcommittee staff.
Commissioner Lonnquist proposed that the subcommittee put together a working draft to be presented
at the September meeting.
Motion made by Commissioner Cundy, seconded by Commissioner Everson, to approve the
advisory communication. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date: X/XX/22
E. 2023 Work Plan Brainstorm
The Commission discussed the 2023 Work Plan proposal. Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel
recommended to utilize the City’s existing list of contributing vs. noncontributing properties for public
education purposes.
VII. Chair and Member Comments:
Commissioner Hassenstab recognized Student Commissioner Maheshwari for the great work he has
done.
Commissioner Cundy requested there be more discrepancy on a threshold for changes relating to
approved COA’s.
VIII. Staff Comments: None
IX. Adjournment
Motion made by Commissioner Pollock, seconded by Commissioner Hassenstab, to adjourn the meeting
at 9:09 p.m. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Bodeker
Date: S eptember 13, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.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:Welc ome S tudent C ommis s ioners Mahes hwari and
Varadhan
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:
Welcome back student C ommissioner Ashwin M aheshwari and welcome new student commissioner S anjana
Varadhan.
I N TR O D U C TI O N:
Date: S eptember 13, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI I.A.
To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type:
O ther
F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Wooddale Bridge-S ec. 106 R eview 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:
M ove to initiate the involvement of the Edina H P C in the S ection 106 Review P rocess for the Wooddale Avenue
B ridge.
I N TR O D U C TI O N:
AT TAC HME N T S:
Description
Wooddale Ave Bridge Report
Citizens Guide Sec 106 Review
Consultant Vogel Memo
Bridge No. 90646 (Wooddale Avenue Bridge)
over Minnehaha Creek,
Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
Information for Section 106 Consultation
(SAP 120-150-011)
Prepared by
Charlene Roise
Hess, Roise and Company
100 North First Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419
January 2022
Prepared for
Mark Maves
Short Elliott Hendrickson
and
Chad Millner and Andrew Scipioni
Engineering Department
City of Edina
Bridge No. 90646, October 1937
(Minnesota Historical Society)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 1
Introduction
Bridge No. 90646, also known as the Wooddale
Avenue Bridge, spans Minnehaha Creek in Edina, an
early suburb of Minneapolis. The 21-foot-long
bridge, built in 1937, was a product of a depression-
era federal relief program. The construction crew
used readily available Platteville limestone for the
headwalls and for retaining walls along the
creekbank. The multiplate, corrugated-metal arch
structure features a single, 18-foot span. The bridge
was listed in the National Register in 2016 for its
significance in the areas of Politics/Government
(Criterion A) and Engineering (Criterion C) with a
period of significance of 1937. It is also an Edina Heritage Landmark.1
Over time, both the stone headwalls and retaining walls and the corrugated-metal arch have
deteriorated. Platteville limestone is a relatively weak building material. Moisture penetrates the
masonry units, where freeze-thaw cycles cause strata to separate and spall, a problem further
exacerbated by other causes. In the case of Bridge No. 90646, salt used to treat ice on the road
has sprayed up on the barrier, accelerating the decay. In addition, the height of the barriers does
not meet current standards and the deck can hold only a 31-foot-wide roadway and a narrow
sidewalk, inadequate to safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. The metal arch has
decayed from rust, a condition that is challenging to analyze and repair, and the concrete footings
have been undermined by scour.
To address these issues, the City of Edina is proposing to replace Bridge No. 90646. Because the
project needs a permit from the Saint Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), this
project must be reviewed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The
following report provides information to facilitate the Section 106 review of the proposed
undertaking.
This is the second Section 106 review involving the bridge. The first was in 2015, triggered by
another permit application submitted by the City of Edina to the Corps. That project proposed to
repair channel walls adjacent to the bridge that were damaged by flooding in 2014. A letter from
the Corps to Sarah Beimers at the State Historic Preservation Office stated: “Corps staff has
considered effects to archaeological resources and has determined there is a very low probability
of impacts to significant archaeological resources.” Based on this conclusion and on additional
information about the high degree of ground disturbance around the bridge site, the city assumes
that no additional archaeological evaluation is needed.2
1 Kelli Andre Kellerhals and Gregory R. Mathis, “Bridge No. 90646,” National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form, 2014, prepared by The 106 Group.
2 Tamara Cameron to Sarah Beimers, letter, August 14, 2015, at Engineering Department, Edina City Hall.
(hereafter ED-ECH).
Bridge No.
90646
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 2
Edina Context
When Euro-American explorers first came to this area, it “was part of the tribal estate of the
Mdewakanton Dakota, one of the most important native groups in Minnesota, who by circa 1800
had established several important villages along the lower Minnesota River.” The Dakota hunted,
fished, foraged, and farmed throughout the region, including the area now known as Edina, but
subsequent development erased most traces of this activity.3
As Euro-American settlers began arriving in the mid-nineteenth century, a fledging community
grew in the vicinity of what is now the intersection of Fiftieth Street and Wooddale Avenue.
Anchored by Waterville Mills, established in 1857 on Minnehaha Creek west of Wooddale, this
enclave was the second largest of three villages in Richfield Township, which was platted by
government surveyors in the early 1850s. The largest village, Richfield Mills, was also along
Minnehaha Creek, downstream on Lyndale Avenue. Although Richfield Mills became part of
Minneapolis as that city grew, “its influence on the early settlement patterns of the area is not to
be ignored,” historians William Scott and Jeffrey Hess observed. “As the commercial and
administrative center of the township, it undoubtedly stimulated the growth of neighboring
sections, including the area that was to become eastern Edina.” On the other end of the spectrum
was Cahill Settlement, the smallest and most rural of the communities. Centered at Cahill Road
and West Seventieth Street, this hamlet was populated predominantly by Irish-Catholic
immigrants.4
Most settlers drawn to Waterville Mills, on the other hand, were Protestant and traced their roots
to England, Scotland, and the East Coast. This trend was reinforced in 1869 when a Scotsman
bought the mill and changed its name to Edina Mills in honor of his motherland’s capital city,
Edinburgh. One of the only bridges across Minnehaha Creek was by the mill, which further
stimulated interest in the area. By the 1870s, it claimed a general store, post office, Episcopal
mission (Trinity Church), school, and a smattering of houses, including an elaborate brick
mansion erected by George Baird in 1886. A hall was built southeast of the intersection of
Fiftieth and Wooddale in 1879 to hold the expanding activities of the local Grange chapter,
established by area farm families several years earlier. This cluster of buildings had become a
well-established community center by the time the Village of Edina was incorporated in 1888,
although the area remained primarily agricultural.5
3 Robert C. Vogel, “Edina Historic Contexts,” 1999, 13, prepared by Robert C. Vogel & Associates for the City of
Edina Heritage Preservation Board.
4 William A. Scott and Jeffrey A. Hess, History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota (n.p.: City of Edina, 1981), 5-
6; Paul D. Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb: The History of Edina, Minnesota (Edina: Burgess Publishing,
1988), 9.
5 “Rural Edina: The First Seventy-five Years,” February 12, 1976, 7, 9-10, unattributed mimeograph in Hess Roise
collections; Scott and Hess, History and Architecture of Edina, 6-8, 34-35; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb,
10-11, 14-15; Vogel, “Edina Historic Contexts,” 18-20, 33-35. The Baird House at 4400 West Fiftieth Street is listed
in the National Register and locally designated. According to “Rural Edina,” millstones salvaged from the Edina
mill “can be seen at various locations in the village,” including one that “is embedded in the floor of the narthex of
St. Stephens Episcopal Church.”
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 3
By the early twentieth century, farming was on the decline as new residences filled former fields.
A sign of change was the composition of the membership of the Grange, which initially allowed
only full-time farmers to join. The organization gradually transformed into more of a social club,
reflecting the evolving community. “Of 140 dated Grange membership applications between
1920 and 1937, only two of the applicants were farmers,” historian Paul Hesterman reported.6
Growth intensified in the early twentieth century, particularly after developer Samuel Thorpe
purchased a farm of about three hundred acres extending east from Arden Avenue and south
from Forty-fourth Street to Fiftieth Street and Minnehaha Creek in 1922. Laying out a plat with
about 550 building lots, he “model[ed] his venture on J. C. Nichols’s Country Club District in
Kansas City, Missouri,” historians William Scott and Jeffrey Hess wrote. “Thorpe landscaped his
development with contoured streets, shade trees, parks, and an eighteen-hole golf course. He set
rigid building restrictions regarding minimum valuation, construction siting, architectural style,
and property maintenance,” as well as prohibitive racial covenants. Lots went on sale in 1924
and within six years the district had 269 houses. “This district was crucial in changing Edina
from a rural community to a suburb,” Hesterman asserted.7
Minnesota golf historian Rick Shefchik explained that “Thorpe was promoting family living,
golf, and convenience as all part of the same experience.” The site chosen for the country club
and golf course was south of Minnehaha Creek, with Wooddale Avenue as its eastern border.
The golf course’s first nine holes were ready by summer 1923 and the final nine opened the
following year. The clubhouse, originally oriented to Fiftieth Street, became a social center and
was quickly rebuilt after a fire in 1929.8
The original Country Club District was just the beginning of Thorpe’s vision. He obtained
control of large blocks of land around the district for subsequent developments and envisioned a
community center at the nexus of these holdings, where the Grange Hall was located. There was
a precedent for this idea—the Grange Hall had functioned as the office for the village
government and a community gathering space for decades. In January 1931, Thorpe Brothers
submitted the concept to the Village of Edina’s Zoning Commission at a meeting held at the
Grange Hall, but the proposal was not universally embraced. “There is considerable opposition”
to this location, the Edina Crier reported, because many felt “that this property should be
reserved for Park purposes—a continuation of the plan which Minneapolis has inaugurated for
the preservation of both banks of Minnehaha Creek.” By April, the village had held a special
election to authorize the council to establish a zoning ordinance, the first in the state. The
ordinance called for the civic center to be located at the southwest corner of the intersection.9
Yet another corner was endorsed in a 1933 report of the Country Club Association’s Projects,
Planning and Development Committee. It recommended that a park and civic center be
6 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 40.
7 The original section of the Country Club District was listed in the National Register in 1980. Sources: Scott and
Hess, History and Architecture of Edina, 13-14; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 58; Vogel, “Edina Historic
Contexts,” 44-46.
8 Rick Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways: Classic Golf Clubs of Minnesota (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2012), 248-249.
9 “Zoning Commission Discusses Fiftieth Street,” Edina Crier, January 1931, 7; “A Short History of the Zoning
Ordinance,” Edina Crier, April 1931, 1.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 4
developed on Block 18, a large parcel at the northwest corner of Fiftieth Street and Wooddale
Avenue. This was part of Edina’s initial planning for a park system, with the assistance of a
survey prepared by the Minneapolis Park Board. Of particular interest was “the beautification of
Minnehaha Creek with parks along the banks.”10
As it turned out, none of these locations was to hold the civic center. It was established several
blocks to the west, near the golf course’s northwest corner, where the Grange Hall was moved in
1935. The building remained the center of government until the village built a new hall in 1942.
The hall’s former site was soon transformed by construction of Saint Stephen the Martyr
Episcopal Church, completed in 1939 as the new home for a congregation established early in
1937.11
Between Saint Stephen’s and the country club was the Wooddale Avenue Bridge over
Minnehaha Creek, a critical link in the developing community. No road was shown south of
Fiftieth Street in this location in a 1913 Hennepin County atlas. An article in the Edina Crier in
1937, though, claimed that the crossing had been served by a bridge that had “floated down from
Old Fiftieth street [by the Edina mill] with an ice jam some forty years ago” (in 1906), which
took out both the bridge and the mill dam. The dam was replaced by a concrete structure and a
new bridge was built by the mill, but the old bridge did not go to waste. The millwright, who also
served as the village street commissioner at the time, “needed a bridge to provide easy access to
his mill” from the southeast and “set the runaway bridge on the half-section line, which is now
the center line of Wooddale avenue.” County records suggest there was an earlier bridge at this
crossing that was washed out by the 1906 flood.12
By the 1930s, the aging bridge at Wooddale Avenue was in need of replacement. Thanks to
depression-era relief programs, over half of the $3,500 cost of a new bridge was provided by
Works Progress Administration labor. The remainder was split by the village and Hennepin
County. Plans for the new structure, Bridge No. 281, were prepared by the county and dated
April 1937. They called for a 40'-long, corrugated-steel arch bridge with a 28'-4"-wide roadway
edged on both sides by 4'-wide sidewalks and 2'-wide stone railing posts. Single 6" by 6" timber
guard rails ran between the posts. The plans proposed sheathing the posts and headwalls with an
estimated 124 cubic yards of uncoursed, irregularly finished stone, giving the bridge a “rustic
character” that would “blend with the wooded background of the surrounding area,” the Edina
Crier observed.13
At the same time, though, Saint Stephen’s was planning a limestone ashlar facade for its English
Gothic edifice just northeast of the bridge. Within a short time, the bridge material had changed
to limestone ashlar “to harmonize with the new edifice of St. Stephen’s Episcopal church soon to
10 “Report of the Projects, Planning and Development Committee, Country Club Association, April 11, 1933,”
Edina Crier, May 1933, 5-8.
11 “Edina,” Select Twin Citian, October 1962, 43; “Rural Edina: The First Seventy-five Years,” 10.
12 “Runaway Bridge to Be Replaced,” Edina Crier, May 1937, 3, 6; “Havoc Wrought by Breaking of Old Dam at
Edina Mills,” Minneapolis Tribune, June 3, 1906; “Board of County Commissioners,” Minneapolis Tribune, January
24, 1907; 1913 Hennepin Co Atlas (Minneapolis: Hennepin County, 1913), Village of Edina sheet, at John R.
Borchart Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Edina subject files, Hess, Roise and Company,
Minneapolis.
13 “Runaway Bridge to Be Replaced”; copies of original plans for bridge at ED-ECH.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 5
be built nearby.” Ben Moore, who headed the church’s building committee, was also the village
recorder, a highly visible and influential position. By July, the bridge foundations were in place
and segments of the corrugated-steel arch were being installed.14
Saint Stephen’s and the new Wooddale Avenue Bridge reflected a new wave of Edina’s
development to the south. In September 1936, the Edina Crier ran a lengthy article about the
“Wooddale Section,” an expansion of the Country Club District. Samuel Thorpe had acquired a
forty-acre tract east of Wooddale Avenue between Fiftieth and Fifty-second Streets “years ago.”
A recent survey had produced a plat with twenty-six lots on about thirteen acres edged by
Minnehaha Creek to the north and east. The plat was “approved and accepted” by Edina’s village
council in November.15
As with Thorpe’s original district, utilities and streets (Wooddale Lane and Wooddale Court
[now Wooddale Glen]) were installed by the developer prior to selling the lots and were initially
maintained by the Country Club District Service Corporation. “Restrictions to be established will
be of the same general character as those applicable in the present Country Club District,” the
Edina Crier reported, “with such modifications as experience has shown to be desirable.
Minimum size of houses will probably be regulated by square feet of floor area rather than cost.”
Trees on the heavily wooded land would be preserved when possible. “In all probability the idea
of a uniform set-back from the street will be abandoned in favor of the idea of locating each
house with some regard to trees, outlook and the contour of the site, as well as with due regard to
the effect on adjoining property and the appearance of the whole district when developed.” In
contrast to the formal layout of the original Country Club District, the Wooddale Section would
be more informal “to appeal to those who like the rustic sylvan effect of artistic custom-planned
homes, built apparently carelessly, but actually very carefully and thoughtfully.” By August
1937, the paper counted “six houses . . . finished or . . . being built” in the Wooddale Section.16
At the end of 1938, Thorpe Brothers moved its tract office from West Forty-ninth Street (now
Country Club Road) to a more visible location, the northeast corner of Fiftieth Street and
Wooddale Avenue. The following year, a zoning controversy erupted when a developer proposed
to erect an apartment building at the intersection’s southwest corner. After consulting with
George Harold and Herman Olson, planners from Saint Paul and Minneapolis, the village
council amended the zoning ordinance to allow construction of only one- and two-family
residences on either corner. The site of the tract office was platted as Edina Court soon thereafter
and was filled with single-family houses in the following decade.17
While Edina gained a number of new structures in addition to Saint Stephen’s and the Wooddale
Avenue Bridge during the Great Depression, construction virtually stopped during World War II.
This period was “a time of consolidation,” Hesterman wrote, when “the qualitative changes of
the 1920s were assimilated and new institutions securing a new sense of community were formed
14 “Limestone Face for New Bridge,” Edina Crier, July 1937, 9.
15 “Announce ‘Wooddale Section’ Layout,” Edina Crier, September 1936, 9.
16 “Announce ‘Wooddale Section’ Layout”; “Plat for Country Club District-Wooddale Section,” 1936, at ED-ECH;
“Urban Edina Builds 125 Homes; Six new ‘Sections’ Adjoin District,” Edina Crier August 1937, 1, 7.
17 “Firm to Move Tract Office,” Edina Crier, November 1938, 17; “Council Zones Darr Property for One, Two
Family Houses,” Edina Crier, September 1939, 1.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 6
and tested.” Another development boom would arrive in the post-World War II years, filling in
formerly rural areas with residential subdivisions.18
18 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 73.
Plat of Wooddale Section of Country Club District, 1936. (Hennepin County Library)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 7
Area of Potential Effect
The section discusses the rational for the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effect (APE),
illustrated below, and assesses the properties in the APE.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 8
The area surrounding Bridge No. 90646 is heavily wooded. To the northeast is the sprawling
complex of Saint Stephen’s church, a visual barrier. It largely blocks the bridge from view from
the property across Fiftieth Street east of Wooddale Avenue, where Edina Court was developed
in the 1950s. Edina Court lots are also wooded, especially at the intersection. As a result, the
areas north and east of Saint Stephen’s were excluded from the APE.
Top: Looking northeast from the bridge; Saint Stephen’s blocks the view to Fiftieth Street.
Bottom: Edina Court with Fiftieth Street in the foreground and Wooddale Avenue to left,
looking northwest.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 9
Wooddale Park and Utley Park have a visual connection to bridge to the northwest. These
properties are included in the APE.
Top: Looking north on Wooddale Avenue towards Fiftieth Street from the bridge. Utley Park
and Wooddale Park are west (left) of Wooddale Avenue.
Bottom: Looking east towards the bridge from Utley Park.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 10
The area southwest of the bridge is occupied by the Edina Country Club. Although trees and
topography limit the visual connection between these properties, the country club, including the
entire golf course, is included in the APE.
Top: Looking north on Wooddale Avenue with an entrance to the country club on the left and
the bridge in the background.
Bottom: Looking northeast towards the bridge from in front of the country club clubhouse.
The bridge is in the background near the center of the photograph.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 11
To the southeast is the Wooddale Section of the Country Club District, developed in the late
1930s and early 1940s. Houses along Minnehaha Creek on the north side of Wooddale Lane, as
well as 5105 Wooddale Avenue, are included in the APE. The house south of 5105 Wooddale
Avenue, 5107 Wooddale Avenue, was built in 2010, replacing a house dating from around the
time the Wooddale Section was platted. Views of the bridge from that property are very limited
and the bridge’s visibility becomes even more limited from properties further to the south. This
justifies stopping the APE on the east side of the street at 5105 Wooddale Avenue.
Top: Looking north on Wooddale Avenue at its intersection with Wooddale Lane. The east
railing of the bridge is visible on the far left.
Bottom: Looking east on Wooddale Lane from Wooddale Avenue.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 12
The APE includes the following properties:
Address Current name (historic) Inventory # Status
Wooddale Ave. over
Minnehaha Creek
Bridge No. 90646 (Bridge No. 281;
Wooddale Avenue Bridge)
HE-EDC-0633 Listed in NRHP
4439 W. 50th Street Saint Stephen the Martyr Episcopal
Church
HE-EDC-0578 Previously
inventoried, not
assessed
4500 W. 50th Street Wooddale Park (Woodlawn School) HE-EDC-0555 Previously
inventoried;
demolished
4521 W. 50th Street Utley Park HE-EDC-0668 Not previously
inventoried
5100 Wooddale Ave. Edina Country Club (Thorpe
Country Club)
HE-EDC-0662 Not previously
inventoried
5105 Wooddale Ave. House HE-EDC-0663 Not previously
inventoried
5009 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0664 Not previously
inventoried
5011 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0665 Not previously
inventoried
5013 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0666 Not previously
inventoried
5015 Wooddale Lane Blackbourn House HE-EDC-0579 Previously
inventoried, not
assessed
5029 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0667 Not previously
inventoried
Bridge No. 90646/Wooddale Avenue Bridge (HE-EDC-0633) over Minnehaha Creek
The structure was listed in the National Register in 2016 and became an Edina Heritage
Landmark the following year. Built in 1937, its history is well-documented in the National
Register nomination. As the verbal boundary description explains, the nominated property
comprises only the bridge: “A rectangle measuring 21.0 feet long by 40.4 feet wide with a center
axis that coincides with the centerline of the bridge, whose corners encompass the edges of the
bridge’s abutments and with a perimeter that encompasses the entire bridge.” The nomination
was completed May 2, 2014, and does not mention the damage from flooding that year. In the
analysis of integrity, the nomination notes “some minor deterioration, including rusting of the
bolt connections on the steel arch, spalling and expansion of the Platteville limestone, and
deterioration of portions of the parapet walls.” All in all, the integrity of the bridge was found to
be “excellent.” There is little discussion of the immediate setting except for an observation that
“at this location the creek is narrow and rocky, and has sloped banks which are covered with
dense growth of small trees and shrubs.”19
19 Kellerhals and Mathis, “Bridge No. 90646.”
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 13
The stone channel walls adjacent to the bridge also likely date from the 1930s. They have
deteriorated over time despite the city’s maintenance efforts. An inspection report in 1980, for
example, noted a “washout” along the northwest retaining wall. Also, “drainage should be to the
south catch basins; at the present time water flows over curb and down bank.” The problems had
been addressed by the following year, but in 1987 the upstream retaining walls needed repair
again. There were also issues with the railings/headwalls and metal arch. The 1994 report
mentioned “scaling” of the “limestone guard rail.” Surface rust and “freckled rust” was
“prevalent” on the metal arch by 1996 and the northeast and northwest wingwalls were being
undermined. By 1998, scour along the north abutment was causing settlement of the pavement in
the roadway’s southbound lane. Engineers recommended countering this erosion by placing
riprap at the wingwalls. A few years later, they recommended reconstructing the northwest
retaining wall and placing riprap along the bridge footings. By 2004, erosion at the northeast
slope required “corrective action.” The general condition of the bridge was rated “fair-good” by
the 2006 report, which also noted that “the structure has been reclassified as a culvert,”
apparently because of its 18-foot span length. (Bridges are now defined as having spans of 20
feet or more; shorter spans are considered culverts.) Photographs accompanying the 2008 report
documented “masonry railing components . . . crumbling throughout.” They also showed an
insulated utility pipe that crossed the creek below the deck, piercing the metal arch. The pipe was
apparently removed by the following year and the holes in the arch patched. The 2010 report
noted scour undermining the wingwalls and the north footing.20
Flooding in 2014 produced more dramatic changes, causing large sections of two of the channel
walls to collapse. The city engineer prepared plans for repairing the damage in 2015 in
consultation with the Corps of Engineers and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Implementation was anticipated for spring 2016 subject to the availability of funding, but
flooding that year resulted in further deterioration. By 2020, riprap had replaced the northeast
wingwall and engineers recommended the same approach for the southwest wingwall, which had
collapsed.21
In the meantime, the headwalls/railings also continued to deteriorate, a process exemplified by
the bridge’s “WPA 1937” plaque. It was in place when the National Register nomination was
prepared, but the stone framing it decayed rapidly thereafter. At some point, the surrounding
stone and mortar disintegrated and the plaque fell onto the sidewalk. A neighbor salvaged the
plaque and gave it to the city. It is currently stored at city hall.22
Photographs illustrating conditions over time are on the following pages. The photographer of
the images from 2005 is unknown. Photographs dating from 2013 are from LHB and Mead and
Hunt. Both the 2005 and 2013 photographs are available from Edina’s Engineering Department.
Photographs taken in 2021-2022 are by the author.
20 Kellerhals and Mathis, “Bridge No. 90646”; Inspection reports for Bridge No. 90646, at ED-ECH.
21 Hans Erickson, TKDA, to Melissa Jenny, Saint Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, memorandum,
September 29, 2015, at ED-ECH.
22 Kellerhals and Mathis, “Bridge No. 90646,” 7-5, Photo 9.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 14
Above: Looking northwest at the new bridge
in 1937. (Minnesota Historical Society)
Left: The new bridge was featured on the
cover of the Edina Crier in September 1937.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 15
Photographs of the east headwall and creek walls taken in 2005 (top) and August 2021
(bottom). Looking southwest.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 16
The top photograph is from a 2006 bridge inspection report prepared by TKDA for the Edina
City Engineer, March 21, 2007, 11 (at ED-ECH). It appears to be of the west headwall,
looking east, and shows the stone detail around opening with the drainage pipe. A similar
detail was used at other corners including the northeast (bottom), photographed in 2013.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 17
The southeast corner of the bridge including the stone detail around the pipe, looking south.
The images are from 2013 (top) and 2021 (bottom).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 18
Detail of the east limestone headwall and metal arch, looking southwest (top).
Looking west beneath the bridge. Circular areas where a pipe once penetrated the arch are
visible in the background. Both photographs are from 2021.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 19
The south foundation looking southwest (top) and a detail of the east end of the north
foundation looking northwest (bottom) in 2021.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 20
The south approach looking north in 2021 (top) and the roadway side of the east railing
looking southeast in 2013 (bottom).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 21
The southeast end of the railing with the “WPA 1937” plaque in 2005 (top) and 2013
(bottom).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 22
The plaque was in place in 2013 (top) but the stone around it was decaying. By 2021, the
plaque had fallen out (bottom).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 23
The roadway side of the west railing in 2005 looking southwest (top), and in 2013 looking
northwest (bottom).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 24
The south end of the west
railing, looking north (left),
and the west railing/headwall,
looking north-northeast
(below), both showing 2013
conditions.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 25
The west railing/headwall looking east-southeast in 2021.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 26
Saint Stephen the Martyr Episcopal Church, 4429-4441 50th Street West (HE-EDC-0578)
This English Gothic church occupies a site bounded by Fiftieth Street to the north, Wooddale
Avenue to the west, Minnehaha Creek to the south, and residences to the east. The facade is clad
in rough-faced limestone ashlar laid in random rangework. The main entry faces west. Steps lead
to a pair of wood doors recessed in a smooth-faced limestone, compound Gothic arch. A
substantial, buttressed tower rises above, holding a Gothic-arch, stained-glass window with stone
tracery directly over the door.
The building’s long axis parallels Fiftieth Street. The steep, slate-sheathed, gable roof over the
nave is flanked by lower, shed-roofed, aisle bays, which display a series of lancet-shaped
stained-glass windows with smooth-faced limestone surrounds. The roof’s elevation drops where
a transept crosses at the nave’s east end. On the north facade west of the transept, an open, gable-
roofed, porch has ornamental timber posts and trim supported by a stone base. Enclosed links
connect the church with a single-story parish house to the east and a gable-roofed chapel to the
south. Like the nave, the buildings are clad in limestone and take advantage of the site’s slope to
introduce openings on lower levels.
The church was built by an Episcopalian congregation. This religion came to the area in 1872
when Episcopalians established a mission church, Trinity, near what is now the northwest corner
of Fiftieth Street and France Avenue. In 1925, it was moved north to clear a site for a new
building. Trinity Chapel continues to stand at 4924 France Avenue, although it has been altered
repeatedly to serve various uses.23
Many decades later, another congregation adopted the name Saint Stephen the Martyr and
erected the church at the corner of Wooddale Avenue and Fiftieth Street. Saint Stephen, an early
convert to Christianity, became a deacon and was stoned to death in 36 CE for defending his
faith. Considered the first Christian martyr, he is the patron saint of deacons and, somewhat
ironically, stonemasons. The congregation formed in spring 1937 and by June had acquired the
former Grange Hall site. It quickly raised money for the project, estimated to cost $35,000, by
promoting the building “as a boon to the community, as well as to the spiritual lives of its
members,” according to Hesterman. “The arguments they used show how spiritual and social
values intertwined with economic considerations in the lifestyle Edinans were working to
create.”24
The congregation hired local architect Louis Bersbach to draw up plans for the church. A
rendering of the edifice was featured on the cover of the Edina Crier in July.25 The newspaper
reported in August that excavation would be starting “immediately” although the fundraising
23 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Jeffrey A. Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina, Minnesota,” July 6, 1979,
54, prepared for the Edina Heritage Preservation Board. The SHPO inventory number for Trinity Chapel is HE-
EDC-0581.
24 “St. Stephen, Christian Martyr,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed January 18, 2022,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Stephen; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 86; “Episcopalians to
Build New Church,” Edina Crier, June 1937, 1; “Progress of St. Stephen’s Building Direct to Be Reported at Dinner
September 22,” Edina Crier, September 1937, 1.
25 “Hope Digging May Start in August,” Edina Crier, July 1937, 5.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 27
campaign had not yet met its goal. The
excavation contractor, J. A. Danens and Sons,
anticipated removing around 3,000 cubic yards of
dirt from the site. An article in September said
construction should start the following month and
finishing the “Sunday school unit” was a priority.
Photographs of work in progress were published
in the December Edina Crier.26
The design for the church, though, was
apparently not finalized. In early 1938, the
congregation hired Boston architects Cram and
Ferguson “to pass on the church plans.” The
Edina Crier reported that the firm had “planned
and supervised the building of some of the largest
and most outstanding church edifices of this
country and abroad and are considered deans of
church architects.” The newspaper explained that
the “building is planned to allow for future
expansion and at the same time provide a
complete practical working unit. A fireproof
stone structure, it will provide a beautiful English
Gothic church nave with adequate facilities for
present needs and yet readily adaptable to future
growth.” The March issue said plans were
awaiting “final approval” from Cram and
Ferguson, which apparently was received that
month. By April, “final detailed plans are being
rushed by Architect Louis Bersbach preparatory
to putting the building plans out for contractor’s
bids.”27
A photograph of the groundbreaking ceremony
on July 25, 1938, appeared on the cover of the
Edina Crier the following month. It depicted Ben
Moore, chair of the building committee and the
village recorder, holding a shovel and talking
with the rector, Elliott Marston, while others
looked on. Although the congregation hoped its
new home would be ready for services by
26 “To Start Digging for New Church,” Edina Crier, August 1937, 1, 6; “Progress of St. Stephen’s,” 1, 5; “Work
Progressing on St. Stephen’s Church” (photographs), December 1937, 10.
27 “Boston Architects Study New St. Stephen’s Plans,” Edina Crier, February 1938, 1; “Cover Carries St. Stephen’s
Chancel,” Edina Crier, March 1938, 1; “View of Approved St. Stephen’s along Fiftieth Street,” Edina Crier, April
1938, 15.
Above: Bersback’s rendering on the cover of
the Edina Crier, July 1937.
Below: Photographs of the excavation
underway, Edina Crier, December 1937.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 28
Christmas 1938, it was finally completed and
dedicated in March 1939. The total cost of the
project was around $70,000.28
The congregation and architects of the original
structure were correct in anticipating that the
building would be expanded. A single-story
frame and stone parish house measuring 80 feet
wide and 121 feet long was added east of the
original building in 1951 at an estimated cost of
$146,000. An extension of the original building’s
front (west) facade in 1955 created a new entry
with a tower rising above it. A permit pulled by
Watson Construction Company in June of that
year gave the dimensions of the new “entrance
and auditorium” as 39 feet wide by 36 feet deep.
The construction contract was valued at $90,000.
The extension directly south of the church was
constructed in 1967 to hold a chapel, classrooms,
and an activity room. Plans for the project were
prepared by the local architectural firm
Raugland, Entrekin, Domholt, and King.29
Changes were also made to the interior from time
to time. A 1993 project involved remodeling
offices, converting a stage area to a choir room,
and combining classrooms to create a children’s
chapel. The church’s kitchen was renovated the
following year. Mechanical and fire protection
systems were upgraded as necessary, and air-
conditioning was installed. 30
Most plans for renovations in recent years were
prepared by Miller Dunwiddie Architects, which
specializes in projects involving historic properties. They developed a three-phase
comprehensive preservation plan in 1999 that included improving accessibility among its goals.
The first phase replaced the HVAC system in the church and parish house and remodeled offices
in the parish houses. The second addressed exterior maintenance. The third, which was not
implemented for financial reasons, proposed a new two-story structure between the church and
chapel.31
28 “Progress of St. Stephen’s Building”; “New Episcopal Edifice Is Dedicated,” Edina Crier, April 1939, 7.
29 Saint Stephen’s Church building records, at ED-ECH.
30 Saint Stephen’s Church building records, at ED-ECH.
31 Saint Stephen’s Church building records, at ED-ECH.
Top: This photograph was taken March 14,
1939, around the time Saint Stephen’s
opened. (Minnesota Historical Society)
Bottom: The front (west) facade was
extended with completion of the tower in
1955. (1956; Norton and Peel, photographer;
Minnesota Historical Society)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 29
The 1979 architectural survey of Edina recommended Saint Stephen’s designation as a local
landmark for its significance “as an especially faithful interpretation of an English country
church.” A historian is in the process of preparing a National Register nomination for the
property. This appears justified under Criterion C for the building’s architectural significance
and perhaps under Criterion A for its role in social history, although further research would be
needed to make that determination. Because the property is significant for its architecture, not
religious aspects, it meets Criteria Consideration A. Although the complex has received a
number of additions over time, it retains very good integrity. Most of the additions appear to be
significant in their own right and all respect the character of the original structure.32
Site of Wooddale School (now Wooddale Park), 4500 West Fiftieth Street (HE-EDC-0555)
Wooddale School opened its doors at
the northwest corner of Fiftieth Street
and Wooddale Avenue in 1926 and
remained part of the Edina school
system until 1980. Elevated on a high
basement, the two-story brick structure
received a rear addition in 1936.
Designed by the architectural firm Sund
and Dunham, the school displayed the
Spanish Colonial style. “The main
entrance is recessed behind a stone-arch
arcade supported by stone columns,”
Scott and Hess wrote. “Above is a
curvilinear parapet centered over the
32 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,” 49, 72.
Left: The south facade of Saint Stephen’s before construction of the chapel and other additions.
(Bruce Sifford Studio, photographer; Minnesota Historical Society)
Right: The same perspective today.
Wooddale Park, 2021, looking northwest from the
intersection of Wooddale Avenue (right) and Fiftieth
Street.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 30
second-story windows. The windows are set in a panel embellished with twisted columns, finials,
and a broken pediment.” Closed as a school in 1980, the building was vacant when Scott and
Hess published their architectural history a year later. Although they identified the school as “an
important architectural and historical adjunct of the Country Club District” that “merits
continued preservation,” the school was demolished in 1985 and the site is now Wooddale
Park.33
Utley Park, 4521 West Fiftieth Street (HE-EDC-0668)
Wooddale Avenue forms the eastern boundary of this six-acre park, which has a memorial to
Edina veterans at its east end. The memorial started in 1955 as a flagpole on a stone base and
was greatly expanded in 2015 with granite pavers, bronze and polished granite plaques,
additional flagpoles, benches, and extensive landscaping. The park’s northern edge is delineated
by Fiftieth Street, which provides access to a large, asphalt-paved parking lot near the center of
the park. A park maintenance building with public restrooms is adjacent to the parking lot to the
east, and picnic grounds and a small, modern gazebo are between the parking lot and the
memorial. Two tennis courts and a basketball court are west of the parking lot. Trees are
scattered across the moved lawn that covers much of the park. A dense concentration of trees
lines Minnehaha Creek, which edges the park to the south and west. The Edina Country Club is
beyond the creek.
“The family household of Edina pioneer miller and Founding Father Andrew Craik had once
stood on this spot,” according to a local historian. By the 1930s, it was known as the Darr
property and a water tower was its main feature. The tower was apparently erected by the
Country Club District Service Company, created by Samuel Thorpe to obtain and operate a water
and sewer system for the community he developed. The company initially obtained water from
the City of Minneapolis, but the supply became strained by the early 1930s as both communities
33 Scott and Hess, History and Architecture of Edina, 61-62; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 55, 58, 64.
Left: Wooddale School around 1940. (Lee Brothers, photographer; Minnesota Historical Society)
Right: The site (Block 18) in 1941. (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Minneapolis, Minnesota (New
York: Sanborn Map Company, 1941), vol. 6A, plate 718; at Library of Congress, www.loc.gov)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 31
grew. The problem was somewhat ameliorated in 1936 when the company drilled artesian wells.
This was perhaps when the water tower was installed on the future park site. It appears in the
background of a 1937 photograph of the newly erected Wooddale Avenue Bridge and on a
Sanborn map updated to 1951. The date it was removed is not known.34
By 1966, Edina’s “park system had evolved into a source of civic pride, growing from one park
with 2.5 usable acres in 1955 to 22 parks and 425 improved acres.” Utley appears to have the
honor of being that first park. Its creation was serendipitous. In 1939, a developer proposed an
apartment building and stores on the site, which was strongly opposed by Country Club
residents. The village council defeated the plan by rezoning the parcel, as well as property on the
northeast corner of the intersection, for one- and two-family residential use.35
This was part of a larger plan to make Fiftieth Street from France Avenue to Highway 100 “one
of the most beautiful streets to be found anywhere,” a “miniature Pennsylvania avenue,”
according to a lead story in the September 1939 issue of the Edina Crier. “In order to solve a lot
of problems all at once, among them the problem of ‘what to do’ about the controversial issue of
the Darr Property, the village council sometime back commissioned Mr. A. R. Nichols of the
well-known planning firm of Morrell and Nichols to draft some preliminary plans.” He proposed
retaining the existing 40-foot width of the roadway but expanding the right of way west of
Halifax Avenue. This 100- to 120-foot corridor would hold “planting easements” with
“evergreens, shrubbery, trees, flowers—even gardens and retaining walls.”36
The plan called for the Darr property to be “divided into five lots approximately 80 feet wide and
200 feet deep, with a ‘screen’ of beauty” separating the lots from Fiftieth Street. This concept
was not implemented, though, and the property’s fate remained in limbo until the village bought
the site for a public park. After World War II, a group of citizens sought to establish a veterans’
memorial on the land “but the noble endeavor clashed with post-war development urgencies,” a
local historian explained. Nothing happened until 1955 when Edina’s American Legion Post No.
471 installed a memorial flagpole “dedicated to the men and women who honorably served their
country in times of war and peace.”37
It is not clear when the park was named in honor of Harold C. Utley, who had served on the
Edina Village Council and was a director of the Edina Civic Improvement Association. This
perhaps occurred after he died in 1963. At that time, he was living at 4604 Browndale Avenue, a
few blocks north of the park. In addition his work as an accountant at Ernst and Ernst, where he
34 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 59, 78-80, 92; Marshall Schwartz, “Edina Veterans Memorial, A Lasting
Tribute,” 2015/2017, 4, prepared as part of the Edina, Minnesota Veterans Memorial Project, Edina Historical
Society.
35 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 82, 92-93; “Council to Act on Re-zoning Problem,” Edina Crier, August
1939, 1; “Council Zones Darr Property for One, Two Family Houses”; Schwartz, “Edina Veterans Memorial, A
Lasting Tribute,” 3.
36 “Edina Plans ‘Little’ Pennsylvania Avenue,” Edina Crier, August 1939, 1, 4.
37 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 82, 92-93; Schwartz, “Edina Veterans Memorial, A Lasting Tribute,” 3.
The dedication quote is taken from a bronze plaque at the flagpole’s base.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 32
had become a partner by the time of his
retirement in 1960, Utley belonged to the
Minikahda Club, the American Legion, and a
number of other organizations.38
Over time, the park was improved with a single-
story brick maintenance/restroom building, two
tennis courts, a full basketball court, picnic
benches, a small wood gazebo, and a parking lot.
The east end underwent a major change through
the efforts of a committee created in 2010 to
develop a memorial to the city’s war veterans.
The next year the committee hired landscape
architects at Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to
prepare a design. A newspaper reported in
November 2011 that “the memorial will be a ‘V’
shaped granite plaza—for ‘victory’—that widens
to a black granite wall topped by a bronze eagle
landing on a wreath. The wall, which will have a
shelf for bouquets and other memorials, will bear
the names of thirty-two Edina residents who died
in conflicts dating back to the Civil War. The
edge of the plaza will feature three flag poles and
benches backed by plantings of ornamental
grasses.” (The memorial ultimately featured the names of thirty-four community residents who
died during World War I and later conflicts.) The city would contribute up to $30,000 towards
the project’s estimated budget of $400,000, with donations and grants covering the rest. Planners
hoped to have the memorial completed by July 4, 2012, but fundraising was slow as the country
struggled to recover from a recession. A groundbreaking ceremony for the project was held in
September 2014 and the completed project was dedicated on Memorial Day 2015.39
The significance of Utley Park has not been previously assessed. The park’s function as a
memorial to local veterans was first realized in a modest way in 1955, years after the initial
concept was proposed, by the installation of a flagpole. The intent was more fully implemented
by the 2015 memorial, which dominates the eastern end of the park. To the west, the park is an
agglomeration of elements—a picnic area, restroom/maintenance building, parking lot, and
sports courts—dating from different eras. Like Wooddale Park across Fiftieth Street, the park’s
design is utilitarian, responding to the needs and desires of local residents. It does not appear to
meet any of the National Register criteria for significance. Even if it did, the prominent 2015
memorial, which is too new to be considered a contributing feature under National Register
guidelines, would compromise the park’s historic integrity.
38 “Harold C. Utley” (obituary), Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 23, 1963.
39 Mary Jane Smetanka, “Edina Veterans Memorial Plans Proceed,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 9, 2011;
Mary Jane Smetanka, “Edina’s Veterans Memorial Approved,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 23, 2011;
Schwartz, “Edina Veterans Memorial,” 4-6, 96.
The1955 memorial flagpole (top) and 2015
memorial (bottom) in 2021.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 33
Edina County Club, 5100 Wooddale Drive (HE-EDC-0662)
Developer S. S. Thorpe Sr. purchased a large parcel in the semi-rural village of Edina in the early
1920s for an upscale residential subdivision, the Country Club District. He dedicated a large plat
of farmland southwest of Fiftieth Street and Wooddale Avenue for the subdivision’s namesake
facility, originally called the Thorpe Country Club. The golf course would not be the first in
Edina—some members of Minneapolis’s Bryn Mawr Golf Club split off and founded the
Interlachen Country Club in 1909, purchasing three farms in western Edina to establish a course
the following year. Interlachen, though, “had little early effect on the village” of Edina,
according to Hesterman. Thorpe’s club “was designed as a civic center for the new residents” of
the Country Club District—“a bond holding them together.”40
A 1922 promotional brochure stated that the facility “covers one hundred and twenty acres of
rich gently rolling land. . . . A picturesque and interesting 6,350 yard course [was] originally
planned by Mr. Tom Bendalow [sic] [with] the engineering by Mr. Paul L. Mueller.” Other
sources, though, assert that the course’s initial nine holes were laid out by a local golfer, James
A. Hunter, and ready for the 1923 season. The next year, the course was modified and enlarged
to eighteen holes by Tom Bendelow, a prominent pioneering golf course architect. In any event,
Bendelow was primarily responsible for the ultimate design of the original eighteen-hole course.
After becoming a skilled golfer as young man in Scotland, he arrived in New York in 1892 and
soon made a career in emerging golf industry. In 1895, he set up courses in the area to promote
golf on behalf of sporting goods producer A. G. Spalding and Brothers. Three years later, he was
hired by New York City’s Parks Department to redesign, reconstruct, and direct operations at
one of the nation’s first public golf courses, Van Cortlandt. His next move was to Chicago,
where he managed Spalding’s golf department and set up or improved more than five hundred
courses around the country. 41
He left Spalding in 1920 to become chief designer for American Park Builders, established by
Myron West in 1912. The firm specialized in city planning and landscape architecture,
“designing comprehensive city plans, subdivisions, country clubs and golf courses, city park
systems, and even cemeteries throughout the United States and Canada,” according to historian
Carolyn Bennett. “Golf courses were of particular interest to Myron West. . . . [He] developed a
‘turn-key’ operation that enabled a community to organize itself and to establish a stand-alone
park or to choose a park design that would include a golf course and accompanying club house.”
It was during his time at American Park Builders that Bendelow “undertook some of his biggest
if not most notable design efforts,” according to a biographer. “Among his many designs were
Lakewood County Club in Colorado; Dubsdread Golf Course in Orlando, Florida; Evansville
Municipal in Indiana; City Park Municipal in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and the three courses at
Medinah Country Club in Illinois, which may be some of his finest design work.” Bendelow’s
40 Paul Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981 (n.p.: Edina Country Club, [1981]), n.p.; Hesterman, From Settlement
to Suburb, 61; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 67.
41 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 60; Shefchik, From Fields to
Fairways,” 248; Stuart Bendelow, “Bendelow, Tom,” in Shaping the American Landscape, ed. Charles A. Birnbaum
and Stephanie S. Foell (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 20-22.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 34
courses in Baton Rouge and Denver, both named City Park Golf Course, are listed in the
National Register. The Edina Country Club course dates from this period.42
A history of the Edina club notes the layout was “a businessman’s golf course” because most of
the holes were oriented north-south, with only a few aligned east-west. “This enables after-
working-hours golfers to avoid driving into the late afternoon setting sun,” and “when wives of
members play their golf in the mornings, they also receive the benefit of Hunter’s planning, with
a bare minimum of holes playing into the bright morning sun.”43
According to a 1922 promotional
brochure, “The putting greens are of
genuine Creeping Bent Grass, planted
from stolons or runners by the new
vegetative method of planting,” and
“there are over 750 large oak trees on the
course.” The club history, though,
reported that in 1931, “the golf course
was practically barren of trees with only
a few Lombardy poplars breaking the
view to every hole from the
clubhouse.”44
The clubhouse, built at an estimated cost
of $60,000, opened in summer 1924.
Located at the north end of the course
along Fiftieth Street, it was described in
a Thorpe Brothers brochure that year:
“From the entrance on Fiftieth Street a
stairway leads to the main floor. On the
right is the lounge with its large
fireplace, and screened porch. On the left
is the dining room and grill room. . . .
There is a roomy porch overlooking the
course across the entire front of the main
building.” The building’s amenities were
not enjoyed for long; it was destroyed by
fire in 1929. A replacement was soon
erected in the same location.45
42 Bendelow, “Bendelow, Tom,” 20-22; Lillie Petit Gallagher, “Myron Howard West, Founder, American Park
Builders, Inc.,” in Vineyard 6, no. 1 (2005): 5; Carolyn Bennett, “Historic City Park and Golf Course, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana,” in Vineyard 6, no. 1 (2005): 4-6.
43 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.; Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 60; Shefchik, From Fields to
Fairways, 248.
44 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 249-250.
45 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 60; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 248-249.
Above: The course had few trees in this 1937 view.
(Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 252)
Below: An aerial view of the course’s layout in 2022.
(https://gis.hennepin.us/Property/Map/Default.aspx)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 35
The golf program began to mature with the arrival of the club’s fourth head professional, Arnold
Chester, in 1931. After beginning his career in his native Canada, Chester came to the Twin
Cities in 1926 to assist Minneapolis Golf Club pro Ernest Penford. He would remain at the Edina
course for thirty-one years. In 1941, he also became the club’s general manager. Two years after
Chester moved to the Edina club, it hosted the Minnesota State Open, the first of many local
tournaments that would use the links. Its first national tournament, the Women’s Trans-
Mississippi in 1939, was won by Patty Berg from the nearby Interlachen club.46
It was early in Chester’s tenure that the club undertook “the first of what would be a nearly
endless series of course renovations,” according to Shefchik. The changes to Bedelow’s design
were based on recommendations from prominent golf course architect A. W. Tillinghast in
1936.47
The club faced a major challenge shortly after World War II as a result of the baby boom. When
Edina needed a site for a new school for junior high and high school students, the school board
announced its intent to take nearly thirty-one acres of the course by eminent domain. This would
have reduced the course from eighteen to twelve holes. A group of club members mounted a
vigorous and successful campaign to defeat the referendum required for the project to proceed.
During the process, the group discovered Thorpe wanted to sell the facility. By 1946, they had
made a deal with Thorpe and formed the Edina Holding Company to buy and manage the
property.48
One of the company’s first actions was to hire architects McEnary and Kraft to design new tennis
courts and a swimming pool, which required relocating the eighteenth green and tenth tee. When
the company paid off its mortgage on the property in 1952, members began making plans for a
new clubhouse. The 1929 structure was aging and had not been winterized until the early 1940s.
Increasing traffic on Fiftieth Street was making the existing location less desirable, and the
situation was likely to get worse. The Minnesota Highway Department was considering
widening the road from two to four lanes. The department was also working to upgrade Highway
100 on the club’s west side, making that area less attractive. A site along Wooddale Avenue, just
south of Minnehaha Creek, seemed a good alternative, but the club did not own it. Chester had
dissuaded a previous owner from building a house there and purchased the land himself, leasing
it to the club in 1947 for a driving range. He agreed to sell the property to the club for the new
clubhouse.49
In the process of building the new clubhouse, which opened in 1959, “the club ran afoul of the
Edina City Council after dumping construction rubble onto the banks of Minnehaha Creek,”
according to Shefchik. While the club felt entitled to do this as the owner of the creek’s south
bank, the debris was an eyesore from Edina’s Utley Park on the north bank. To make amends
and provide a visual barrier between the club and the park, “the club planted three thousand
evergreens and three thousand bushes and shrubs along its side of the creek, obtained at no cost
from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.” A club history credited Paul Foss as the
46 Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 249-251; Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.
47 Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 251.
48 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 251-252.
49 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981,12-13, 23; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 252.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 36
“designe[r] and . . . overseer for the beautification and tree-planting program” around the
clubhouse and the adjacent parking lot, “including the hill down to Minnehaha Creek and the
planting of the 76 Hopa Crab trees above the creek from Fiftieth Street to Wooddale Avenue.”50
During the same period, Edina announced plans to widen Wooddale Avenue south of Fiftieth
Street, proposing a ten-foot easement along the east side of the club’s property. This was resisted
by the club because this area held “one of the most beautiful of flowering hedges running . . .
from the Minnehaha Creek bridge to Fifty-fourth Street,” according to a club history.
Negotiations with the village resulted in a reduction of the easement to seven feet with no
parking allowed along the west side of Wooddale. The village planted a new hedge along the
property, but it was not a flowering species, and the club subsequently installed a fence just west
of the hedge.51
The change in the clubhouse location “necessitated a rerouting of the golf course,” Shefchik
explained. “A new eighteenth hole—which used to be the fourth hole—was moved to the west; a
new driving range was created between holes 10 and 18; and the sixth and ninth tees were moved
back to the site of the old clubhouse. The eighth hole was lengthened by moving the green to the
site of the old pool. An Olympic-sized pool with an L-shape for diving was built next to the
clubhouse in 1960.” The club gained a new pool in 2003. The clubhouse was also modified
repeatedly, including the addition of a dining room in 2006. Tennis courts, service buildings,
parking lots, and other facilities were added, remodeled, and moved over the years.52
In the meantime, alterations to the golf course continued, sometimes brought on by the forces of
nature. The club’s history reported, for example, that a storm “blew over forty-eight of the older
and larger trees on the golf course” in 1951. More often, though, human intervention periodically
transformed the course. By 1981, the “sequence of holes” had been switched “nine different
times” since the 1920s. As the club prepared to host the Trans-Mississippi Tournament in 1966,
it “filled in the pond on the tenth hole and reversed the nines.” It recreated the pond in 1971, then
removed it again in 1993. It added a pond to the seventeenth hole in 1968, a lake to the Par 3
course in 1971, a pond between the thirteenth and fourteen holes in 1977, and a pond at the third
tee in 1977. Other more substantial renovations occurred in 1987, 1993, and 1996-1997. In the
early 2000s, the club hired pro golfer and course designer Tom Lehman “to rebuild the course
with an eye toward restoring it—as much as possible—to the quality of the Tom Bendelow
original.” Lehnman described the much-remodeled course as having “totally lost its personality. .
. . It looked like a course that had been built in the ’70s and ’80s rather than the ’20s.” He added:
“The biggest issue was they relocated the clubhouse. . . . From a flow standpoint, moving the
clubhouse created problems.” Also, “over the course of time, trees were planted, and you have a
tree hanging over the fairway 180 years out. You have to go around or over, which created an
uncomfortable shot. What we tried to do was take the corridors that were there, take out the trees,
slide fairways one way or the other and get rid of the alleyways.”53
50 Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 252-253; Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p.
51 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, 14-15, 29.
52 Hesterman, From Settlement to Suburb, 69; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 250-254; Foss, Edina Country
Club, 1924-1981, 31, 35.
53 Foss, Edina Country Club, 1924-1981, n.p., 25; Shefchik, From Fields to Fairways, 253-255 .
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 37
Based on this documentation of alterations, the National Register eligibility of the golf course
does not appear to merit additional evaluation. The integrity of the Bendelow design has been
compromised, and restoring the design would be virtually impossible without demolishing the
current clubhouse. Also due to the alterations documented in the illustrations below, the
clubhouse does not appear to qualify in its own right.
Left: The east facade of the clubhouse as it looked
when it opened in 1959 (top) through at least
1981, when the club’s history included this
rendering (center).
By 2021, the hipped roofs and rustic stained
shingles, emblematic of the 1950s, had been
replaced by a conservative design featuring flat
roofs with balustraded parapets (left).
Above: The 1981 history included a photograph of
“the sundeck overlooking the ninth green” (top).
That facade has a completely different appearance
in 2022.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 38
House, 5105 Wooddale Avenue (HE-EDC-0663)
When built in 1942, this two-story
house had a brick facade. The front
(west) entry with a simple Classical
Revival surround was centered
between two narrow windows in a
two-story, gabled bay, with a
window above the door on the
second story. To the north, a one-
and-one-half-story extension held
the door for a double garage,
approached by a straight driveway
from Wooddale Avenue to the west.
At some point the exterior was
extensively remodeled. The front
bay now has a hipped roof and is
clad in stone, and the other walls
are stuccoed. The door surround
features plain pilasters with
recessed panels. A large, hip-roofed
hood supported with square
columns covers a stone stoop,
which is approached by a curved
driveway that connects with the
driveway that remians in the
original alignment. The side-gable
roof over the house’s main section
has been replaced by a tall,
pyramidal-hipped roof with a brick
chimney at its apex.54
These major alterations, which apparently occurred in the twenty-first century, have damaged the
historic integrity of this property, making it ineligible for the National Register.
54 “5107 Wooddale Avenue,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at Edina Historical Society (hereafter, EHS). The
address now associated with this property is 5105 Wooddale Avenue.
Top: Original appearance of 5105 Wooddale Avenue.
(Edina Tax Assessor Records, EHS)
Bottom: The property in 2021.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 39
House, 5009 Wooddale Lane (HE-EDC-0664)
Three second-story wall dormers rise through the front (south) eave of this side-gabled house at
the northeast corner of Wooddale Lane and Wooddale Avenue. Four globe lights are installed
beneath the second story, which is sheathed in wide-lap siding and projects slightly beyond the
painted-brick first story. Two of the lights flank the front door, which is centered in the facade
and has a Colonial Revival surround. A window with shutters is on each side of the door. The
building’s sides are clad with the same siding used on the second story of the front facade. An
exterior brick chimney rises above the roof ridge on the east side, passing through a screened
porch. The roof of the porch serves as a patio with a spindle railing. A number of additions have
been made to the rear of the house. The door of a double garage on the west side of the house is
reached from Wooddale Avenue by a concrete driveway just south of Bridge No. 90646. From
the driveway south to the corner of Wooddale Lane, a planting bed fills the area between the
Wooddale Avenue sidewalk and a wood fence a few feet to the east.
Tax assessor records at the Edina Historical Society indicate that this house was built in 1937
and its first owner was Harry Schoening. An unspecified addition dates from 1950 and other
modifications have been made since that time.55 While the front of the house retains its integrity,
additions clearly visible from Wooddale Avenue and Wooddale Lane have greatly enlarged the
building’s volume. This diminishes the integrity of its design, which is typical for the period, and
the property does not claim any known historical significance or an association with a significant
person. It does not appear to meet any National Register criteria for designation.
55 “5009 Wooddale Lane,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
5009 Wooddale Lane
(2022)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 40
House, 5011 Wooddale Lane (HE-EDC-0665)
This two-story, end-gable house has a single-car garage tucked into the west end of its primary
south facade, next to the front entry. Another single-car garage is in a single-story extension to
the west. A similar extension to the east is enclosed and holds a bay window. The flat roofs of
both single-story sections are edged by low, wood-picket railings. The house is clad in multicolor
brick. A bay window projects from the first floor east of the entry. Four second-story windows
on the front facade are ornamented by shutters.
Tax assessor records at the Edina Historical Society indicate that this house was built in 1941.
An unspecified addition dates from 1958. A patio/deck was added in 1982 and two bay windows
were installed in 1989. The single-story bay to the east was once a screen porch.56 The house’s
design is typical for the period, and the property does not claim any known historical
significance or an association with a significant person. It does not appear to meet any National
Register criteria for designation.
56 “5011 Wooddale Lane,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
5011 Wooddale Lane
(2022)
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 41
House, 5013 Wooddale Lane
The front (south) facade of this one-and-one-half-story house is veneered in various shades of
light-colored, random-rangework stone. Siding on the sides appears to be metal. A double-car
garage is tucked into the west end of the front facade, next to the front entry. A broad bay
window is east of the front door. Three gable-roofed dormers are on the gable roof’s steep south
slope. The roof and the front facade step back slightly at the house’s east end.
Building records at the Edina Historical Society indicate that this house was built in 1939 and
that the second floor received an addition in 1989. This was apparently when the second story
was extended to the west over the westernmost garage stall, which was originally only a single
story with a flat roof ringed by a wood-spindle rail. A deck was installed in 1995 and an
unspecified addition was made in 1996.57 The house’s design was typical for the period. The
property does not claim any known historical significance or an association with a significant
person. It does not appear to meet any National Register criteria for designation.
57 “5013 Wooddale Lane,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
Left: 1989 photograph of 5013 Wooddale Lane.
(Edina Tax Assessor Records, EHS)
Below: The property in 2022.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 42
Blackbourn House, 5015 Wooddale Lane (HE-EDC-0579)
The property is on the north side of a turnaround at the east end of Wooddale Lane. The large lot
is situated at a sharp curve in Minnehaha Creek, which edges it to the north and east. The front of
the house is oriented to the south and consists of four sections: the main residential block; a
small, low wing on the east end that is set back from the front of the main block; a garage to the
west; and a recessed link between the garage and main block. A 1979 architectural survey
described the house as exemplifying “Cape Cod cottage design. From the front, it appears as a
low, one-story cottage with a large, grey shingled roof dominated by a massive white brick
chimney. Small, shuttered windows contain diamond-shaped panes. The front facade is white
brick but the side and rear walls are white clapboard. A garage wing flanks the house. Seen from
the street side, the house looks deceptively small; because it is built on a sloping lot, the rear
elevation consists of three levels.” The garage originally had two stalls; a single stall was added
to the west in 1979. The dovecote was retained on the ridge of the garage roof. A deck has been
installed on the east end of the house.58
The history of this building is well-documented. It was included in a historic building survey of
Edina completed in 1979 for the Edina Heritage Preservation Board by the architectural firm
Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and historical consultant Jeffery A. Hess.59
The house was one of four resulting from a Life magazine initiative during the Great Depression.
The magazine retained eight leading architects to prepare house designs for four families around
the country including the Albert R. Blackbourn family, residents of South Minneapolis at the
time. In 1938, the Blackbourns were given two options for the design of a house on a large,
creek-side lot on Wooddale Lane. One was by Frank Lloyd Wright and the other by prominent
Boston architect Royal Barry Wills. Although the Blackbourns visited Wright at Taliesen in
Wisconsin and were impressed by his hospitality and creativity, they concluded that his design
for the Edina house was too radically modern and expensive. Instead, they selected Wills’s more
traditional plan. Known for drawing inspiration from early East Coast houses, Wills used the
Cape Cod style as the basis for the Edina commission. When construction was completed, the
house was open for several weeks for public viewing. An announcement about the tours the
Edina Crier included advertisements for many of the firms involved in the project including
builder H. R. Burton, excavator J. A. Danens and Son, landscaper L. G. Loftus Company, and
the Twin City Tile and Marble Company.60
The library and archives of Historic New England in Boston hold the extensive Royal Barry
Wills Associates Collection (106 boxes and 180 flat file drawers), with most materials dating
from the 1920s through 1980. A biographical/historical essay in the finding aid explains that
Wills’s main interest “lay in residential architecture, with the goal of providing well-designed,
well-constructed, and affordable suburban houses for middle- and upper-middle class
58 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,” 32; “5015 Wooddale Lane,” Edina
Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
59 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,” 32.
60 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,” 32; “Building Started on Life’s
Model Home Designed for Blackbourns,” Edina Crier, January 1939, 2; “Open for Inspection Daily to July 2nd!”
Edina Crier, June 1939, 12-13.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 43
Americans.” After founding his own firm in 1925, he “began to design houses in a variety of
styles, but gradually his focus turned to the traditional New England Cape Cod-style house and
this cemented his reputation.” By the next decade, he was gaining widespread recognition for his
work, particularly after receiving “a gold medal from President Herbert Hoover for his 1932
winning entry in the Better Homes in American Small House competition,” the first of many
national awards. The finding-aid essay mentions the Life magazine competition and the
Blackbourn family’s selection of the design by Wills rather than the one by Frank Lloyd
Wright.61
Wills’s firm also prepared plans for the Mrs. R. E. Boutell House in Excelsior in 1937 (Job No.
534) and did two projects for the John W. Janson House in Saint Paul, one in 1962 (Job No.
1891) and the other in 1969 (Job No. 2193). While a query in the SHPO database identified the
M. H. Boutell House at 1123 Mount Curve in Minneapolis (HE-MPC6495), the database did not
contained entries for properties associated with Mrs. R. E. Boutell in Excelsior or John W.
Janson in Saint Paul. Determining whether these properties are extant is beyond the scope of this
project, especially given the Blackbourn house’s unique history and its influence as a result of
local and national press coverage.62
The 1979 survey of historic buildings in Edina concluded that the property was significant as
“the work of one of the most respected architects of the mid-20th century. The Blackbourns, in
choosing Wills’ design over that of Frank Lloyd Wright, reflected the tastes of their times.” The
study recommended that the property receive local landmark designation.63
Likewise, the property appears to qualify for the National Register under Criterion C for its
architectural significance as a classic example of a Neo-Traditional house by Wills, a leading
proponent of this style. While not Wills’s only commission in Minnesota, it was the most visible
because of its association with the Life magazine project. The addition of the single-car garage
does not greatly affect the integrity of the design. It is compatible with the original double-car
garage but, by having its own door, is differentiated. Original windows appear to have been
replaced, but the new units are similar to the original. Three skylights have been inserted in the
front slope of the roof and windows have been added on the west facade, which was perhaps
slightly lengthened and has a deck addition. These changes do not substantial diminish the
integrity of the house’s original design, which remains very good.
61 “AR029—Royal Barry Wills Associates Collection, 1925-2013 (bulk 1920s-1980): Finding Aid,” November
2019, 3, Historic New England Library and Archives, accessed January 13, 2022,
https://www.historicnewengland.org/explore/library-archives/royal-barry-wills/
62 The Historic New England archives for the Blackbourn, Boutell, and Janson jobs should be consulted if a National
Register nomination is prepared for the Blackbourn House. Source: “AR029—Royal Barry Wills Associates
Collection, 1925-2013,” 32, 77, 88.
63 Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Hess, “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,” 32.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 44
Left: It is unclear if the
Blackbourns occupied the house.
It was open for public tours until
July 2, 1939, and in August the
Edina Crier ran a full-page
advertisement offering the
property for sale.
Below: The property in 2022.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 45
House, 5029 Wooddale Lane (HE-EDC-0667)
Situated at the southeast corner of Wooddale Lane and Wooddale Avenue, this house is clad in
variegated brick and stands two stories tall with a one-and-one-half-story double garage
extending to the west. A small, gabled, single-story entrance bay projects from the west end of
the house’s front (south) facade, with a bay window to the east. Two second-floor windows rise
into the roofline as gabled dormers. A single-story porch was once attached to the house’s east
wall. It was apparently enclosed in 1976 and replaced in 1980 by a large, two-story, cross-gabled
addition that projects in front of the plane of the original front facade. Probably at the same time,
the garage was widened to hold a second stall.64
Built in 1941, this house was expanded substantially in 1980 at an expense of around $80,000.
This major modification has damaged the integrity of the house’s original design, making it
ineligible for the National Register.65
64 “5029 Wooddale Lane,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
65 “5029 Wooddale Lane,” Edina Tax Assessor Records, at EHS.
Left: 5029 Wooddale Lane as it
appeared before alterations. (Edina
Tax Assessor Records, EHS)
Below: The property in 2022.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 46
Conclusion
The following table summarizes the conclusions in this section about the National Register
eligibility of properties in the APE.
Address Current name (historic) Inventory # NRHP Status/
Recommendation
Wooddale Ave. over
Minnehaha Creek
Bridge No. 90646 (Bridge No. 281;
Wooddale Avenue Bridge)
HE-EDC-0633 Listed
(Criteria A and C)
4439 W. 50th Street Saint Stephen the Martyr Episcopal
Church
HE-EDC-0578 Eligible
(Criterion C,
possibly Criterion
A; Criteria
Consideration A)
4500 W. 50th Street Wooddale Park (Woodlawn School) HE-EDC-0555 Demolished; not
eligible
4521 W. 50th Street Utley Park HE-EDC-0668 Not eligible
5100 Wooddale Ave. Edina Country Club (Thorpe
Country Club)
HE-EDC-0662 Not eligible
5105 Wooddale Ave. House HE-EDC-0663 Not eligible
5009 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0664 Not eligible
5011 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0665 Not eligible
5013 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0666 Not eligible
5015 Wooddale Lane Blackbourn House HE-EDC-0579 Eligible
(Criterion C)
5029 Wooddale Lane House HE-EDC-0667 Not eligible
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 47
Analysis
The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Cultural Resources Unit (MnDOT CRU) has
extensive experience identifying and maintaining historic bridges. A decade ago, it
commissioned a study by consulting engineers and historians that analyzed about 140 historic
bridges owned by other agencies. Bridge No. 90646 was included in the study. Findings on the
bridge were provided in a report dated June 2014, which concluded the bridge qualified for the
National Register under Criterion A for its association with the WPA and under Criterion C for
its engineering. The report identified two character-defining features: 1. “Design and
construction of a multi plate arch,” and 2. “Overall WPA Rustic Style design aesthetic as
represented through use of a randomly coursed limestone, masonry parapet/railing with stone
cap, curved limestone wingwalls, and limestone arch ring. This feature includes the concrete
plaque identifying the bridge as ‘WPA 1937.’”66
The report considered the bridge “in fair condition” and “adequately serv[ing] its purpose of
carrying vehicular and pedestrian traffic.” The bridge description, based on a site visit in July
2013, provided additional details. “Remnants of smaller curved stone masonry walls were noted
off each end of the existing wingwalls. These walls are somewhat intact on the east side but are
missing nearly entirely on the west side. There are also small stone masonry walls present along
the stream channel that abut each of the bridge wingwalls.” The report added: “The condition of
the existing stone masonry railings is fair to poor. The relatively soft limestone has weathered
and deteriorated with nearly all stones cracked, and widespread areas of mortar deterioration,
especially on the roadside face of the railings. Crumbled stone and mortar has collected at the
base of the railings. The solid limestone slab railing caps are nearly 100 percent deteriorated.”
The stone below the railing “is in markedly better condition than the railing stones,” but
“widespread deterioration of the mortar was noted. Many areas of the mortar on the headwalls
were cracked and de-bonded from the stone.” The galvanized-steel arches “are in good condition
overall,” but “active corrosion was noted at and near the connection of the arch to the concrete
abutments with the most severe being at the southeast corner.” Some scouring of the footings
was apparent, but inspection of the substructure was limited by high water.67
The report concluded, “With proper maintenance, stabilization and preservation activities, it is
believed Bridge 90646 could continue to serve in its present capacity for twenty years or longer.”
The report did, though, recommend an extensive rehabilitation, particularly for the bridge
railings, calling for removing and replacing them “down to the arch crown elevation” with new
masonry units. It noted that the headwalls and wingwalls should be repointed and masonry units
replaced as needed. “When either the roadway and sidewalk need to be replaced, or the arch
begins to show signs of corrosion,” the report “recommended that the sidewalk and bituminous
surface be removed and replaced and at the same time, remove the earth fill above the steel multi
66 LHB and Mead and Hunt, “Bridge Number 90646,” Minnesota Department of Transportation Local Historic
Bridge Report, June 2014, 1, II-6 – II-7, at Minnesota Department of Transportation website, accessed August 2021,
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/historicbridges/90646.html.
67 LHB and Mead and Hunt, “Bridge Number 90646,” 1, IV-9 – IV-10. Photograph 8 on page IV-14 is labeled
“corrosion in southeast corner” but appears to be the southwest corner based the orientation of the photograph (arch
to left, vegetation to right) and on Photograph 12 of the southwest corner (page IV-16).
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 48
plate arch and inspect steel surfaces for corrosion.” After any corrosion was addressed, clean
aggregate, a drainage system, and perhaps a waterproofing membrane should be installed. The
bridge foundation should be underpinned at locations impacted by scour. All in all, the cost of
the activities recommended to maintain, stabilize, and preserve the bridge totaled over $600,000
in 2013 dollars. The report also suggested reconstructing the “severely deteriorated” masonry
channel walls. The recommendations were based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) and additional guidance specifically developed
for bridges by the Virginia Transportation Research Council.68
The Secretary’s Standards were also the basis for a treatment plan adopted by the Edina Heritage
Board when the local landmark designation was approved. These guidelines prioritize preserving
the bridge in place and in its current use; preserving and repairing original materials when
possible; and making needed modifications with materials and design similar to and compatible
with the original. The tenth and final guideline states that if the bridge “can no longer be
preserved in place for reasons of public safety” and cannot be preserved by relocation, “the
effects of demolition may be mitigated by historical and engineering documentation” following
the standards of the Historic American Engineering Record, commonly known by its acronym
HAER.69
The Edina Engineering Department has considered the recommendations of the MnDOT report
and the Heritage Board preservation plan and understands the significance of Bridge No. 90646.
After evaluating alternatives, it plans to replace the bridge, an adverse effect to a historic
resource. The department will undertake consultation with the Corps, SHPO, HPC, MnDOT
CRU, and other interested parties to discuss ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse
effect.
68 LHB and Mead and Hunt, “Bridge Number 90646,” 1, IV-18 – IV-20.
69 “Wooddale Bridge—Plan of Treatment,” adopted by the Edina Heritage Board, n.d., at ED-ECH.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 49
Sources Consulted
Abbreviations
ED-ECH Engineering Department, Edina City Hall
EHS Edina Historical Society
“Announce ‘Wooddale Section’ Layout.” Edina Crier, September 1936.
“AR029—Royal Barry Wills Associates Collection, 1925-2013 (bulk 1920s-1980): Finding
Aid.” November 2019. Historic New England Library and Archives. Accessed January
13, 2022, https://www.historicnewengland.org/explore/library-archives/royal-barry-wills/
Bendelow, Stuart. “Bendelow, Tom.” In Charles A. Birnbaum and Stephanie S. Foell, eds.
Shaping the American Landscape, 20-22. Charlottesville and London: University of
Virginia Press, 2009.
Bennett, Carolyn. “Historic City Park and Golf Course, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.” In Vineyard 6,
no. 1 (2005): 4-6.
“Board of County Commissioners.” Minneapolis Tribune, January 24, 1907.
“Boston Architects Study New St. Stephen’s Plans.” Edina Crier, February 1938.
Bridge No. 90646 inspection reports. At ED-ECH.
“Building Started on Life’s Model Home Designed for Blackbourns.” Edina Crier, January
1939.
Cameron, Tamara, to Sarah Beimers. Letter. August 14, 2015. At ED-ECH.
“Council to Act on Re-zoning Problem.” Edina Crier, August 1939.
“Council Zones Darr Property for One, Two Family Houses.” Edina Crier, September 1939.
“Cover Carries St. Stephen’s Chancel.” Edina Crier, March 1938.
“Edina.” Select Twin Citian, October 1962.
“Edina Plans ‘Little’ Pennsylvania Avenue.” Edina Crier, August 1939.
“Episcopalians to Build New Church.” Edina Crier. June 1937.
Erickson, Hans, TKDA, to Melissa Jenny, Saint Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Memorandum. September 29, 2015. At ED-ECH.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 50
“Firm to Move Tract Office.” Edina Crier, November 1938.
Foss, Paul. Edina Country Club, 1924-1981. N.p.: Edina Country Club, [1981].
Gallagher, Lillie Petit. “Myron Howard West, Founder, American Park Builders, Inc.” In
Vineyard 6, no. 1 (2005): 5.
“Harold C. Utley.” Obituary. Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 23, 1963.
“Havoc Wrought by Breaking of Old Dam at Edina Mills.” Minneapolis Tribune, June 3, 1906.
Hesterman, Paul D. From Settlement to Suburb: The History of Edina, Minnesota. Edina:
Burgess Publishing, 1988.
“Hope Digging May Start in August.” Edina Crier, July 1937.
Kellerhals, Kelli Andre, and Gregory R. Mathis. “Bridge No. 90646.” National Register of
Historic Places Registration Form, 2014. Prepared by The 106 Group.
LHB and Mead and Hunt. “Bridge Number 90646.” Minnesota Department of Transportation
Local Historic Bridge Report, June 2014. At Minnesota Department of Transportation
website. Accessed August 2021, https://www.dot.state.mn.us/historicbridges/90646.html.
“The Life Home.” Advertisement. Edina Crier, August 1939.
“Limestone Face for New Bridge,” Edina Crier, July 1937.
“New Episcopal Edifice Is Dedicated.” Edina Crier, April 1939.
1913 Hennepin Co Atlas (Minneapolis: Hennepin County, 1913), Village of Edina sheet, at John
R. Borchart Library, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
“Open for Inspection Daily to July 2nd!” Edina Crier, June 1939.
“Plat for Country Club District-Wooddale Section.” 1936. At ED-ECH.
“Progress of St. Stephen’s Building Direct to Be Reported at Dinner September 22.” Edina
Crier, September 1937.
“Report of the Projects, Planning and Development Committee, Country Club Association, April
11, 1933.” Edina Crier, May 1933.
“Runaway Bridge to Be Replaced.” Edina Crier, May 1937.
“Rural Edina: The First Seventy-five Years.” February 12, 1976. Unattributed mimeograph. At
Hess, Roise and Company, Minneapolis.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 51
“St. Stephen, Christian Martyr.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed January 18, 2022,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Stephen.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Minneapolis, Minnesota. New York: Sanborn Map Company,
1941. Vol. 6A. At Library of Congress, www.loc.gov.
Scott, William A., and Jeffrey A. Hess. History and Architecture of Edina, Minnesota. N.p.: City
of Edina, 1981.
Schwartz, Marshall. “Edina Veterans Memorial, A Lasting Tribute.” 2015/2017. Prepared as part
of the Edina, Minnesota Veterans Memorial Project, Edina Historical Society.
Setter, Leach and Lindstrom and Jeffrey A. Hess. “Survey: Historic Buildings of Edina,
Minnesota.” July 6, 1979. Prepared for the Edina Heritage Preservation Board.
Shefchik, Rick. From Fields to Fairways: Classic Golf Clubs of Minnesota. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2012.
“A Short History of the Zoning Ordinance.” Edina Crier, April 1931.
Smetanka, Mary Jane. “Edina’s Veterans Memorial Approved.” Minneapolis Star Tribune,
November 23, 2011.
———. “Edina Veterans Memorial Plans Proceed.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 9,
2011.
“To Start Digging for New Church.” Edina Crier, August 1937.
“Urban Edina Builds 125 Homes; Six new ‘Sections’ Adjoin District.” Edina Crier August 1937.
“View of Approved St. Stephen’s along Fiftieth Street.” Edina Crier, April 1938.
Vogel, Robert C. “Edina Historic Contexts.” 1999. Prepared by Robert C. Vogel & Associates
for the City of Edina Heritage Preservation Board.
“Wooddale Bridge—Plan of Treatment.” Adopted by the Edina Heritage Board. N.d. At ED-
ECH.
“Work Progressing on Saint Stephen’s.” Edina Crier, December 1937.
“Zoning Commission Discusses Fiftieth Street.” Edina Crier, January 1931.
Bridge No. 90646—Section 106 Consultation—January 2022—Page 52
Archival/Online Resources
Edina Historical Society. Edina tax assessor records, photographs, local histories, and other
sources.
Engineering Department, Edina City Hall. Inspection reports, photographs, and other information
for Bridge No. 90646; various building records.
Hennepin County, Minnesota. Online property information, maps, and aerial photography.
Hess, Roise and Company, Minneapolis. Edina history files.
Minnesota Digital Library. https://collection.mndigital.org/
Minnesota Historical Society, Saint Paul. Photographs.
Preserving America’s Heritage
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Protecting Historic Properties:
A CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO
SECTION 106 REVIEW
g ppProtecting Historic Prop erties
WWW.ACHP.GOV
Protecting Historic Properties 1
Th e mission of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) is to promote the preservation, enhancement, and
productive use of the nation’s historic resources and advise the
President and Congress on national historic preservation policy.
Th e ACHP, an independent federal agency, also provides a
forum for infl uencing federal activities, programs, and policies
that aff ect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key
role in carrying out the Preserve America program.
Th e 23-member council is supported by a professional staff in
Washington, D.C. For more information contact:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 606-8503
www.achp.gov
CONTENTS
4 What is Section 106 Review?
5 Understanding Section 106 Review
8 Determining Federal Involvement
12 Working with Federal Agencies
14 Infl uencing Project Outcomes
18 How the ACHP Can Help
20 When Agencies Don’t Follow the Rules
21 Following Through
22 Contact Information
About the ACHP
COVER PHOTOS:
Clockwise, from top left: Historic Downtown Louisville,
Kentucky; Section 106 consultation at Medicine Lake,
California; bighorn sheep petroglyph in Nine Mile Canyon,
Utah (photo courtesy Jerry D. Spangler); Worthington
Farm, Monocacy Battlefi eld National Historic Landmark,
Maryland (photo courtesy Maryland State Highway
Administration).
2 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 3
Proud of your heritage? Value the places that refl ect your
community’s history? You should know about Section 106
review, an important tool you can use to infl uence federal
decisions regarding historic properties. By law, you have a voice
when a project involving federal action, approval, or funding
may aff ect properties that qualify for the National Register of
Historic Places, the nation’s offi cial list of historic properties.
Th is guide from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP), the agency charged with historic preservation
leadership within federal government, explains how your voice
can be heard.
Each year, the federal government is involved with many projects
that aff ect historic properties. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration works with states on road improvements, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development grants funds
to cities to rebuild communities, and the General Services
Administration builds and leases federal offi ce space.
Agencies like the Forest Service, the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Veterans
Aff airs, and the Department of Defense make decisions daily
Introduction
Dust from vehicles may
affect historic sites in
Nine Mile Canyon, Utah.
(photo courtesy Jerry D.
Spangler, Colorado Plateau
Archaeological Alliance)
about the management of federal buildings, parks, forests, and
lands. Th ese decisions may aff ect historic properties, including
those that are of traditional religious and cultural signifi cance
to federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations.
Projects with less obvious federal involvement can also
have repercussions on historic properties. For example, the
construction of a boat dock or a housing development that
aff ects wetlands may also impact fragile archaeological sites and
require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. Likewise, the
construction of a cellular tower may require a license from the
Federal Communications Commission and might compromise
historic or culturally signifi cant landscapes or properties
valued by Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations for
traditional religious and cultural practices.
Th ese and other projects with federal involvement can harm
historic properties. Th e Section 106 review process gives you
the opportunity to alert the federal government to the historic
properties you value and infl uence decisions about projects that
aff ect them.
Public Involvement M atters
4 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 5
In the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA),
Congress established a comprehensive program to preserve
the historical and cultural foundations of the nation as a
living part of community life. Section 106 of the NHPA is
crucial to that program because it requires consideration of
historic preservation in the multitude of projects with federal
involvement that take place across the nation every day.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the eff ects of
projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties.
Additionally, federal agencies must provide the ACHP an
opportunity to comment on such projects prior to the agency’s
decision on them.
Section 106 review encourages, but does not mandate,
preservation. Sometimes there is no way for a needed project to
proceed without harming historic properties. Section 106 review
does ensure that preservation values are factored into federal
agency planning and decisions. Because of Section 106, federal
agencies must assume responsibility for the consequences of the
projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties
and be publicly accountable for their decisions.
What is Section 106 Review?
Regulations issued by the ACHP spell out the Section 106
review process, specifying actions federal agencies must take to
meet their legal obligations. Th e regulations are published in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of
Historic Properties,” and can be found on the ACHP’s Web site
at www.achp.gov.
Federal agencies are responsible for initiating Section 106 review,
most of which takes place between the agency and state and
tribal or Native Hawaiian organization offi cials. Appointed by
the governor, the State Historic Preservation Offi cer (SHPO)
coordinates the state’s historic preservation program and consults
with agencies during Section 106 review.
Agencies also consult with offi cials of federally recognized Indian
tribes when the projects have the potential to aff ect historic
properties on tribal lands or historic properties of signifi cance
to such tribes located off tribal lands. Some tribes have offi cially
designated Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cers (THPOs),
while others designate representatives to consult with agencies
as needed. In Hawaii, agencies consult with Native Hawaiian
organizations (NHOs) when historic properties of religious and
cultural signifi cance to them may be aff ected.
To successfully complete Section 106 review,
federal agencies must do the following:
gather information to decide which properties in the
area that may be aff ected by the project are listed, or are
eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic
Places (referred to as “historic properties”);
determine how those historic properties might be aff ected;
explore measures to avoid or reduce harm (“adverse
eff ect”) to historic properties; and
reach agreement with the SHPO/THPO (and the
ACHP in some cases) on such measures to resolve any
adverse eff ects or, failing that, obtain advisory comments
from the ACHP, which are sent to the head of the agency.
Understanding
Section 106 Review
The National Soldiers Monument (1877) at Dayton
(Ohio) National Cemetery was cleaned and
conserved in 2009 as part of a program funded
by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
(photo courtesy Department of Veterans Affairs)
Conservation
6 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 7
What are Historic Properties?
In the Section 106 process, a historic property is a prehistoric
or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Th is term includes artifacts, records, and remains
that are related to and located within these National Register
properties. Th e term also includes properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native
Hawaiian organization, so long as that property also meets the
criteria for listing in the National Register.
Th e National Register of Historic Places
Th e National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s offi cial
list of properties recognized for their signifi cance in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. It
is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of
the Department of the Interior. Th e Secretary of the Interior
has established the criteria for evaluating the eligibility of
properties for the National Register. In short, the property
must be signifi cant, be of a certain age, and have integrity:
Signifi cance . Is the property associated with events,
activities, or developments that were important in the
past? With the lives of people who were historically
important? With distinctive architectural history,
landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it
have the potential to yield important information through
archaeological investigation about our past?
Age and Integrity . Is the property old enough to be
considered historic (generally at least 50 years old) and
does it still look much the way it did in the past?
During a Section 106 review, the federal agency evaluates
properties against the National Register criteria and seeks the
consensus of the SHPO/THPO/tribe regarding eligibility. A
historic property need not be formally listed in the National
Register in order to be considered under the Section 106
process. Simply coming to a consensus determination that a
property is eligible for listing is adequate to move forward with
Section 106 review. (For more information, visit the National
Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr).
When historic properties may be harmed, Section 106 review
usually ends with a legally binding agreement that establishes
how the federal agency will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the
adverse eff ects. In the very few cases where this does not occur,
the ACHP issues advisory comments to the head of the agency
who must then consider these comments in making a fi nal
decision about whether the project will proceed.
Section 106 reviews ensure federal agencies fully consider
historic preservation issues and the views of the public during
project planning. Section 106 reviews do not mandate the
approval or denial of projects.
SECTION 106: WHAT IS AN
ADVERSE EFFECT?
If a project may alter characteristics that qualify a
specifi c property for inclusion in the National Register
in a manner that would diminish the integrity of
the property, that project is considered to have an
adverse effect. Integrity is the ability of a property to
convey its signifi cance, based on its location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and
include the following:
physical destruction or damage
alteration inconsistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties
relocation of the property
change in the character of the property’s use or
setting
introduction of incompatible visual, atmospheric,
or audible elements
neglect and deterioration
transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property
out of federal control without adequate
preservation restrictions
8 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 9
If you are concerned about a proposed project and wondering
whether Section 106 applies, you should fi rst determine
whether the federal government is involved. Will a federal
agency fund or carry out the project? Is a federal permit,
license, or approval needed? Section 106 applies only if a
federal agency is carrying out the project, approving it, or
funding it, so confi rming federal involvement is critical.
Determining Federal
Involvement
IS THERE FEDERAL
INVOLVEMENT? CONSIDER
THE POSSIBILITIES:
Is a federally owned or federally controlled
property involved, such as a military base,
park, forest, offi ce building, post offi ce, or
courthouse? Is the agency proposing a project on
its land, or would it have to provide a right-of-way
or other approval to a private company for a project
such as a pipeline or mine?
Is the project receiving federal funds,
grants, or loans? If it is a transportation project,
frequent sources of funds are the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration,
and the Federal Railroad Administration. Many
local government projects receive funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
provides funds for disaster relief.
Does the project require a federal permit,
license, or other approval? Often housing
developments impact wetlands, so a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers permit may be required. Airport
projects frequently require approvals from the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Many communications activities, including cellular
tower construction, are licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission. Hydropower and
pipeline development requires approval from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Creation of
new bank branches must be approved by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Falls of Clyde, in Honolulu, Hawaii, is the last surviving
iron-hulled, four-masted full rigged ship, and the only
remaining sail-driven oil tanker. (photo courtesy
Bishop Museum Maritime Center)
H istoric
10 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 11
Interstate 70 at the Georgetown-Silver Plume
National Historic Landmark, Colorado (photo
courtesy J.F. Sato & Associates)
F ederal F unds
Sometimes federal involvement is obvious. Often, involvement
is not immediately apparent. If you have a question, contact the
project sponsor to obtain additional information and to inquire
about federal involvement. All federal agencies have Web sites.
Many list regional or local contacts and information on major
projects. Th e SHPO/THPO/tribe, state or local planning
commissions, or statewide historic preservation organizations
may also have project information.
Once you have identifi ed the responsible federal agency, write
to the agency to request a project description and inquire about
the status of project planning. Ask how the agency plans to
comply with Section 106, and voice your concerns. Keep the
SHPO/THPO/tribe advised of your interest and contacts
with the federal agency.
MONITORING FEDERAL
ACTIONS
The sooner you learn about proposed projects
with federal involvement, the greater your chance of
infl uencing the outcome of Section 106 review.
Learn more about the history of your neighborhood,
city, or state. Join a local or statewide preservation,
historical, or archaeological organization. These
organizations are often the ones fi rst contacted by
federal agencies when projects commence.
If there is a clearinghouse that distributes information
about local, state, tribal, and federal projects, make
sure you or your organization is on its mailing list.
Make the SHPO/THPO/tribe aware of your interest.
Become more involved in state and local decision
making. Ask about the applicability of Section 106 to
projects under state, tribal, or local review. Does your
state, tribe, or community have preservation laws in
place? If so, become knowledgeable about and active
in the implementation of these laws.
Review the local newspaper for notices about
projects being reviewed under other federal
statutes, especially the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, a federal agency
must determine if its proposed major actions will
signifi cantly impact the environment. Usually, if
an agency is preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement under NEPA, it must also complete a
Section 106 review for the project.
12 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 13
Th roughout the Section 106 review process, federal agencies
must consider the views of the public. Th is is particularly
important when an agency is trying to identify historic
properties that might be aff ected by a project and is considering
ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to them.
Agencies must give the public a chance to learn about the
project and provide their views. How agencies publicize
projects depends on the nature and complexity of the particular
project and the agency’s public involvement procedures.
Public meetings are often noted in local newspapers and on
television and radio. A daily government publication, the
Federal Register (available at many public libraries and online at
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html), has notices concerning
projects, including those being reviewed under NEPA. Federal
agencies often use NEPA for purposes of public outreach
under Section 106 review.
Federal agencies also frequently contact local museums and
historical societies directly to learn about historic properties
and community concerns. In addition, organizations like
the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) are
actively engaged in a number of Section 106 consultations on
projects around the country. Th e NTHP is a private, non-
profi t membership organization dedicated to saving historic
places and revitalizing America’s communities. Organizations
Working with Federal Agencies
like the NTHP and your state and local historical societies
and preservation interest groups can be valuable sources of
information. Let them know of your interest.
When the agency provides you with information, let the
agency know if you disagree with its fi ndings regarding what
properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places or how the proposed project may aff ect them. Tell the
agency—in writing—about any important properties that you
think have been overlooked or incorrectly evaluated. Be sure to
provide documentation to support your views.
When the federal agency releases information about project
alternatives under consideration, make it aware of the options
you believe would be most benefi cial. To support alternatives
that would preserve historic properties, be prepared to discuss
costs and how well your preferred alternatives would meet
project needs. Sharing success stories about the treatment or
reuse of similar resources can also be helpful.
Applicants for federal assistance or permits, and their
consultants, often undertake research and analyses on behalf of
a federal agency. Be prepared to make your interests and views
known to them, as well. But remember the federal agency is
ultimately responsible for completing Section 106 review, so
make sure you also convey your concerns directly to it.
Hangar 1, a historic dirigible
hangar at Moffett Field at
NASA Ames Research
Center, California
L earn About the Proj ectjjj
14 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 15
In addition to seeking the views of the public, federal agencies
must actively consult with certain organizations and individuals
during review. Th is interactive consultation is at the heart of
Section 106 review.
Consultation does not mandate a specifi c outcome. Rather, it
is the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views
of consulting parties about how project eff ects on historic
properties should be handled.
To infl uence project outcomes, you may work through the
consulting parties, particularly those who represent your
interests. For instance, if you live within the local jurisdiction
where a project is taking place, make sure to express your views
on historic preservation issues to the local government offi cials
who participate in consultation.
Infl uencing Project Outcomes
You or your organization may want to take a more active
role in Section 106 review, especially if you have a legal or
economic interest in the project or the aff ected properties. You
might also have an interest in the eff ects of the project as an
individual, a business owner, or a member of a neighborhood
association, preservation group, or other organization. Under
these circumstances, you or your organization may write to the
federal agency asking to become a consulting party.
WHO ARE
CONSULTING PARTIES?
The following parties are entitled to participate as
consulting parties during Section 106 review:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;
State Historic Preservation Offi cers;
Federally recognized Indian tribes/THPOs;
Native Hawaiian organizations;
Local governments; and
Applicants for federal assistance, permits,
licenses, and other approvals.
Other individuals and organizations with a
demonstrated interest in the project may participate
in Section 106 review as consulting parties “due to
the nature of their legal or economic relation to the
undertaking or affected properties, or their concern
with the undertaking’s effects on historic properties.”
Their participation is subject to approval by the
responsible federal agency.
Residents in the Lower Mid-City Historic District
in New Orleans express their opinions about
the proposed acquisition and demolition of their
properties for the planned new Department of
Veterans Affairs and Louisiana State University
medical centers which would replace the facilities
damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppSpeak Uppp
16 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 17
When requesting consulting party status, explain in a letter to
the federal agency why you believe your participation would be
important to successful resolution. Since the SHPO/THPO
or tribe will assist the federal agency in deciding who will
participate in the consultation, be sure to provide the SHPO/
THPO or tribe with a copy of your letter. Make sure to
emphasize your relationship with the project and demonstrate
how your connection will inform the agency’s decision making.
If you are denied consulting party status, you may ask the
ACHP to review the denial and make recommendations to
the federal agency regarding your participation. However, the
federal agency makes the ultimate decision on the matter.
Consulting party status entitles you to share your views, receive
and review pertinent information, off er ideas, and consider
possible solutions together with the federal agency and other
consulting parties. It is up to you to decide how actively you
want to participate in consultation.
MAKING THE MOST OF
CONSULTATION
Consultation will vary depending on the federal
agency’s planning process and the nature of the project
and its effects.
Often consultation involves participants with a wide
variety of concerns and goals. While the focus of some
may be preservation, the focus of others may be time,
cost, and the purpose to be served by the project.
Effective consultation occurs when you:
keep an open mind;
state your interests clearly;
acknowledge that others have legitimate
interests, and seek to understand and
accommodate them;
consider a wide range of options;
identify shared goals and seek options that allow
mutual gain; and
bring forward solutions that meet the agency’s
needs.
Creative ideas about alternatives—not complaints—
are the hallmarks of effective consultation.
Section 106 consultation with an Indian tribe
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGet InvolvedG
18 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 19
Under Section 106 review, most harmful eff ects are addressed
successfully by the federal agency and the consulting parties
without participation by the ACHP. So, your fi rst points
of contact should always be the federal agency and/or the
SHPO/THPO.
When there is signifi cant public controversy, or if the
project will have substantial eff ects on important historic
properties, the ACHP may elect to participate directly in the
consultation. Th e ACHP may also get involved if important
policy questions are raised, procedural problems arise, or if
there are issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian
organizations.
Whether or not the ACHP becomes involved in consultation,
you may contact the ACHP to express your views or to request
guidance, advice, or technical assistance. Regardless of the
How the ACHP Can Help
scale of the project or the magnitude of its eff ects, the ACHP
is available to assist with dispute resolution and advise on the
Section 106 review process.
If you cannot resolve disagreements with the federal agency
regarding which historic properties are aff ected by a project
or how they will be impacted, contact the ACHP. Th e ACHP
may then advise the federal agency to reconsider its fi ndings.
CONTACTING THE ACHP:
A CHECKLIST
When you contact the ACHP, try to have the
following information available:
the name of the responsible federal agency and
how it is involved;
a description of the project;
the historic properties involved; and
a clear statement of your concerns about the
project and its effect on historic properties.
If you suspect federal involvement but have been
unable to verify it, or if you believe the federal agency
or one of the other participants in review has not
fulfi lled its responsibilities under the Section 106
regulations, you can ask the ACHP to investigate. In
either case, be as specifi c as possible.
A panel of ACHP members listen to comments
during a public meeting.
Collecting Commentsggggggg
20 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 21
A federal agency must conclude Section 106 review before
making a decision to approve a project, or fund or issue a
permit that may aff ect a historic property. Agencies should not
make obligations or take other actions that would preclude
consideration of the full range of alternatives to avoid or
minimize harm to historic properties before Section 106
review is complete.
If the agency acts without properly completing Section 106
review, the ACHP can issue a fi nding that the agency has
prevented meaningful review of the project. Th is means that,
in the ACHP’s opinion, the agency has failed to comply with
Section 106 and therefore has not met the requirements of
federal law.
A vigilant public helps ensure federal agencies comply fully
with Section 106. In response to requests, the ACHP can
investigate questionable actions and advise agencies to take
corrective action. As a last resort, preservation groups or
individuals can litigate in order to enforce Section 106.
If you are involved in a project and it seems to be getting off
track, contact the agency to voice your concern. Call the SHPO
or THPO to make sure they understand the issue. Call the
ACHP if you feel your concerns have not been heard.
When Agencies Don’t
Follow the Rules
After agreements are signed, the public may still play a role in
the Section 106 process by keeping abreast of the agreements
that were signed and making sure they are properly carried out.
Th e public may also request status reports from the agency.
Designed to accommodate project needs and historic values,
Section 106 review relies on strong public participation.
Section 106 review provides the public with an opportunity to
infl uence how projects with federal involvement aff ect historic
properties. By keeping informed of federal involvement,
participating in consultation, and knowing when and whom to
ask for help, you can play an active role in deciding the future of
historic properties in your community.
Section 106 review gives you a chance to weigh in when
projects with federal involvement may aff ect historic properties
you care about. Seize that chance, and make a diff erence!
Following Th rough
Milton Madison Bridge over the Ohio River between
Kentucky and Indiana (photo courtesy Wilbur Smith
Associates/Michael Baker Engineers)
Stay Inf ormedyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyffffffffffffffffffffffffffffyf
22 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 23
Contact Information
National Park Service
Heritage Preservation Services
1849 C Street, NW (2255)
Washington, D.C. 20240
E-mail: NPS_HPS-info@nps.gov
Web site: www.nps.gov/history/hps
National Register of Historic Places
1201 Eye Street, NW (2280)
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 354-2211
Fax: (202) 371-6447
E-mail: nr_info@nps.gov
Web site: www.nps.gov/history/nr
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-2117
Phone: (800) 944-6847 or (202) 588-6000
Fax: (202) 588-6038
Web site: www.preservationnation.org
The National Trust has regional offi ces in San Francisco, Denver,
Fort Worth, Chicago, Boston, and Charleston, as well as fi eld
offi ces in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Offi ce of Hawaiian Affairs
711 Kapi`olani Boulevard, Suite 500
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 594-1835
Fax: (808) 594-1865
E-mail: info@oha.org
Web site: www.oha.org
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Offi ce of Federal Agency Programs
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202) 606-8503
Fax: (202) 606-8647
E-mail: achp@achp.gov
Web site: www.achp.gov
The ACHP’s Web site includes more information about working
with Section 106 and contact information for federal agencies,
SHPOs, and THPOs.
National Association of Tribal Historic
Preservation Offi cers
P.O. Box 19189
Washington, D.C. 20036-9189
Phone: (202) 628-8476
Fax: (202) 628-2241
E-mail: info@nathpo.org
Web site: www.nathpo.org
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Offi cers
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 342
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5465
Fax: (202) 624-5419
Web site: www.ncshpo.org
For the SHPO in your state, see www.ncshpo.org/fi nd/index.htm
24 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protecting Historic Properties 25
Beneath the Surf acefffffffffffffffffffff
Ohio Department of Transportation
workers made an unanticipated
archaeological discovery while working just
north of Chillicothe along state Route 104.
It is a remnant of an Ohio & Erie Canal
viaduct. (photo courtesy Bruce W. Aument,
Staff Archaeologist, ODOT/Offi ce of
Environmental Services)
TO LEARN MORE
For detailed information about the ACHP, Section 106 review
process, and our other activities, visit us at www.achp.gov or
contact us at:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202) 606-8503
Fax: (202) 606-8647
E-mail: achp@achp.gov
Preserving America’s HeritageWWW.ACHP.GOV
Printed on paper made with an average of 100% recycled fi ber and
an average of 60% post-consumer waste
MEMORANDUM
TO: Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
DATE: September 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Role of the HPC in the Section 106 Process
Because it is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the historic Wooddale Avenue
Bridge over Minnehaha Creek is subject to an interagency regulatory program commonly known
as the “Section 106 review process” (named for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended). Section 106 requires federal government agencies to
consider the effects of their projects, including those they license or assist, on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register. The regulations provide for consultation among the
responsible government agencies, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other
interested parties, with the goal of reaching consensus on ways to avoid or reduce adverse effects
on historic resources. The Section 106 review process typically generates a body of written
information (correspondence and technical reports) dealing with the identification of historic
resources, evaluation of their historical significance, and assessment of potential project effects,
culminating in a memorandum of agreement that stipulates a specific plan of treatment for
dealing with the historic resource management issues identified during the consultation process.
Section 106 review of the Wooddale Bridge project is being implemented by the city engineer, in
consultation with the Minnesota SHPO (and possibly other interested parties). The HPC has
important responsibilities with regard to Section 106 review, although its participation in this
project has been limited to a single commission meeting in 2021; presumably, the HPC will be
afforded an opportunity to comment on the results of the Section 106 review process at its
regular meeting in October. Therefore, I recommend that the members of the HPC be provided
with copies of the informational publication, “Protecting Historic Propertoes: A Citizen’s Guide
to Section 106 Review,” which contains an excellent overview of the Section 106 process,
including definitions of important terms that may not be familiar to some commissioners. HPC
members may also wish to consult the Heritage Preservation section of the City of Edina
Comprehensive Plan, which contains the city’s program goals and policies relating to design
review and compliance, including a statement of “guiding principles” for heritage preservation
planning which are applicable to the Section 106 process.
Date: S eptember 13, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI I.B.
To:Heritage P reservation C ommission Item Type:
F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:2023 Work P lan HP C Action
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED:
Approve the draft 2023 Work P lan.
I N TR O D U C TI O N:
Work plans are due to be submitted to Administration by Friday, September 23rd. Commission chairs will present
work plans to City Council T hursday, O ctober 6th. Ultimately work plans will be approved by city council in
December.
AT TAC HME N T S:
Description
Draft HPC Work Plan 2023
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Commission: Heritage Preservation Commission
2023 Annual Work Plan Proposal-SEPTEMBER DRAFT
Initiative # 1 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Review Certificates of Appropriateness applications
Deliverable
COAs
Leads N/A Target
Completion Date
Ongoing All Commission
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
No additional funds required. Preservation Consultant funding comes from the Planning Department budget.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Pre-Application meeting with staff liaison and application review time/report from Staff Liaison, Consultant Vogel and Building Official Fisher if necessary.
Staff time is dependent on how many applications/preapplication meeting requests are received.
Liaison Comments: Processing COAs is an ongoing item.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Recruit nominees and award and promote the 2023 Heritage
Preservation Award during Preservation Month in May
Deliverable
Award the 2023 Heritage Award
Leads Target
Completion Date
May Sub-Committee
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
No additional funds required. Money for plaque comes from the Planning budget.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Public outreach: make the online nomination form live on the website, press release, social media posts. Article on winner after award is given.
Liaison Comments: The HPC will continue to award the Heritage Preservation Award during Preservation Month.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Based on owner interest, nominate eligible properties as Edina Heritage
Landmarks and add additional properties to the eligible property list.
Deliverable
Add to eligible property list
Designate additional Edina
Heritage Landmark properties
Leads N/A Target
Completion Date
Ongoing All Commission
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
No additional funds required. Consultant fees come from Planning Department budget.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Public Outreach/Social Media posts if additional properties are designated as Edina Heritage Landmarks. Creation of new webpage if new landmark property
is designated.
Liaison Comments: This item is ongoing and continues based on owner interest.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Create a decision tree schematic explaining what work in the Country
Club District triggers a COA for use educating the HPC and homeowners.
Deliverable
Decision tree schematic explaining
process.
Visual can be used in public education.
Leads N/A Target
Completion Date
By end of 2023 Sub-Committee
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Graphic design to help with decision tree schematic design and add it to the city’s website.
Liaison Comments: Staff is supportive of this initiative.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Utilize the city’s existing list of contributing and non-contributing resources
in the Country Club District as an education tool.
Improve decision-making using a review of homes in the Country Club
District built during 1924-1944 that are no longer contributing heritage
resources due to excessive or inappropriate changes.
Deliverable
An education resource for current
and future commissioners.
Leads Target
Completion Date
By end of 2023 Sub-Committee
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
Additional funds are not available. All time spent on the education piece would need to come out of the consultant time already budgeted for.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Coordination between consultant and staff.
Liaison Comments: Staff is supportive of this initiative.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Review and comment on potential code changes, changes to the country
club plan of treatment and potential escrow fee.
Deliverable
Comments on code drafts, plan of
treatment changes and potential
escrow fee
Leads N/A Target
Completion Date
By end of 2023 All Commission
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative.
No additional funding required.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Planning staff will draft code and potential plan of treatment changes.
Liaison Comments: Staff is supportive of this initiative.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Template Updated 2021.06.08
Initiative # 7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event
Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide)
Initiative Title
Prepare all elements needed for a successful Century Homes program to
launch in January 2024.
Deliverable
Webpage text and design, application
materials, community outreach flier,
project management guidelines.
Leads Target
Completion Date
By end of 2023 Subcommittee
Budget Required: (Completed by staff) Are there funds available for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this
initiative. Ongoing?
There are not funds available for this project.
Staff Support Required (Completed by staff): How many hours of support by the staff liaison? Communications / marketing support?
Liaison Comments: Staff is supportive of this initiative.
City Manager Comments:
Progress Q1:
Progress Q2:
Progress Q3:
Progress Q4:
Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to
work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.)
-2022 archeology work plan items